Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff summa/english/TP_ii.html @ 64:11682db9b870
from auto-split
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:43:02 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/summa/english/TP_ii.html Sun Jan 03 14:43:02 2010 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,25083 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="TP.ii" class="div2"> + <a href="summa.TP.i.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1.html"></a> + <h2 id="TP.ii-p0.1">TREATISE ON THE INCARNATION (QQ[1]-59)</h2> + <div id="TP_Q1" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP.ii.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q1-p0.1">OF THE FITNESS OF THE INCARNATION (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1-p2"> Concerning the first, three things occur to be considered: first, the fitness of the Incarnation; secondly, the mode of union + of the Word Incarnate; thirdly, what follows this union. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1-p3"> Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q1-p4"> (1) Whether it is fitting for God to become incarnate?</p> + <p id="TP_Q1-p5"> (2) Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race?</p> + <p id="TP_Q1-p6"> (3) Whether if there had been no sin God would have become incarnate?</p> + <p id="TP_Q1-p7"> (4) Whether He became incarnate to take away original sin rather than actual?</p> + <p id="TP_Q1-p8"> (5) Whether it was fitting for God to become incarnate from the beginning of the world?</p> + <p id="TP_Q1-p9"> (6) Whether His Incarnation ought to have been deferred to the end of the world?</p> + <div id="TP_Q1_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q1_A1-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not fitting for God to become incarnate. Since God from all eternity is the very essence of goodness, + it was best for Him to be as He had been from all eternity. But from all eternity He had been without flesh. Therefore it + was most fitting for Him not to be united to flesh. Therefore it was not fitting for God to become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is not fitting to unite things that are infinitely apart, even as it would not be a fitting union if one were + "to paint a figure in which the neck of a horse was joined to the head of a man" [*Horace, Ars. Poet., line 1]. But God and + flesh are infinitely apart; since God is most simple, and flesh is most composite---especially human flesh. Therefore it was + not fitting that God should be united to human flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a body is as distant from the highest spirit as evil is from the highest good. But it was wholly unfitting that + God, Who is the highest good, should assume evil. Therefore it was not fitting that the highest uncreated spirit should assume + a body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is not becoming that He Who surpassed the greatest things should be contained in the least, and He upon Whom + rests the care of great things should leave them for lesser things. But God---Who takes care of the whole world---the whole + universe of things cannot contain. Therefore it would seem unfitting that "He should be hid under the frail body of a babe + in swathing bands, in comparison with Whom the whole universe is accounted as little; and that + this Prince should quit His throne for so long, and transfer the government of the whole world to so frail a body," as Volusianus + writes to Augustine (Ep. cxxxv). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It would seem most fitting that by visible things the invisible things of God should be made known; for to this end was the + whole world made, as is clear from the word of the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.20" target="asv">Rom. 1:20</a>): "For the invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." But, as Damascene + says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1), by the mystery of the Incarnation are made known at once the goodness, the wisdom, the + justice, and the power or might of God---"His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own handiwork; His justice, + since, on man's defeat, He caused the tyrant to be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men forcibly + from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is + nothing greater than for God to become incarnate . . ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> To each things, that is befitting which belongs to it by reason of its very nature; thus, to reason befits man, since this + belongs to him because he is of a rational nature. But the very nature of God is goodness, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. + Nom. i). Hence, what belongs to the essence of goodness befits God. But it belongs to the essence of goodness to communicate + itself to others, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Hence it belongs to the + essence of the highest good to communicate itself in the highest manner to the creature, and this is brought about chiefly + by "His so joining created nature to Himself that one Person is made up of these three---the Word, a soul and flesh," as Augustine + says (De Trin. xiii). Hence it is manifest that it was fitting that God should become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The mystery of the Incarnation was not completed through God being changed in any way from the state in which He had been + from eternity, but through His having united Himself to the creature in a new way, or rather through having united it to Himself. + But it is fitting that a creature which by nature is mutable, should not always be in one way. And therefore, as the creature + began to be, although it had not been before, so likewise, not having been + previously united to God in Person, it was afterwards united to Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To be united to God in unity of person was not fitting to human flesh, according to its natural endowments, since it was + above its dignity; nevertheless, it was fitting that God, by reason of His infinite goodness, should unite it to Himself for + man's salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Every mode of being wherein any creature whatsoever differs from the Creator has been established by God's wisdom, and is + ordained to God's goodness. For God, Who is uncreated, immutable, and incorporeal, produced mutable and corporeal creatures + for His own goodness. And so also the evil of punishment was established by God's justice for God's glory. But evil of fault + is committed by withdrawing from the art of the Divine wisdom and from the order of + the Divine goodness. And therefore it could be fitting to God to assume a nature created, mutable, corporeal, and subject + to penalty, but it did not become Him to assume the evil of fault. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Augustine replies (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): "The Christian doctrine nowhere holds that God was so joined to human flesh + as either to desert or lose, or to transfer and as it were, contract within this frail body, the care of governing the universe. + This is the thought of men unable to see anything but corporeal things . . . God is great not in mass, but in might. Hence + the greatness of His might feels no straits in narrow surroundings. Nor, if + the passing word of a man is heard at once by many, and wholly by each, is it incredible that the abiding Word of God should + be everywhere at once?" Hence nothing unfitting arises from God becoming incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A1-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q1_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q1_A2-p0.1">Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race that the Word of God should become incarnate?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not necessary for the reparation of the human race that the Word of God should become incarnate. + For since the Word of God is perfect God, as has been said ( + <a id="TP_Q1_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q4_A1.html">FP, Q[4], AA[1]</a>,2), no power was added to Him by the assumption of flesh. Therefore, if the incarnate Word of God restored human nature. + He could also have restored it without assuming flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, for the restoration of human nature, which had fallen through sin, nothing more is required than that man should + satisfy for sin. Now man can satisfy, as it would seem, for sin; for God cannot require from man more than man can do, and + since He is more inclined to be merciful than to punish, as He lays the act of sin to man's charge, so He ought to credit + him with the contrary act. Therefore it was not necessary for the restoration of human nature + that the Word of God should become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to revere God pertains especially to man's salvation; hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.1.6" target="asv">Mal. 1:6</a>): "If, then, I be a father, where is my honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear?" But men revere God the more by considering + Him as elevated above all, and far beyond man's senses, hence ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.112.4" target="asv">Ps. 112:4</a>) it is written: "The Lord is high above all nations, and His glory above the heavens"; and farther on: "Who is as the Lord + our God?" which pertains to reverence. Therefore it would seem unfitting to man's salvation that God should be made like unto + us by assuming flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> What frees the human race from perdition is necessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of the Incarnation is such; + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.16" target="asv"> Jn. 3:16</a>: "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life + everlasting." Therefore it was necessary for man's salvation that God should become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it; as food is necessary + for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary + for a journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. + For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways. + But in the second way it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine + says (De Trin. xii, 10): "We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally + subject; but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p7"> Now this may be viewed with respect to our "furtherance in good." First, with regard to faith, which is made more certain + by believing God Himself Who speaks; hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 2): "In order that man might journey more trustfully + toward the truth, the Truth itself, the Son of God, having assumed human nature, established and founded faith." Secondly, + with regard to hope, which is thereby greatly strengthened; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "Nothing was + so necessary for raising our hope as to show us how deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of this + than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of human nature?" Thirdly, with regard to charity, which is greatly + enkindled by this; hence Augustine says (De Catech. Rudib. iv): "What greater cause is there of the Lord's coming than to + show God's love for us?" And he afterwards adds: "If we have been slow to love, at least let us hasten to love in return." + Fourthly, with regard to well-doing, in which He set us an example; hence Augustine says in a sermon (xxii de Temp.): "Man + who might be seen was not to be followed; but God was to be followed, Who could not be seen. And therefore God was made man, + that He Who might be seen by man, and Whom man might follow, might be shown to man." Fifthly, with regard to the full participation + of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of man and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ's + humanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): "God was made man, that man might be made God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p8"> So also was this useful for our "withdrawal from evil." First, because man is taught by it not to prefer the devil to himself, + nor to honor him who is the author of sin; hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Since human nature is so united to God + as to become one person, let not these proud spirits dare to prefer themselves to man, because they have no bodies." Secondly, + because we are thereby taught how great is man's dignity, lest we should sully it with sin; hence + Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xvi): "God has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures, inasmuch + as He appeared to men as a true man." And Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Nativity (xxi): "Learn, O Christian, thy worth; + and being made a partner of the Divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former worthlessness." Thirdly, because, + "in order to do away with man's presumption, the grace of God is commended in Jesus Christ, though no merits of ours went + before," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17). Fourthly, because "man's pride, which is the greatest stumbling-block to our + clinging to God, can be convinced and cured by humility so great," as Augustine says in the same place. Fifthly, in order + to free man from the thraldom of sin, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 13), "ought to be done in such a way that the + devil should be overcome by the justice of the man Jesus Christ," and this was done by Christ satisfying for us. Now a mere + man + could not have satisfied for the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it behooved Jesus Christ to be + both God and man. Hence Pope Leo says in the same sermon: "Weakness is assumed by strength, lowliness by majesty, mortality + by eternity, in order that one and the same Mediator of God and men might die in one and rise in the other---for this was + our fitting remedy. Unless He was God, He would not have brought a remedy; and unless He was man, He would not have set an + example." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p9"> And there are very many other advantages which accrued, above man's apprehension.</p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This reason has to do with the first kind of necessity, without which we cannot attain to the end. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Satisfaction may be said to be sufficient in two ways---first, perfectly, inasmuch as it is condign, being adequate to make + good the fault committed, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere man cannot be sufficient for sin, both because the whole + of human nature has been corrupted by sin, whereas the goodness of any person or persons could not be made up adequately for + the harm done to the whole of the nature; and also because a sin committed + against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divine majesty, because the greater the person we offend, the + more grievous the offense. Hence for condign satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the one satisfying should have + an infinite efficiency, as being of God and man. Secondly, man's satisfaction may be termed sufficient, imperfectly---i.e. + in the acceptation of him who is content with it, even though it is not condign, and in this way the satisfaction of a mere + man is + sufficient. And forasmuch as every imperfect presupposes some perfect thing, by which it is sustained, hence it is that satisfaction + of every mere man has its efficiency from the satisfaction of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By taking flesh, God did not lessen His majesty; and in consequence did not lessen the reason for reverencing Him, which + is increased by the increase of knowledge of Him. But, on the contrary, inasmuch as He wished to draw nigh to us by taking + flesh, He greatly drew us to know Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A2-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q1_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q1_A3-p0.1">Whether, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that if man had not sinned, God would still have become incarnate. For the cause remaining, the effect also + remains. But as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): "Many other things are to be considered in the Incarnation of Christ besides + absolution from sin"; and these were discussed above + <a id="TP_Q1_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q1_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it belongs to the omnipotence of the Divine power to perfect His works, and to manifest Himself by some infinite + effect. But no mere creature can be called an infinite effect, since it is finite of its very essence. Now, seemingly, in + the work of the Incarnation alone is an infinite effect of the Divine power manifested in a special manner by which power + things infinitely distant are united, inasmuch as it has been brought about that man is God. And + in this work especially the universe would seem to be perfected, inasmuch as the last creature---viz. man---is united to the + first principle---viz. God. Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human nature has not been made more capable of grace by sin. But after sin it is capable of the grace of union, + which is the greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature would have been capable of this grace; nor would + God have withheld from human nature any good it was capable of. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, God's predestination is eternal. But it is said of Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.4" target="asv">Rom. 1:4</a>): "Who was predestined the Son of God in power." Therefore, even before sin, it was necessary that the Son of God should + become incarnate, in order to fulfil God's predestination. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed to the first man, as is plain from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.23" target="asv"> Gn. 2:23.</a> "This now is bone of my bones," etc. which the Apostle says is "a great sacrament . . . in Christ and in the Church," as + is plain from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.32" target="asv"> Eph. 5:32.</a> But man could not be fore-conscious of his fall, for the same reason that the angels could not, as Augustine proves (Gen. + ad lit. xi, 18). Therefore, even if man had not sinned, + God would have become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.19.10" target="asv"> Lk. 19:10, </a> "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost"; "Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would + not have come." And on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.15" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:15, </a> "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners," a gloss says, "There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, + except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take + away wounds, and there is no need of medicine." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have + become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p9"> For such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's due, can be made known to us only through being revealed + in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the + sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of the Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work + of the Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, the Incarnation would + not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> All the other causes which are assigned in the preceding article have to do with a remedy for sin. For if man had not sinned, + he would have been endowed with the light of Divine wisdom, and would have been perfected by God with the righteousness of + justice in order to know and carry out everything needful. But because man, on deserting God, had stooped to corporeal things, + it was necessary that God should take flesh, and by corporeal things should + afford him the remedy of salvation. Hence, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14, </a> "And the Word was made flesh," St. Augustine says (Tract. ii): "Flesh had blinded thee, flesh heals thee; for Christ came + and overthrew the vices of the flesh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The infinity of Divine power is shown in the mode of production of things from nothing. Again, it suffices for the perfection + of the universe that the creature be ordained in a natural manner to God as to an end. But that a creature should be united + to God in person exceeds the limits of the perfection of nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A double capability may be remarked in human nature: one, in respect of the order of natural power, and this is always fulfilled + by God, Who apportions to each according to its natural capability; the other in respect to the order of the Divine power, + which all creatures implicitly obey; and the capability we speak of pertains to this. But God does not fulfil all such capabilities, + otherwise God could do only what He has done in creatures, and this is + false, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q1_A3-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q105_A6.html">FP, Q[105], A[6]</a>). But there is no reason why human nature should not have been raised to something greater after sin. For God allows evils + to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom; hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A3-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.20" target="asv">Rom. 5:20</a>): "Where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: "O happy fault, + that merited such and so great a Redeemer!" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Predestination presupposes the foreknowledge of future things; and hence, as God predestines the salvation of anyone to be + brought about by the prayers of others, so also He predestined the work of the Incarnation to be the remedy of human sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Nothing prevents an effect from being revealed to one to whom the cause is not revealed. Hence, the mystery of the Incarnation + could be revealed to the first man without his being fore-conscious of his fall. For not everyone who knows the effect knows + the cause. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p15"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A3-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q1_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q1_A4-p0.1">Whether God became incarnate in order to take away actual sin, rather than to take away original sin?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that God became incarnate as a remedy for actual sins rather than for original sin. For the more grievous the + sin, the more it runs counter to man's salvation, for which God became incarnate. But actual sin is more grievous than original + sin; for the lightest punishment is due to original sin, as Augustine says (Contra Julian. v, 11). Therefore the Incarnation + of Christ is chiefly directed to taking away actual sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, pain of sense is not due to original sin, but merely pain of loss, as has been shown ( + <a id="TP_Q1_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q87_A5.html">FS, Q[87], A[5]</a>). But Christ came to suffer the pain of sense on the Cross in satisfaction for sins---and not the pain of loss, for He had + no defect of either the beatific vision or fruition. Therefore He came in order to take away actual sin rather than original + sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Chrysostom says (De Compunctione Cordis ii, 3): "This must be the mind of the faithful servant, to account the + benefits of his Lord, which have been bestowed on all alike, as though they were bestowed on himself alone. For as if speaking + of himself alone, Paul writes to the + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.2.20" target="asv"> Galatians 2:20</a>: 'Christ . . . loved me and delivered Himself for me.'" But our individual sins are actual sins; for original sin is the + common sin. + Therefore we ought to have this conviction, so as to believe that He has come chiefly for actual sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.29" target="asv">Jn. 1:29</a>): "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It is certain that Christ came into this world not only to take away that sin which is handed on originally to posterity, + but also in order to take away all sins subsequently added to it; not that all are taken away (and this is from men's fault, + inasmuch as they do not adhere to Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.19" target="asv"> Jn. 3:19</a>: "The light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light"), but because He offered what was sufficient + for + blotting out all sins. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.15" target="asv">Rom. 5:15-16</a>): "But not as the offense, so also the gift . . . For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation, but grace is of many + offenses unto justification." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p7"> Moreover, the more grievous the sin, the more particularly did Christ come to blot it out. But "greater" is said in two ways: + in one way "intensively," as a more intense whiteness is said to be greater, and in this way actual sin is greater than original + sin; for it has more of the nature of voluntary, as has been shown ( + <a id="TP_Q1_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q81_A1.html">FS, Q[81], A[1]</a>). In another way a thing is said to be greater "extensively," as whiteness on a greater superficies is said to be + greater; and in this way original sin, whereby the whole human race is infected, is greater than any actual sin, which is + proper to one person. And in this respect Christ came principally to take away original sin, inasmuch as "the good of the + race is a more Divine thing than the good of an individual," as is said Ethic. i, 2. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This reason looks to the intensive greatness of sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the future award the pain of sense will not be meted out to original sin. Yet the penalties, such as hunger, thirst, death, + and the like, which we suffer sensibly in this life flow from original sin. And hence Christ, in order to satisfy fully for + original sin, wished to suffer sensible pain, that He might consume death and the like in Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Chrysostom says (De Compunctione Cordis ii, 6): "The Apostle used these words, not as if wishing to diminish Christ's gifts, + ample as they are, and spreading throughout the whole world, but that he might account himself alone the occasion of them. + For what does it matter that they are given to others, if what are given to you are as complete and perfect as if none of + them were given to another than yourself?" And hence, although a man ought to account + Christ's gifts as given to himself, yet he ought not to consider them not to be given to others. And thus we do not exclude + that He came to wipe away the sin of the whole nature rather than the sin of one person. But the sin of the nature is as perfectly + healed in each one as if it were healed in him alone. Hence, on account of the union of charity, what is vouchsafed to all + ought to be accounted his own by each one. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q1_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q1_A5-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was fitting that God should become incarnate in the beginning of the human race. For the work of the + Incarnation sprang from the immensity of Divine charity, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.2.4" target="asv"> Eph. 2:4,5</a>: "But God (Who is rich in mercy), for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us . . . even when we were dead in sins, hath + quickened us together in Christ." But charity does not tarry in bringing assistance to a friend who is suffering + need, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.3.28" target="asv"> Prov. 3:28</a>: "Say not to thy friend: Go, and come again, and tomorrow I will give to thee, when thou canst give at present." Therefore + God ought not to have put off the work of the Incarnation, but ought thereby to have brought relief to the human race from + the beginning. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.15" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:15</a>): "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners." But more would have been saved had God become incarnate at the beginning + of the human race; for in the various centuries very many, through not knowing God, perished in their sin. Therefore it was + fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the human race. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the work of grace is not less orderly than the work of nature. But nature takes its rise with the more perfect, + as Boethius says (De Consol. iii). Therefore the work of Christ ought to have been perfect from the beginning. But in the + work of the Incarnation we see the perfection of grace, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14</a>: "The Word was made flesh"; and afterwards it is added: "Full of grace and truth." Therefore Christ ought to have become + incarnate at the beginning of the human race. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv">Gal. 4:4</a>): "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law": upon which a gloss + says that "the fulness of the time is when it was decreed by God the Father to send His Son." But God decreed everything by + His wisdom. Therefore God became incarnate at the most fitting time; and it was not fitting that God should become incarnate + at the beginning of the human race. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Since the work of the Incarnation is principally ordained to the restoration of the human race by blotting out sin, it is + manifest that it was not fitting for God to become incarnate at the beginning of the human race before sin. For medicine is + given only to the sick. Hence our Lord Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.12" target="asv">Mat. 9:12,13</a>): "They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill . . . For I am not come to call the just, but sinners." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p7"> Nor was it fitting that God should become incarnate immediately after sin. First, on account of the manner of man's sin, + which had come of pride; hence man was to be liberated in such a manner that he might be humbled, and see how he stood in + need of a deliverer. Hence on the words in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.19" target="asv"> Gal. 3:19, </a> "Being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator," a gloss says: "With great wisdom was it so ordered that the Son of + Man should not be sent immediately after + man's fall. For first of all God left man under the natural law, with the freedom of his will, in order that he might know + his natural strength; and when he failed in it, he received the law; whereupon, by the fault, not of the law, but of his nature, + the disease gained strength; so that having recognized his infirmity he might cry out for a physician, and beseech the aid + of grace." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p8"> Secondly, on account of the order of furtherance in good, whereby we proceed from imperfection to perfection. Hence the Apostle + says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.46" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:46,47</a>): "Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual . . . The first + man was of the earth, earthy; the second man from heaven, heavenly." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p9"> Thirdly, on account of the dignity of the incarnate Word, for on the words ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv">Gal. 4:4</a>), "But when the fulness of the time was come," a gloss says: "The greater the judge who was coming, the more numerous was + the band of heralds who ought to have preceded him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p10"> Fourthly, lest the fervor of faith should cool by the length of time, for the charity of many will grow cold at the end of + the world. Hence ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.18.8" target="asv">Lk. 18:8</a>) it is written: "But yet the Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find think you, faith on earth?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Charity does not put off bringing assistance to a friend: always bearing in mind the circumstances as well as the state of + the persons. For if the physician were to give the medicine at the very outset of the ailment, it would do less good, and + would hurt rather than benefit. And hence the Lord did not bestow upon the human race the remedy of the Incarnation in the + beginning, lest they should despise it through pride, if they did not already recognize + their disease. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Augustine replies to this (De Sex Quest. Pagan., Ep. cii), saying ( + <a id="TP_Q1_A5-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2.html">Q[2])</a> that "Christ wished to appear to man and to have His doctrine preached to them when and where He knew those were who would + believe in Him. But in such times and places as His Gospel was not preached He foresaw that not all, indeed, but many would + so bear themselves towards His preaching as not to believe in His corporeal presence, even were He to raise the + dead." But the same Augustine, taking exception to this reply in his book (De Perseverantia ix), says: "How can we say the + inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon would not believe when such great wonders were wrought in their midst, or would not have believed + had they been wrought, when God Himself bears witness that they would have done penance with great humility if these signs + of Divine power had been wrought in their midst?" And he adds in answer (De Perseverantia xi): "Hence, as the Apostle says + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A5-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.16" target="asv">Rom. 9:16</a>), 'it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy'; Who (succors whom He will of) those + who, as He foresaw, would believe in His miracles if wrought amongst them, (while others) He succors not, having judged them + in His predestination secretly yet justly. Therefore let us unshrinkingly believe His mercy to be with those who are set free, + and His truth with those who are condemned." [*The words in brackets are not in the text + of St. Augustine]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Perfection is prior to imperfection, both in time and nature, in things that are different (for what brings others to perfection + must itself be perfect); but in one and the same, imperfection is prior in time though posterior in nature. And thus the eternal + perfection of God precedes in duration the imperfection of human nature; but the latter's ultimate perfection in union with + God follows. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A5-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q1_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q1_A6-p0.1">Whether the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the work of the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.91.11" target="asv">Ps. 91:11</a>): "My old age in plentiful mercy"---i.e. "in the last days," as a gloss says. But the time of the Incarnation is especially + the time of mercy, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.101.14" target="asv"> Ps. 101:14</a>: "For it is time to have mercy on it." Therefore the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as has been said (A[5], ad 3), in the same subject, perfection is subsequent in time to imperfection. Therefore, + what is most perfect ought to be the very last in time. But the highest perfection of human nature is in the union with the + Word, because "in Christ it hath pleased the Father that all the fulness of the Godhead should dwell," as the Apostle says + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Col.1.19" target="asv">Col. 1:19, </a> and 2:9). Therefore the Incarnation ought to have been put off + till the end of the world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what can be done by one ought not to be done by two. But the one coming of Christ at the end of the world was sufficient + for the salvation of human nature. Therefore it was not necessary for Him to come beforehand in His Incarnation; and hence + the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Hab.3.2" target="asv">Hab. 3:2</a>): "In the midst of the years Thou shalt make it known." Therefore the mystery of the Incarnation which was made known to + the world ought not to have been put off till the end of the world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As it was not fitting that God should become incarnate at the beginning of the world, so also it was not fitting that the + Incarnation should be put off till the end of the world. And this is shown first from the union of the Divine and human nature. + For, as it has been said (A[5], ad 3), perfection precedes imperfection in time in one way, and contrariwise in another way + imperfection precedes perfection. For in that which is made perfect from being + imperfect, imperfection precedes perfection in time, whereas in that which is the efficient cause of perfection, perfection + precedes imperfection in time. Now in the work of the Incarnation both concur; for by the Incarnation human nature is raised + to its highest perfection; and in this way it was not becoming that the Incarnation should take place at the beginning of + the human race. And the Word incarnate is the efficient cause of the perfection of human nature, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv"> Jn. + 1:16 + </a>: "Of His fulness we have all received"; and hence the work of the Incarnation ought not to have been put off till the end + of the world. But the perfection of glory to which human nature is to be finally raised by the Word Incarnate will be at the + end of the world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p7"> Secondly, from the effect of man's salvation; for, as is said Qq. Vet et Nov. Test., qu. 83, "it is in the power of the Giver + to have pity when, or as much as, He wills. Hence He came when He knew it was fitting to succor, and when His boons would + be welcome. For when by the feebleness of the human race men's knowledge of God began to grow dim and their morals lax, He + was pleased to choose Abraham as a standard of the restored knowledge of God and of holy living; and later on + when reverence grew weaker, He gave the law to Moses in writing; and because the gentiles despised it and would not take it + upon themselves, and they who received it would not keep it, being touched with pity, God sent His Son, to grant to all remission + of their sin and to offer them, justified, to God the Father." But if this remedy had been put off till the end of the world, + all knowledge and reverence of God and all uprightness of morals would have been swept away from the earth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p8"> Thirdly, this appears fitting to the manifestation of the Divine power, which has saved men in several ways---not only by + faith in some future thing, but also by faith in something present and past. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This gloss has in view the mercy of God, which leads us to glory. Nevertheless, if it is referred to the mercy shown the + human race by the Incarnation of Christ, we must reflect that, as Augustine says (Retract. i), the time of the Incarnation + may be compared to the youth of the human race, "on account of the strength and fervor of faith, which works by charity"; + and to old age---i.e. the sixth age---on account of the number of centuries, for Christ + came in the sixth age. And although youth and old age cannot be together in a body, yet they can be together in a soul, the + former on account of quickness, the latter on account of gravity. And hence Augustine says elsewhere (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 44) + that "it was not becoming that the Master by Whose imitation the human race was to be formed to the highest virtue should + come from heaven, save in the time of youth." But in another work (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 23) he says: that Christ came + in the + sixth age---i.e. in the old age---of the human race. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The work of the Incarnation is to be viewed not as merely the terminus of a movement from imperfection to perfection, but + also as a principle of perfection to human nature, as has been said. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Chrysostom says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q1_A6-p11.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.11" target="asv"> Jn. 3:11, </a> "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world" (Hom. xxviii): "There are two comings of Christ: the first, + for the remission of sins; the second, to judge the world. For if He had not done so, all would have perished together, since + all have sinned and need the glory of God." Hence it is plain that He ought not to have put off the coming in mercy till the + end of the world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q1_A6-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP.ii.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q2-p0.1">OF THE MODE OF UNION OF THE WORD INCARNATE (TWELVE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p2"> Now we must consider the mode of union of the Incarnate Word; and, first, the union itself; secondly, the Person assuming; + thirdly, the nature assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p3"> Under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p4"> (1) Whether the union of the Word Incarnate took place in the nature?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p5"> (2) Whether it took place in the Person?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p6"> (3) Whether it took place in the suppositum or hypostasis?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p7"> (4) Whether the Person or hypostasis of Christ is composite after the Incarnation?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p8"> (5) Whether any union of body and soul took place in Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p9"> (6) Whether the human nature was united to the Word accidentally?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p10"> (7) Whether the union itself is something created?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p11"> (8) Whether it is the same as assumption?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p12"> (9) Whether the union of the two natures is the greatest union?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p13"> (10) Whether the union of the two natures in Christ was brought about by grace?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p14"> (11) Whether any merits preceded it?</p> + <p id="TP_Q2-p15"> (12) Whether the grace of union was natural to the man Christ?</p> + <div id="TP_Q2_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A1-p0.1">Whether the Union of the Incarnate Word took place in the nature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Union of the Word Incarnate took place in the nature. For Cyril says (he is quoted in the acts of + the Council of Chalcedon, part ii, act. 1): "We must understand not two natures, but one incarnate nature of the Word of God"; + and this could not be unless the union took place in the nature. Therefore the union of the Word Incarnate took place in the + nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Athanasius says that, as the rational soul and the flesh together form the human nature, so God and man together + form a certain one nature; therefore the union took place in the nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, of two natures one is not denominated by the other unless they are to some extent mutually transmuted. But the Divine + and human natures in Christ are denominated one by the other; for Cyril says (quoted in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, + part ii, act. 1) that the Divine nature "is incarnate"; and Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. i ad Cledon.) that the human nature + is "deified," as appears from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 6,11). Therefore from two + natures one seems to have resulted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said in the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon: "We confess that in these latter times the only-begotten Son of + God appeared in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation---the distinction of + natures not having been taken away by the union." Therefore the union did not take place in the nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> To make this question clear we must consider what is "nature." Now it is to be observed that the word "nature" comes from + nativity. Hence this word was used first of all to signify the begetting of living beings, which is called "birth" or "sprouting + forth," the word "natura" meaning, as it were, "nascitura." Afterwards this word "nature" was taken to signify the principle + of this begetting; and because in living things the principle of generation is an + intrinsic principle, this word "nature" was further employed to signify any intrinsic principle of motion: thus the Philosopher + says (Phys. ii) that "nature is the principle of motion in that in which it is essentially and not accidentally." Now this + principle is either form or matter. Hence sometimes form is called nature, and sometimes matter. And because the end of natural + generation, in that which is generated, is the essence of the species, which the definition signifies, this essence of + the species is called the "nature." And thus Boethius defines nature (De Duab. Nat.): "Nature is what informs a thing with + its specific difference,"---i.e. which perfects the specific definition. But we are now speaking of nature as it signifies + the essence, or the "what-it-is," or the quiddity of the species. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p7"> Now, if we take nature in this way, it is impossible that the union of the Incarnate Word took place in the nature. For one + thing is made of two or more in three ways. First, from two complete things which remain in their perfection. This can only + happen to those whose form is composition, order, or figure, as a heap is made up of many stones brought together without + any order, but solely with juxtaposition; and a house is made of stones and beams arranged in order, and + fashioned to a figure. And in this way some said the union was by manner of confusion (which is without order) or by manner + of commensuration (which is with order). But this cannot be. First, because neither composition nor order nor figure is a + substantial form, but accidental; and hence it would follow that the union of the Incarnation was not essential, but accidental, + which will be disproved later on + <a id="TP_Q2_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. Secondly, because thereby we should not have an absolute + unity, but relative only, for there remain several things actually. Thirdly, because the form of such is not a nature, but + an art, as the form of a house; and thus one nature would not be constituted in Christ, as they wish. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p8"> Secondly, one thing is made up of several things, perfect but changed, as a mixture is made up of its elements; and in this + way some have said that the union of the Incarnation was brought about by manner of combination. But this cannot be. First, + because the Divine Nature is altogether immutable, as has been said ( + <a id="TP_Q2_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q9_A1.html">FP, Q[9], AA[1]</a>,2), hence neither can it be changed into something else, since it is incorruptible; nor can anything else be changed into + it, + for it cannot be generated. Secondly, because what is mixed is of the same species with none of the elements; for flesh differs + in species from any of its elements. And thus Christ would be of the same nature neither with His Father nor with His Mother. + Thirdly, because there can be no mingling of things widely apart; for the species of one of them is absorbed, e.g. if we were + to put a drop of water in a flagon of wine. And hence, since the Divine Nature infinitely exceeds the human nature, + there could be no mixture, but the Divine Nature alone would remain. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p9"> Thirdly, a thing is made up of things not mixed nor changed, but imperfect; as man is made up of soul and body, and likewise + of divers members. But this cannot be said of the mystery of the Incarnation. First, because each nature, i.e. the Divine + and the human, has its specific perfection. Secondly, because the Divine and human natures cannot constitute anything after + the manner of quantitative parts, as the members make up the body; for the Divine Nature is incorporeal; nor + after the manner of form and matter, for the Divine Nature cannot be the form of anything, especially of anything corporeal, + since it would follow that the species resulting therefrom would be communicable to several, and thus there would be several + Christs. Thirdly, because Christ would exist neither in human nature nor in the Divine Nature: since any difference varies + the species, as unity varies number, as is said (Metaph. viii, text. 10). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This authority of Cyril is expounded in the Fifth Synod (i.e. Constantinople II, coll. viii, can. 8) thus: "If anyone proclaiming + one nature of the Word of God to be incarnate does not receive it as the Fathers taught, viz. that from the Divine and human + natures (a union in subsistence having taken place) one Christ results, but endeavors from these words to introduce one nature + or substance of the Divinity and flesh of Christ, let such a one be + anathema." Hence the sense is not that from two natures one results; but that the Nature of the Word of God united flesh to + Itself in Person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> From the soul and body a double unity, viz. of nature and person---results in each individual---of nature inasmuch as the + soul is united to the body, and formally perfects it, so that one nature springs from the two as from act and potentiality + or from matter and form. But the comparison is not in this sense, for the Divine Nature cannot be the form of a body, as was + proved ( + <a id="TP_Q2_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A8.html">FP, Q[3], A[8]</a>). Unity of person results from them, + however, inasmuch as there is an individual subsisting in flesh and soul; and herein lies the likeness, for the one Christ + subsists in the Divine and human natures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6,11), the Divine Nature is said to be incarnate because It is united to flesh personally, + and not that It is changed into flesh. So likewise the flesh is said to be deified, as he also says (De Fide Orth. 15,17), + not by change, but by union with the Word, its natural properties still remaining, and hence it may be considered as deified, + inasmuch as it becomes the flesh of the Word of God, but not that it becomes + God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A2-p0.1">Whether the union of the Incarnate Word took place in the Person?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the union of the Incarnate Word did not take place in the person. For the Person of God is not distinct + from His Nature, as we said ( + <a id="TP_Q2_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A1.html">FP, Q[39], A[1]</a>). If, therefore, the union did not take place in the nature, it follows that it did not take place in the person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's human nature has no less dignity than ours. But personality belongs to dignity, as was stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q2_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q29_A3.html">FP, Q[29], A[3]</a>, ad 2). Hence, since our human nature has its proper personality, much more reason was there that Christ's should have its + proper personality. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.), a person is an individual substance of rational nature. But the Word of God assumed + an individual human nature, for "universal human nature does not exist of itself, but is the object of pure thought," as Damascene + says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11). Therefore the human nature of Christ has its personality. Hence it does not seem that the union + took place in the person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> We read in the Synod of Chalcedon (Part ii, act. 5): "We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is not parted or divided into + two persons, but is one and the same only-Begotten Son and Word of God." Therefore the union took place in the person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Person has a different meaning from "nature." For nature, as has been said + <a id="TP_Q2_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, designates the specific essence which is signified by the definition. And if nothing was found to be added to what belongs + to the notion of the species, there would be no need to distinguish the nature from the suppositum of the nature (which is + the individual subsisting in this nature), because every individual subsisting in a nature would be + altogether one with its nature. Now in certain subsisting things we happen to find what does not belong to the notion of the + species, viz. accidents and individuating principles, which appears chiefly in such as are composed of matter and form. Hence + in such as these the nature and the suppositum really differ; not indeed as if they were wholly separate, but because the + suppositum includes the nature, and in addition certain other things outside the notion of the species. Hence the suppositum + is taken to be a whole which has the nature as its formal part to perfect it; and consequently in such as are composed of + matter and form the nature is not predicated of the suppositum, for we do not say that this man is his manhood. But if there + is a thing in which there is nothing outside the species or its nature (as in God), the suppositum and the nature are not + really distinct in it, but only in our way of thinking, inasmuch it is called "nature" as it is an essence, and a "suppositum" + as + it is subsisting. And what is said of a suppositum is to be applied to a person in rational or intellectual creatures; for + a person is nothing else than "an individual substance of rational nature," according to Boethius. Therefore, whatever adheres + to a person is united to it in person, whether it belongs to its nature or not. Hence, if the human nature is not united to + God the Word in person, it is nowise united to Him; and thus belief in the Incarnation is altogether done away with, and + Christian faith wholly overturned. Therefore, inasmuch as the Word has a human nature united to Him, which does not belong + to His Divine Nature, it follows that the union took place in the Person of the Word, and not in the nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although in God Nature and Person are not really distinct, yet they have distinct meanings, as was said above, inasmuch as + person signifies after the manner of something subsisting. And because human nature is united to the Word, so that the Word + subsists in it, and not so that His Nature receives therefrom any addition or change, it follows that the union of human nature + to the Word of God took place in the person, and not in the nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Personality pertains of necessity to the dignity of a thing, and to its perfection so far as it pertains to the dignity and + perfection of that thing to exist by itself (which is understood by the word "person"). Now it is a greater dignity to exist + in something nobler than oneself than to exist by oneself. Hence the human nature of Christ has a greater dignity than ours, + from this very fact that in us, being existent by itself, it has its own + personality, but in Christ it exists in the Person of the Word. Thus to perfect the species belongs to the dignity of a form, + yet the sensitive part in man, on account of its union with the nobler form which perfects the species, is more noble than + in brutes, where it is itself the form which perfects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Word of God "did not assume human nature in general, but 'in atomo'"---that is, in an individual---as Damascene says + (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) otherwise every man would be the Word of God, even as Christ was. Yet we must bear in mind that not + every individual in the genus of substance, even in rational nature, is a person, but that alone which exists by itself, and + not that which exists in some more perfect thing. Hence the hand of Socrates, + although it is a kind of individual, is not a person, because it does not exist by itself, but in something more perfect, + viz. in the whole. And hence, too, this is signified by a "person" being defined as "an individual substance," for the hand + is not a complete substance, but part of a substance. Therefore, although this human nature is a kind of individual in the + genus of substance, it has not its own personality, because it does not exist separately, but in something more perfect, viz. + in + the Person of the Word. Therefore the union took place in the person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A3-p0.1">Whether the union of the Word Incarnate took place in the suppositum or hypostasis?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the union of the Word Incarnate did not take place in the suppositum or hypostasis. For Augustine says + (Enchiridion xxxv, xxxviii): "Both the Divine and human substance are one Son of God, but they are one thing [aliud] by reason + of the Word and another thing [aliud] by reason of the man." And Pope Leo says in his letter to Flavian (Ep. xxviii): "One + of these is glorious with miracles, the other succumbs under injuries." But "one" [aliud] + and "the other" [aliud] differ in suppositum. Therefore the union of the Word Incarnate did not take place in the suppositum. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, hypostasis is nothing more than a "particular substance," as Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.). But it is plain that + in Christ there is another particular substance beyond the hypostasis of the Word, viz. the body and the soul and the resultant + of these. Therefore there is another hypostasis in Him besides the hypostasis of the Word. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the hypostasis of the Word is not included in any genus or species, as is plain from + <a id="TP_Q2_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A5.html">FP, Q[3], A[5]</a>. But Christ, inasmuch as He is made man, is contained under the species of man; for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. 1): "Within + the limits of our nature He came, Who far surpasses the whole order of nature supersubstantially." Now nothing is contained + under the human species unless it be a hypostasis of the human species. Therefore in + Christ there is another hypostasis besides the hypostasis of the Word of God; and hence the same conclusion follows as above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3,4,5): "In our Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures and one hypostasis." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Some who did not know the relation of hypostasis to person, although granting that there is but one person in Christ, held, + nevertheless, that there is one hypostasis of God and another of man, and hence that the union took place in the person and + not in the hypostasis. Now this, for three reasons, is clearly erroneous. First, because person only adds to hypostasis a + determinate nature, viz. rational, according to what Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.), "a + person is an individual substance of rational nature"; and hence it is the same to attribute to the human nature in Christ + a proper hypostasis and a proper person. And the holy Fathers, seeing this, condemned both in the Fifth Council held at Constantinople, + saying: "If anyone seeks to introduce into the mystery of the Incarnation two subsistences or two persons, let him be anathema. + For by the incarnation of one of the Holy Trinity, God the Word, the Holy Trinity received no augment of person + or subsistence." Now "subsistence" is the same as the subsisting thing, which is proper to hypostasis, as is plain from Boethius + (De Duab. Nat.). Secondly, because if it is granted that person adds to hypostasis something in which the union can take place, + this something is nothing else than a property pertaining to dignity; according as it is said by some that a person is a "hypostasis + distinguished by a property pertaining to dignity." If, therefore, the union took place in the person and not + in the hypostasis, it follows that the union only took place in regard to some dignity. And this is what Cyril, with the approval + of the Council of Ephesus (part iii, can. 3), condemned in these terms: "If anyone after the uniting divides the subsistences + in the one Christ, only joining them in a union of dignity or authority or power, and not rather in a concourse of natural + union, let him be anathema." Thirdly, because to the hypostasis alone are attributed the operations and the natural + properties, and whatever belongs to the nature in the concrete; for we say that this man reasons, and is risible, and is a + rational animal. So likewise this man is said to be a suppositum, because he underlies [supponitur] whatever belongs to man + and receives its predication. Therefore, if there is any hypostasis in Christ besides the hypostasis of the Word, it follows + that whatever pertains to man is verified of some other than the Word, e.g. that He was born of a Virgin, suffered, was + crucified, was buried. And this, too, was condemned with the approval of the Council of Ephesus (part iii, can. 4) in these + words: "If anyone ascribes to two persons or subsistences such words as are in the evangelical and apostolic Scriptures, or + have been said of Christ by the saints, or by Himself of Himself, and, moreover, applies some of them to the man, taken as + distinct from the Word of God, and some of them (as if they could be used of God alone) only to the Word of God the Father, + let + him be anathema." Therefore it is plainly a heresy condemned long since by the Church to say that in Christ there are two + hypostases, or two supposita, or that the union did not take place in the hypostasis or suppositum. Hence in the same Synod + (can. 2) it is said: "If anyone does not confess that the Word was united to flesh in subsistence, and that Christ with His + flesh is both---to wit, God and man---let him be anathema." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As accidental difference makes a thing "other" [alterum], so essential difference makes "another thing" [aliud]. Now it is + plain that the "otherness" which springs from accidental difference may pertain to the same hypostasis or suppositum in created + things, since the same thing numerically can underlie different accidents. But it does not happen in created things that the + same numerically can subsist in divers essences or natures. Hence just as when + we speak of "otherness" in regard to creatures we do not signify diversity of suppositum, but only diversity of accidental + forms, so likewise when Christ is said to be one thing or another thing, we do not imply diversity of suppositum or hypostasis, + but diversity of nature. Hence Gregory Nazianzen says in a letter to Chelidonius (Ep. ci): "In the Saviour we may find one + thing and another, yet He is not one person and another. And I say 'one thing and another'; whereas, on the contrary, in the + Trinity we say one Person and another (so as not to confuse the subsistences), but not one thing and another." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Hypostasis signifies a particular substance, not in every way, but as it is in its complement. Yet as it is in union with + something more complete, it is not said to be a hypostasis, as a hand or a foot. So likewise the human nature in Christ, although + it is a particular substance, nevertheless cannot be called a hypostasis or suppositum, seeing that it is in union with a + completed thing, viz. the whole Christ, as He is God and man. But the complete + being with which it concurs is said to be a hypostasis or suppositum. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In created things a singular thing is placed in a genus or species, not on account of what belongs to its individuation, + but on account of its nature, which springs from its form, and in composite things individuation is taken more from matter. + Hence we say that Christ is in the human species by reason of the nature assumed, and not by reason of the hypostasis. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A4-p0.1">Whether after the Incarnation the Person or Hypostasis of Christ is composite?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Person of Christ is not composite. For the Person of Christ is naught else than the Person or hypostasis + of the Word, as appears from what has been said + <a id="TP_Q2_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. But in the Word, Person and Nature do not differ, as appears from + <a id="TP_Q2_A4-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A1.html">FP, Q[39], A[1]</a>. Therefore since the Nature of the Word is simple, as was shown above ( + <a id="TP_Q2_A4-p2.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q3_A7.html">FP, Q[3], A[7]</a>), it is impossible that the Person of + Christ be composite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, all composition requires parts. But the Divine Nature is incompatible with the notion of a part, for every part + implicates the notion of imperfection. Therefore it is impossible that the Person of Christ be composed of two natures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what is composed of others would seem to be homogeneous with them, as from bodies only a body can be composed. Therefore + if there is anything in Christ composed of the two natures, it follows that this will not be a person but a nature; and hence + the union in Christ will take place in the nature, which is contrary to A[2]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3,4,5), "In the Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures, but one hypostasis composed + from both." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The Person or hypostasis of Christ may be viewed in two ways. First as it is in itself, and thus it is altogether simple, + even as the Nature of the Word. Secondly, in the aspect of person or hypostasis to which it belongs to subsist in a nature; + and thus the Person of Christ subsists in two natures. Hence though there is one subsisting being in Him, yet there are different + aspects of subsistence, and hence He is said to be a composite person, insomuch as one + being subsists in two. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p7"> And thereby the solution to the first is clear.</p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This composition of a person from natures is not so called on account of parts, but by reason of number, even as that in + which two things concur may be said to be composed of them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is not verified in every composition, that the thing composed is homogeneous with its component parts, but only in the + parts of a continuous thing; for the continuous is composed solely of continuous [parts]. But an animal is composed of soul + and body, and neither of these is an animal. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A5-p0.1">Whether in Christ there is any union of soul and body?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was no union of soul and body. For from the union of soul and body in us a person or a + human hypostasis is caused. Hence if the soul and body were united in Christ, it follows that a hypostasis resulted from their + union. But this was not the hypostasis of God the Word, for It is eternal. Therefore in Christ there would be a person or + hypostasis besides the hypostasis of the Word, which is contrary to + <a id="TP_Q2_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, from the union of soul and body results the nature of the human species. But Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, + 3), that "we must not conceive a common species in the Lord Jesus Christ." Therefore there was no union of soul and body in + Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the soul is united to the body for the sole purpose of quickening it. But the body of Christ could be quickened + by the Word of God Himself, seeing He is the fount and principle of life. Therefore in Christ there was no union of soul and + body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The body is not said to be animated save from its union with the soul. Now the body of Christ is said to be animated, as + the Church chants: "Taking an animate body, He deigned to be born of a Virgin" [*Feast of the Circumcision, Ant. ii, Lauds]. + Therefore in Christ there was a union of soul and body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ is called a man univocally with other men, as being of the same species, according to the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv">Phil. 2:7</a>), "being made in the likeness of a man." Now it belongs essentially to the human species that the soul be united to the body, + for the form does not constitute the species, except inasmuch as it becomes the act of matter, and this is the terminus of + generation through which nature intends the species. Hence it must be said + that in Christ the soul was united to the body; and the contrary is heretical, since it destroys the truth of Christ's humanity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This would seem to be the reason which was of weight with such as denied the union of the soul and body in Christ, viz. lest + they should thereby be forced to admit a second person or hypostasis in Christ, since they saw that the union of soul and + body in mere men resulted in a person. But this happens in mere men because the soul and body are so united in them as to + exist by themselves. But in Christ they are united together, so as to be united to + something higher, which subsists in the nature composed of them. And hence from the union of the soul and body in Christ a + new hypostasis or person does not result, but what is composed of them is united to the already existing hypostasis or Person. + Nor does it therefore follow that the union of the soul and body in Christ is of less effect than in us, for its union with + something nobler does not lessen but increases its virtue and worth; just as the sensitive soul in animals constitutes the + species, as being considered the ultimate form, yet it does not do so in man, although it is of greater effect and dignity, + and this because of its union with a further and nobler perfection, viz. the rational soul, as has been said above (A[2], + ad 2). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This saying of Damascene may be taken in two ways: First, as referring to human nature, which, as it is in one individual + alone, has not the nature of a common species, but only inasmuch as either it is abstracted from every individual, and considered + in itself by the mind, or according as it is in all individuals. Now the Son of God did not assume human nature as it exists + in the pure thought of the intellect, since in this way He would not have + assumed human nature in reality, unless it be said that human nature is a separate idea, just as the Platonists conceived + of man without matter. But in this way the Son of God would not have assumed flesh, contrary to what is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.39" target="asv">Lk. 24:39</a>), "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have." Neither can it be said that the Son of God assumed human nature + as it is in all the individuals of the same species, otherwise He would have assumed all men. Therefore it remains, as Damascene + says further on (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) that He assumed human nature "in atomo," i.e. in an individual; not, indeed, in another + individual which is a suppositum or a person of that nature, but in the Person of the Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p9"> Secondly, this saying of Damascene may be taken not as referring to human nature, as if from the union of soul and body one + common nature (viz. human) did not result, but as referring to the union of the two natures Divine and human: which do not + combine so as to form a third something that becomes a common nature, for in this way it would become predicable of many, + and this is what he is aiming at, since he adds: "For there was not generated, neither will there ever be + generated, another Christ, Who from the Godhead and manhood, and in the Godhead and manhood, is perfect God and perfect man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There are two principles of corporeal life: one the effective principle, and in this way the Word of God is the principle + of all life; the other, the formal principle of life, for since "in living things to be is to live," as the Philosopher says + (De Anima ii, 37), just as everything is formally by its form, so likewise the body lives by the soul: in this way a body + could not live by the Word, Which cannot be the form of a body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A5-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A6-p0.1">Whether the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally. For the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv">Phil. 2:7</a>) of the Son of God, that He was "in habit found as a man." But habit is accidentally associated with that to which it pertains, + whether habit be taken for one of the ten predicaments or as a species of quality. Therefore human nature is accidentally + united to the Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever comes to a thing that is complete in being comes to it accidentally, for an accident is said to be what + can come or go without the subject being corrupted. But human nature came to Christ in time, Who had perfect being from eternity. + Therefore it came to Him accidentally. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whatever does not pertain to the nature or the essence of a thing is its accident, for whatever is, is either a + substance or an accident. But human nature does not pertain to the Divine Essence or Nature of the Son of God, for the union + did not take place in the nature, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q2_A6-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Hence the human nature must have accrued accidentally to the Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, an instrument accrues accidentally. But the human nature was the instrument of the Godhead in Christ, for Damascene + says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15), that "the flesh of Christ is the instrument of the Godhead." Therefore it seems that the human + nature was united to the Son of God accidentally. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Whatever is predicated accidentally, predicates, not substance, but quantity, or quality, or some other mode of being. If + therefore the human nature accrues accidentally, when we say Christ is man, we do not predicate substance, but quality or + quantity, or some other mode of being, which is contrary to the Decretal of Pope Alexander III, who says (Conc. Later. iii): + "Since Christ is perfect God and perfect man, what foolhardiness have some to dare to + affirm that Christ as man is not a substance?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In evidence of this question we must know that two heresies have arisen with regard to the mystery of the union of the two + natures in Christ. The first confused the natures, as Eutyches and Dioscorus, who held that from the two natures one nature + resulted, so that they confessed Christ to be "from" two natures (which were distinct before the union), but not "in" two + natures (the distinction of nature coming to an end after the union). The second was the + heresy of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who separated the persons. For they held the Person of the Son of God to be + distinct from the Person of the Son of man, and said these were mutually united: first, "by indwelling," inasmuch as the Word + of God dwelt in the man, as in a temple; secondly, "by unity of intention," inasmuch as the will of the man was always in + agreement with the will of the Word of God; thirdly, "by operation," inasmuch as they said the man was the instrument of the + Word of God; fourthly, "by greatness of honor," inasmuch as all honor shown to the Son of God was equally shown to the Son + of man, on account of His union with the Son of God; fifthly, "by equivocation," i.e. communication of names, inasmuch as + we say that this man is God and the Son of God. Now it is plain that these modes imply an accidental union. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p8"> But some more recent masters, thinking to avoid these heresies, through ignorance fell into them. For some conceded one person + in Christ, but maintained two hypostases, or two supposita, saying that a man, composed of body and soul, was from the beginning + of his conception assumed by the Word of God. And this is the first opinion set down by the Master (Sent. iii, D, 6). But + others desirous of keeping the unity of person, held that the soul of Christ was not united to the body, + but that these two were mutually separate, and were united to the Word accidentally, so that the number of persons might not + be increased. And this is the third opinion which the Master sets down (Sent. iii, D, 6). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p9"> But both of these opinions fall into the heresy of Nestorius; the first, indeed, because to maintain two hypostases or supposita + in Christ is the same as to maintain two persons, as was shown above + <a id="TP_Q2_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. And if stress is laid on the word "person," we must have in mind that even Nestorius spoke of unity of person on account + of the unity of dignity and honor. Hence the fifth Council (Constantinople II, coll. viii, can. 5) directs an anathema against + such + a one as holds "one person in dignity, honor and adoration, as Theodore and Nestorius foolishly wrote." But the other opinion + falls into the error of Nestorius by maintaining an accidental union. For there is no difference in saying that the Word of + God is united to the Man Christ by indwelling, as in His temple (as Nestorius said), or by putting on man, as a garment, which + is the third opinion; rather it says something worse than Nestorius---to wit, that the soul and body are not united. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p10"> Now the Catholic faith, holding the mean between the aforesaid positions, does not affirm that the union of God and man took + place in the essence or nature, nor yet in something accidental, but midway, in a subsistence or hypostasis. Hence in the + fifth Council (Constantinople II, coll. viii, can. 5) we read: "Since the unity may be understood in many ways, those who + follow the impiety of Apollinaris and Eutyches, professing the destruction of what came together" (i.e. destroying + both natures), "confess a union by mingling; but the followers of Theodore and Nestorius, maintaining division, introduce + a union of purpose. But the Holy Church of God, rejecting the impiety of both these treasons, confesses a union of the Word + of God with flesh, by composition, which is in subsistence." Therefore it is plain that the second of the three opinions, + mentioned by the Master (Sent. iii, D, 6), which holds one hypostasis of God and man, is not to be called an opinion, but + an + article of Catholic faith. So likewise the first opinion which holds two hypostases, and the third which holds an accidental + union, are not to be styled opinions, but heresies condemned by the Church in Councils. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26): "Examples need not be wholly and at all points similar, for what is wholly similar + is the same, and not an example, and especially in Divine things, for it is impossible to find a wholly similar example in + the Theology," i.e. in the Godhead of Persons, "and in the Dispensation," i.e. the mystery of the Incarnation. Hence the human + nature in Christ is likened to a habit, i.e. a garment, not indeed in regard to + accidental union, but inasmuch as the Word is seen by the human nature, as a man by his garment, and also inasmuch as the + garment is changed, for it is shaped according to the figure of him who puts it on, and yet he is not changed from his form + on account of the garment. So likewise the human nature assumed by the Word of God is ennobled, but the Word of God is not + changed, as Augustine says (Qq. 83, qu. 73). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Whatever accrues after the completion of the being comes accidentally, unless it be taken into communion with the complete + being, just as in the resurrection the body comes to the soul which pre-exists, yet not accidentally, because it is assumed + unto the same being, so that the body has vital being through the soul; but it is not so with whiteness, for the being of + whiteness is other than the being of man to which whiteness comes. But the Word of God + from all eternity had complete being in hypostasis or person; while in time the human nature accrued to it, not as if it were + assumed unto one being inasmuch as this is of the nature (even as the body is assumed to the being of the soul), but to one + being inasmuch as this is of the hypostasis or person. Hence the human nature is not accidentally united to the Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Accident is divided against substance. Now substance, as is plain from Metaph. v, 25, is taken in two ways: first, for essence + or nature; secondly, for suppositum or hypostasis---hence the union having taken place in the hypostasis, is enough to show + that it is not an accidental union, although the union did not take place in the nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Not everything that is assumed as an instrument pertains to the hypostasis of the one who assumes, as is plain in the case + of a saw or a sword; yet nothing prevents what is assumed into the unity of the hypostasis from being as an instrument, even + as the body of man or his members. Hence Nestorius held that the human nature was assumed by the Word merely as an instrument, + and not into the unity of the hypostasis. And therefore he did not concede that + the man was really the Son of God, but His instrument. Hence Cyril says (Epist. ad Monach. Aegyptii): "The Scripture does + not affirm that this Emmanuel," i.e. Christ, "was assumed for the office of an instrument, but as God truly humanized," i.e. + made man. But Damascene held that the human nature in Christ is an instrument belonging to the unity of the hypostasis. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p15"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A6-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A7-p0.1">Whether the union of the Divine nature and the human is anything created?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the union of the Divine and human natures is not anything created. For there can be nothing created in + God, because whatever is in God is God. But the union is in God, for God Himself is united to human nature. Therefore it seems + that the union is not anything created. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the end holds first place in everything. But the end of the union is the Divine hypostasis or Person in which the + union is terminated. Therefore it seems that this union ought chiefly to be judged with reference to the dignity of the Divine + hypostasis, which is not anything created. Therefore the union is nothing created. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "That which is the cause of a thing being such is still more so" (Poster. i). But man is said to be the Creator + on account of the union. Therefore much more is the union itself nothing created, but the Creator. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Whatever has a beginning in time is created. Now this union was not from eternity, but began in time. Therefore the union + is something created. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The union of which we are speaking is a relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature, inasmuch as they + come together in one Person of the Son of God. Now, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q2_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A7.html">FP, Q[13], A[7]</a>), every relation which we consider between God and the creature is really in the creature, by whose change the relation is + brought into being; whereas it is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, since it does + not arise from any change in God. And hence we must say that the union of which we are speaking is not really in God, except + only in our way of thinking; but in the human nature, which is a creature, it is really. Therefore we must say it is something + created. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This union is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, for God is said to be united to a creature inasmuch as + the creature is really united to God without any change in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The specific nature of a relation, as of motion, depends on the subject. And since this union has its being nowhere save + in a created nature, as was said above, it follows that it has a created being. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A man is called Creator and is God because of the union, inasmuch as it is terminated in the Divine hypostasis; yet it does + not follow that the union itself is the Creator or God, because that a thing is said to be created regards its being rather + than its relation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A7-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A9.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A8-p0.1">Whether union is the same as assumption?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that union is the same as assumption. For relations, as motions, are specified by their termini. Now the term + of assumption and union is one and the same, viz. the Divine hypostasis. Therefore it seems that union and assumption are + not different. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the mystery of the Incarnation the same thing seems to be what unites and what assumes, and what is united and + what is assumed. But union and assumption seem to follow the action and passion of the thing uniting and the united, of the + thing assuming and the assumed. Therefore union seems to be the same as assumption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11): "Union is one thing, incarnation is another; for union demands mere copulation, + and leaves unsaid the end of the copulation; but incarnation and humanation determine the end of copulation." But likewise + assumption does not determine the end of copulation. Therefore it seems that union is the same as assumption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Divine Nature is said to be united, not assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was stated above + <a id="TP_Q2_A8-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A7.html">(A[7])</a>, union implies a certain relation of the Divine Nature and the human, according as they come together in one Person. Now + all relations which begin in time are brought about by some change; and change consists in action and passion. Hence the "first" + and principal difference between assumption and union must be said to be that union implies the relation: whereas assumption + implies the action, whereby someone + is said to assume, or the passion, whereby something is said to be assumed. Now from this difference another "second" difference + arises, for assumption implies "becoming," whereas union implies "having become," and therefore the thing uniting is said + to be united, but the thing assuming is not said to be assumed. For the human nature is taken to be in the terminus of assumption + unto the Divine hypostasis when man is spoken of; and hence we can truly say that the Son of God, Who assumes human + nature unto Himself, is man. But human nature, considered in itself, i.e. in the abstract, is viewed as assumed; and we do + not say the Son of God is human nature. From this same follows a "third" difference, which is that a relation, especially + one of equiparance, is no more to one extreme than to the other, whereas action and passion bear themselves differently to + the agent and the patient, and to different termini. And hence assumption determines the term whence and the term whither; + for + assumption means a taking to oneself from another. But union determines none of these things. hence it may be said indifferently + that the human nature is united with the Divine, or conversely. But the Divine Nature is not said to be assumed by the human, + but conversely, because the human nature is joined to the Divine personality, so that the Divine Person subsists in human + nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Union and assumption have not the same relation to the term, but a different relation, as was said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> What unites and what assumes are not the same. For whatsoever Person assumes unites, and not conversely. For the Person of + the Father united the human nature to the Son, but not to Himself; and hence He is said to unite and not to assume. So likewise + the united and the assumed are not identical, for the Divine Nature is said to be united, but not assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Assumption determines with whom the union is made on the part of the one assuming, inasmuch as assumption means taking unto + oneself [ad se sumere], whereas incarnation and humanation (determine with whom the union is made) on the part of the thing + assumed, which is flesh or human nature. And thus assumption differs logically both from union and from incarnation or humanation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A8-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A9.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A9" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A10.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A9-p0.1">Whether the union of the two natures in Christ is the greatest of all unions?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the union of the two natures in Christ is not the greatest of all unions. For what is united falls short + of the unity of what is one, since what is united is by participation, but one is by essence. Now in created things there + are some that are simply one, as is shown especially in unity itself, which is the principle of number. Therefore the union + of which we are speaking does not imply the greatest of all unions. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the greater the distance between things united, the less the union. Now, the things united by this union are most + distant---namely, the Divine and human natures; for they are infinitely apart. Therefore their union is the least of all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, from union there results one. But from the union of soul and body in us there arises what is one in person and nature; + whereas from the union of the Divine and human nature there results what is one in person only. Therefore the union of soul + and body is greater than that of the Divine and human natures; and hence the union of which we speak does not imply the greatest + unity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. i, 10) that "man is in the Son of God, more than the Son in the Father." But the Son is in the Father + by unity of essence, and man is in the Son by the union of the Incarnation. Therefore the union of the Incarnation is greater + than the unity of the Divine Essence, which nevertheless is the greatest union; and thus the union of the Incarnation implies + the greatest unity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Union implies the joining of several in some one thing. Therefore the union of the Incarnation may be taken in two ways: + first, in regard to the things united; secondly, in regard to that in which they are united. And in this regard this union + has a pre-eminence over other unions; for the unity of the Divine Person, in which the two natures are united, is the greatest. + But it has no pre-eminence in regard to the things united. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The unity of the Divine Person is greater than numerical unity, which is the principle of number. For the unity of a Divine + Person is an uncreated and self-subsisting unity, not received into another by participation. Also, it is complete in itself, + having in itself whatever pertains to the nature of unity; and therefore it is not compatible with the nature of a part, as + in numerical unity, which is a part of number, and which is shared in by the + things numbered. And hence in this respect the union of the Incarnation is higher than numerical unity by reason of the unity + of the Divine Person, and not by reason of the human nature, which is not the unity of the Divine Person, but is united to + it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This reason regards the things united, and not the Person in Whom the union takes place. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The unity of the Divine Person is greater than the unity of person and nature in us; and hence the union of the Incarnation + is greater than the union of soul and body in us. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p10"> And because what is urged in the argument "on the contrary" rests upon what is untrue---namely, that the union of the Incarnation + is greater than the unity of the Divine Persons in Essence---we must say to the authority of Augustine that the human nature + is not more in the Son of God than the Son of God in the Father, but much less. But the man in some respects is more in the + Son than the Son in the Father---namely, inasmuch as the same suppositum is signified when I say "man," + meaning Christ, and when I say "Son of God"; whereas it is not the same suppositum of Father and Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A9-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A10.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A10" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A11.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A10-p0.1">Whether the union of the Incarnation took place by grace?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by grace. For grace is an accident, as was shown above + ( + <a id="TP_Q2_A10-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A2.html">FS, Q[110], A[2]</a>). But the union of the human nature to the Divine did not take place accidentally, as was shown above + <a id="TP_Q2_A10-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. Therefore it seems that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the subject of grace is the soul. But it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A10-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.9" target="asv">Col. 2:9</a>): "In Christ [Vulg.: 'Him'] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally." Therefore it seems that this union did + not take place by grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every saint is united to God by grace. If, therefore, the union of the Incarnation was by grace, it would seem that + Christ is said to be God no more than other holy men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. xv): "By the same grace every man is made a Christian, from the beginning of his faith, + as this man from His beginning was made Christ." But this man became Christ by union with the Divine Nature. Therefore this + union was by grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q2_A10-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A1.html">FS, Q[110], A[1]</a>), grace is taken in two ways:--first, as the will of God gratuitously bestowing something; secondly, as the free gift of + God. Now human nature stands in need of the gratuitous will of God in order to be lifted up to God, since this is above its + natural capability. Moreover, human nature is lifted up to God in two ways: first, by operation, as the saints know and love + God; secondly, by personal + being, and this mode belongs exclusively to Christ, in Whom human nature is assumed so as to be in the Person of the Son of + God. But it is plain that for the perfection of operation the power needs to be perfected by a habit, whereas that a nature + has being in its own suppositum does not take place by means of a habit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p7"> And hence we must say that if grace be understood as the will of God gratuitously doing something or reputing anything as + well-pleasing or acceptable to Him, the union of the Incarnation took place by grace, even as the union of the saints with + God by knowledge and love. But if grace be taken as the free gift of God, then the fact that the human nature is united to + the Divine Person may be called a grace, inasmuch as it took place without being preceded by any merits---but not + as though there were an habitual grace, by means of which the union took place. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The grace which is an accident is a certain likeness of the Divinity participated by man. But by the Incarnation human nature + is not said to have participated a likeness of the Divine nature, but is said to be united to the Divine Nature itself in + the Person of the Son. Now the thing itself is greater than a participated likeness of it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Habitual grace is only in the soul; but the grace, i.e. the free gift of God, of being united to the Divine Person belongs + to the whole human nature, which is composed of soul and body. And hence it is said that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt + corporeally in Christ because the Divine Nature is united not merely to the soul, but to the body also. Although it may also + be said that it dwelt in Christ corporeally, i.e. not as in a shadow, as it dwelt in + the sacraments of the old law, of which it is said in the same place ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A10-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.17" target="asv">Col. 2:17</a>) that they are the "shadow of things to come but the body is Christ" [Vulg.: 'Christ's'], inasmuch as the body is opposed + to the shadow. And some say that the Godhead is said to have dwelt in Christ corporeally, i.e. in three ways, just as a body + has three dimensions: first, by essence, presence, and power, as in other creatures; secondly, by sanctifying grace, as in + the saints; thirdly, by + personal union, which is proper to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p10"> Hence the reply to the third is manifest, viz. because the union of the Incarnation did not take place by habitual grace + alone, but in subsistence or person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A10-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A11.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A11" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A12.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A11-p0.1">Whether any merits preceded the union of the Incarnation?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the union of the Incarnation followed upon certain merits, because upon + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A11-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.32.22" target="asv"> Ps. 32:22, </a> "Let Thy mercy, o Lord, be upon us, as," etc. a gloss says: "Here the prophet's desire for the Incarnation and its merited + fulfilment are hinted at." Therefore the Incarnation falls under merit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever merits anything merits that without which it cannot be. But the ancient Fathers merited eternal life, to + which they were able to attain only by the Incarnation; for Gregory says (Moral. xiii): "Those who came into this world before + Christ's coming, whatsoever eminency of righteousness they may have had, could not, on being divested of the body, at once + be admitted into the bosom of the heavenly country, seeing that He had not as yet come Who, + by His own descending, should place the souls of the righteous in their everlasting seat." Therefore it would seem that they + merited the Incarnation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, of the Blessed Virgin it is sung that "she merited to bear the Lord of all" [*Little Office of B. V. M., Dominican + Rite, Ant. at Benedictus], and this took place through the Incarnation. Therefore the Incarnation falls under merit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. xv): "Whoever can find merits preceding the singular generation of our Head, may also find + merits preceding the repeated regeneration of us His members." But no merits preceded our regeneration, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A11-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Titus.3.5" target="asv"> Titus 3:5</a>: "Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the laver of regeneration." + Therefore no merits preceded the generation of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> With regard to Christ Himself, it is clear from the above + <a id="TP_Q2_A11-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A10.html">(A[10])</a> that no merits of His could have preceded the union. For we do not hold that He was first of all a mere man, and that afterwards + by the merits of a good life it was granted Him to become the Son of God, as Photinus held; but we hold that from the beginning + of His conception this man was truly the Son of God, seeing that He had no other hypostasis but that of the Son of + God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A11-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.35" target="asv"> Luke 1:35</a>: "The Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." And hence every operation of this man followed the + union. Therefore no operation of His could have been meritorious of the union. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p7"> Neither could the needs of any other man whatsoever have merited this union condignly: first, because the meritorious works + of man are properly ordained to beatitude, which is the reward of virtue, and consists in the full enjoyment of God. Whereas + the union of the Incarnation, inasmuch as it is in the personal being, transcends the union of the beatified mind with God, + which is by the act of the soul in fruition; and therefore it cannot fall under merit. Secondly, because grace + cannot fall under merit, for the principle of merit does not fall under merit; and therefore neither does grace, for it is + the principle of merit. Hence, still less does the Incarnation fall under merit, since it is the principle of grace, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A11-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.17" target="asv"> Jn. 1:17</a>: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Thirdly, because the Incarnation is for the reformation of the entire human nature, + and therefore it does not fall under the merit of any individual man, since the goodness of + a mere man cannot be the cause of the good of the entire nature. Yet the holy Fathers merited the Incarnation congruously + by desiring and beseeching; for it was becoming that God should harken to those who obeyed Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p8"> And thereby the reply to the First Objection is manifest.</p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is false that under merit falls everything without which there can be no reward. For there is something pre-required not + merely for reward, but also for merit, as the Divine goodness and grace and the very nature of man. And again, the mystery + of the Incarnation is the principle of merit, because "of His fulness we all have received" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A11-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv">Jn. 1:16</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Blessed Virgin is said to have merited to bear the Lord of all; not that she merited His Incarnation, but because by + the grace bestowed upon her she merited that grade of purity and holiness, which fitted her to be the Mother of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A11-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A12.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q2_A12" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q2_A12-p0.1">Whether the grace of union was natural to the man Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the grace of union was not natural to the man Christ. For the union of the Incarnation did not take place + in the nature, but in the Person, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q2_A12-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Now a thing is denominated from its terminus. Therefore this grace ought rather to be called personal than natural. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, grace is divided against nature, even as gratuitous things, which are from God, are distinguished from natural things, + which are from an intrinsic principle. But if things are divided in opposition to one another, one is not denominated by the + other. Therefore the grace of Christ was not natural to Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, natural is that which is according to nature. But the grace of union is not natural to Christ in regard to the Divine + Nature, otherwise it would belong to the other Persons; nor is it natural to Him according to the human nature, otherwise + it would belong to all men, since they are of the same nature as He. Therefore it would seem that the grace of union is nowise + natural to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): "In the assumption of human nature, grace itself became somewhat natural to that man, so + as to leave no room for sin in Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 5), nature designates, in one way, nativity; in another, the essence of a thing. + Hence natural may be taken in two ways: first, for what is only from the essential principles of a thing, as it is natural + to fire to mount; secondly, we call natural to man what he has had from his birth, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A12-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.2.3" target="asv"> Eph. 2:3</a>: "We were by nature children of wrath"; and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q2_A12-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.12.10" target="asv">Wis. 12:10</a>: "They were a wicked generation, and + their malice natural." Therefore the grace of Christ, whether of union or habitual, cannot be called natural as if caused + by the principles of the human nature of Christ, although it may be called natural, as if coming to the human nature of Christ + by the causality of His Divine Nature. But these two kinds of grace are said to be natural to Christ, inasmuch as He had them + from His nativity, since from the beginning of His conception the human nature was united to the Divine Person, and His soul + was filled with the gift of grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the union did not take place in the nature, yet it was caused by the power of the Divine Nature, which is truly + the nature of Christ, and it, moreover, belonged to Christ from the beginning of His nativity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The union is not said to be grace and natural in the same respect; for it is called grace inasmuch as it is not from merit; + and it is said to be natural inasmuch as by the power of the Divine Nature it was in the humanity of Christ from His nativity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The grace of union is not natural to Christ according to His human nature, as if it were caused by the principles of the + human nature, and hence it need not belong to all men. Nevertheless, it is natural to Him in regard to the human nature on + account of the "property" of His birth, seeing that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, so that He might be the natural Son + of God and of man. But it is natural to Him in regard to the Divine Nature, inasmuch as + the Divine Nature is the active principle of this grace; and this belongs to the whole Trinity---to wit, to be the active + principle of this grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q2_A12-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q3" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q3-p0.1">OF THE MODE OF UNION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON ASSUMING (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3-p2"> We must now consider the union on the part of the Person assuming, and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q3-p3"> (1) Whether to assume is befitting to a Divine Person?</p> + <p id="TP_Q3-p4"> (2) Whether it is befitting to the Divine Nature?</p> + <p id="TP_Q3-p5"> (3) Whether the Nature abstracted from the Personality can assume?</p> + <p id="TP_Q3-p6"> (4) Whether one Person can assume without another?</p> + <p id="TP_Q3-p7"> (5) Whether each Person can assume?</p> + <p id="TP_Q3-p8"> (6) Whether several Persons can assume one individual nature?</p> + <p id="TP_Q3-p9"> (7) Whether one Person can assume two individual natures?</p> + <p id="TP_Q3-p10"> (8) Whether it was more fitting for the Person of the Son of God to assume human nature than for another Divine Person?</p> + <div id="TP_Q3_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q3_A1-p0.1">Whether it is befitting for a Divine Person to assume?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not befitting to a Divine Person to assume a created nature. For a Divine Person signifies something + most perfect. Now no addition can be made to what is perfect. Therefore, since to assume is to take to oneself, and consequently + what is assumed is added to the one who assumes, it does not seem to be befitting to a Divine Person to assume a created nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that to which anything is assumed is communicated in some degree to what is assumed to it, just as dignity is communicated + to whosoever is assumed to a dignity. But it is of the nature of a person to be incommunicable, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q29_A1.html">FP, Q[29], A[1]</a>). Therefore it is not befitting to a Divine Person to assume, i.e. to take to Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, person is constituted by nature. But it is repugnant that the thing constituted should assume the constituent, since + the effect does not act on its cause. Hence it is not befitting to a Person to assume a nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum ii): "This God, i.e. the only-Begotten one, took the form," i.e. the nature, + "of a servant to His own Person." But the only-Begotten God is a Person. Therefore it is befitting to a Person to take, i.e. + to assume a nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In the word "assumption" are implied two things, viz. the principle and the term of the act, for to assume is to take something + to oneself. Now of this assumption a Person is both the principle and the term. The principle---because it properly belongs + to a person to act, and this assuming of flesh took place by the Divine action. Likewise a Person is the term of this assumption, + because, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html">Q[2], AA[1]</a> ,2), the union + took place in the Person, and not in the nature. Hence it is plain that to assume a nature is most properly befitting to a + Person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Since the Divine Person is infinite, no addition can be made to it: Hence Cyril says [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: + "We do not conceive the mode of conjunction to be according to addition"; just as in the union of man with God, nothing is + added to God by the grace of adoption, but what is Divine is united to man; hence, not God but man is perfected. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A Divine Person is said to be incommunicable inasmuch as It cannot be predicated of several supposita, but nothing prevents + several things being predicated of the Person. Hence it is not contrary to the nature of person to be communicated so as to + subsist in several natures, for even in a created person several natures may concur accidentally, as in the person of one + man we find quantity and quality. But this is proper to a Divine Person, on account + of its infinity, that there should be a concourse of natures in it, not accidentally, but in subsistence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html">Q[2], A[1]</a>), the human nature constitutes a Divine Person, not simply, but forasmuch as the Person is denominated from such a nature. + For human nature does not make the Son of Man to be simply, since He was from eternity, but only to be man. It is by the Divine + Nature that a Divine Person is constituted simply. Hence the Divine Person is not said to assume the Divine Nature, but to + assume the human + nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q3_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q3_A2-p0.1">Whether it is befitting to the Divine Nature to assume?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not befitting to the Divine Nature to assume. Because, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q3_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, to assume is to take to oneself. But the Divine Nature did not take to Itself human nature, for the union did not take place + in the nature, as was said above (Q[2], AA[1],3). Hence it is not befitting to the Divine Nature to assume human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Divine Nature is common to the three Persons. If, therefore, it is befitting to the Divine Nature to assume, + it consequently is befitting to the three Persons; and thus the Father assumed human nature even as the Son, which is erroneous. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to assume is to act. But to act befits a person, not a nature, which is rather taken to be the principle by which + the agent acts. Therefore to assume is not befitting to the nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (Fulgentius) says (De Fide ad Petrum ii): "That nature which remains eternally begotten of the Father" (i.e. which + is received from the Father by eternal generation) "took our nature free of sin from His Mother." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above + <a id="TP_Q3_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, in the word assumption two things are signified---to wit, the principle and the term of the action. Now to be the principle + of the assumption belongs to the Divine Nature in itself, because the assumption took place by Its power; but to be the term + of the assumption does not belong to the Divine Nature in itself, but by reason of the Person in Whom It is considered to + be. Hence a Person is primarily and more + properly said to assume, but it may be said secondarily that the Nature assumed a nature to Its Person. And after the same + manner the Nature is also said to be incarnate, not that it is changed to flesh, but that it assumed the nature of flesh. + Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6): "Following the blessed Athanasius and Cyril we say that the Nature of God is + incarnate." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> "Oneself" is reciprocal, and points to the same suppositum. But the Divine Nature is not a distinct suppositum from the Person + of the Word. Hence, inasmuch as the Divine Nature took human nature to the Person of the Word, It is said to take it to Itself. + But although the Father takes human nature to the Person of the Word, He did not thereby take it to Himself, for the suppositum + of the Father and the Son is not one. and hence it cannot properly be + said that the Father assumes human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> What is befitting to the Divine Nature in Itself is befitting to the three Persons, as goodness, wisdom, and the like. But + to assume belongs to It by reason of the Person of the Word, as was said above, and hence it is befitting to that Person alone. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As in God "what is" and "whereby it is" are the same, so likewise in Him "what acts" and "whereby it acts" are the same, + since everything acts, inasmuch as it is a being. Hence the Divine Nature is both that whereby God acts, and the very God + Who acts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q3_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q3_A3-p0.1">Whether the Nature abstracted from the Personality can assume?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that if we abstract the Personality by our mind, the Nature cannot assume. For it was said above + <a id="TP_Q3_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html">(A[1])</a> that it belongs to the Nature to assume by reason of the Person. But what belongs to one by reason of another cannot belong + to it if the other is removed; as a body, which is visible by reason of color, without color cannot be seen. Hence if the + Personality be mentally abstracted, the Nature cannot assume. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, assumption implies the term of union, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q3_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But the union cannot take place in the nature, but only in the Person. Therefore, if the Personality be abstracted, the + Divine Nature cannot assume. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it has been said above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q40_A3.html">FP, Q[40], A[3]</a>) that in the Godhead if the Personality is abstracted, nothing remains. But the one who assumes is something. Therefore, + if the Personality is abstracted, the Divine Nature cannot assume. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> In the Godhead Personality signifies a personal property; and this is threefold, viz. Paternity, Filiation and Procession, + as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q30_A2.html">FP, Q[30], A[2]</a>). Now if we mentally abstract these, there still remains the omnipotence of God, by which the Incarnation was wrought, as + the angel says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.37" target="asv">Lk. 1:37</a>): "No word shall be impossible with God." Therefore it seems that if the Personality be removed, the Divine + Nature can still assume. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The intellect stands in two ways towards God. First, to know God as He is, and in this manner it is impossible for the intellect + to circumscribe something in God and leave the rest, for all that is in God is one, except the distinction of Persons; and + as regards these, if one is removed the other is taken away, since they are distinguished by relations only which must be + together at the same time. Secondly, the intellect stands towards God, not indeed as + knowing God as He is, but in its own way, i.e. understanding manifoldly and separately what in God is one: and in this way + our intellect can understand the Divine goodness and wisdom, and the like, which are called essential attributes, without + understanding Paternity or Filiation, which are called Personalities. And hence if we abstract Personality by our intellect, + we may still understand the Nature assuming. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Because in God "what is," and "whereby it is," are one, if any one of the things which are attributed to God in the abstract + is considered in itself, abstracted from all else, it will still be something subsisting, and consequently a Person, since + it is an intellectual nature. Hence just as we now say three Persons, on account of holding three personal properties, so + likewise if we mentally exclude the personal properties there will still remain in + our thought the Divine Nature as subsisting and as a Person. And in this way It may be understood to assume human nature by + reason of Its subsistence or Personality. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even if the personal properties of the three Persons are abstracted by our mind, nevertheless there will remain in our thoughts + the one Personality of God, as the Jews consider. And the assumption can be terminated in It, as we now say it is terminated + in the Person of the Word. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If we mentally abstract the Personality, it is said that nothing remains by way of resolution, i.e. as if the subject of + the relation and the relation itself were distinct because all we can think of in God is considered as a subsisting suppositum. + However, some of the things predicated of God can be understood without others, not by way of resolution, but by the way mentioned + above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q3_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q3_A4-p0.1">Whether one Person without another can assume a created nature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one Person cannot assume a created nature without another assuming it. For "the works of the Trinity are + inseparable," as Augustine says (Enchiridion xxxviii). But as the three Persons have one essence, so likewise They have one + operation. Now to assume is an operation. Therefore it cannot belong to one without belonging to another. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as we say the Person of the Son became incarnate, so also did the Nature; for "the whole Divine Nature became incarnate + in one of Its hypostases," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6). But the Nature is common to the three Persons. Therefore + the assumption is. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as the human nature in Christ is assumed by God, so likewise are men assumed by Him through grace, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.3" target="asv"> Rom. 14:3</a>: "God hath taken him to Him." But this assumption pertains to all the Persons; therefore the first also. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii) that the mystery of the Incarnation pertains to "discrete theology," i.e. according to which + something "distinct" is said of the Divine Persons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above + <a id="TP_Q3_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, assumption implies two things, viz. the act of assuming and the term of assumption. Now the act of assumption proceeds from + the Divine power, which is common to the three Persons, but the term of the assumption is a Person, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q3_A4-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Hence what has to do with action in the assumption is common to the three Persons; but what pertains to the nature of term + belongs to one + Person in such a manner as not to belong to another; for the three Persons caused the human nature to be united to the one + Person of the Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This reason regards the operation, and the conclusion would follow if it implied this operation only, without the term, which + is a Person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Nature is said to be incarnate, and to assume by reason of the Person in Whom the union is terminated, as stated above + ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), and not as it is common to the three Persons. Now "the whole Divine Nature is" said to be "incarnate"; not that It is + incarnate in all the Persons, but inasmuch as nothing is wanting to the perfection of the Divine Nature of the Person incarnate, + as Damascene explains there. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The assumption which takes place by the grace of adoption is terminated in a certain participation of the Divine Nature, + by an assimilation to Its goodness, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iiPet.1.4" target="asv">2 Pet. 1:4</a>: "That you may be made partakers of the Divine Nature"; and hence this assumption is common to the three Persons, in regard + to the principle and the term. But the assumption which is by the grace of union is common on the part of the principle, but + not + on the part of the term, as was said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q3_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q3_A5-p0.1">Whether each of the Divine Persons could have assumed human nature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no other Divine Person could have assumed human nature except the Person of the Son. For by this assumption + it has been brought about that God is the Son of Man. But it was not becoming that either the Father or the Holy Ghost should + be said to be a Son; for this would tend to the confusion of the Divine Persons. Therefore the Father and Holy Ghost could + not have assumed flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by the Divine Incarnation men have come into possession of the adoption of sons, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.15" target="asv"> Rom. 8:15</a>: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but the spirit of adoption of sons." But sonship by adoption + is a participated likeness of natural sonship which does not belong to the Father nor the Holy Ghost; hence it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv">Rom. 8:29</a>): "For whom He foreknew He also predestinated to be + made conformable to the image of His Son." Therefore it seems that no other Person except the Person of the Son could have + become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Son is said to be sent and to be begotten by the temporal nativity, inasmuch as He became incarnate. But it + does not belong to the Father to be sent, for He is innascible, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A3.html">FP, Q[32], A[3]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q3_A5-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q43_A4.html">FP, Q[43], A[4]</a>). Therefore at least the Person of the Father cannot become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Whatever the Son can do, so can the Father and the Holy Ghost, otherwise the power of the three Persons would not be one. + But the Son was able to become incarnate. Therefore the Father and the Holy Ghost were able to become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2,4), assumption implies two things, viz. the act of the one assuming and the term of the assumption. Now the principle of + the act is the Divine power, and the term is a Person. But the Divine power is indifferently and commonly in all the Persons. + Moreover, the nature of Personality is common to all the Persons, although the personal properties are different. Now whenever + a power regards several things + indifferently, it can terminate its action in any of them indifferently, as is plain in rational powers, which regard opposites, + and can do either of them. Therefore the Divine power could have united human nature to the Person of the Father or of the + Holy Ghost, as It united it to the Person of the Son. And hence we must say that the Father or the Holy Ghost could have assumed + flesh even as the Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The temporal sonship, whereby Christ is said to be the Son of Man, does not constitute His Person, as does the eternal Sonship; + but is something following upon the temporal nativity. Hence, if the name of son were transferred to the Father or the Holy + Ghost in this manner, there would be no confusion of the Divine Persons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Adoptive sonship is a certain participation of natural sonship; but it takes place in us, by appropriation, by the Father, + Who is the principle of natural sonship, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost, Who is the love of the Father and Son, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.6" target="asv"> Gal. 4:6</a>: "God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts crying, Abba, Father." And therefore, even as by the Incarnation of + the Son we receive adoptive sonship in the likeness + of His natural sonship, so likewise, had the Father become incarnate, we should have received adoptive sonship from Him, as + from the principle of the natural sonship, and from the Holy Ghost as from the common bond of Father and Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It belongs to the Father to be innascible as to eternal birth, and the temporal birth would not destroy this. But the Son + of God is said to be sent in regard to the Incarnation, inasmuch as He is from another, without which the Incarnation would + not suffice for the nature of mission. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q3_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q3_A6-p0.1">Whether several Divine Persons can assume one and the same individual nature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that two Divine Persons cannot assume one and the same individual nature. For, this being granted, there would + either be several men or one. But not several, for just as one Divine Nature in several Persons does not make several gods, + so one human nature in several persons does not make several men. Nor would there be only one man, for one man is "this man," + which signifies one person; and hence the distinction of three Divine Persons would be + destroyed, which cannot be allowed. Therefore neither two nor three Persons can take one human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the assumption is terminated in the unity of Person, as has been said above + <a id="TP_Q3_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. But the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not one Person. Therefore the three Persons cannot assume one human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3,4), and Augustine (De Trin. i, 11,12,13), that from the Incarnation of God + the Son it follows that whatever is said of the Son of God is said of the Son of Man, and conversely. Hence, if three Persons + were to assume one human nature, it would follow that whatever is said of each of the three Persons would be said of the man; + and conversely, what was said of the man could be said of each of the three Persons. + Therefore what is proper to the Father, viz. to beget the Son, would be said of the man, and consequently would be said of + the Son of God; and this could not be. Therefore it is impossible that the three Persons should assume one human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Incarnate Person subsists in two natures. But the three Persons can subsist in one Divine Nature. Therefore they can + also subsist in one human nature in such a way that the human nature be assumed by the three Persons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A5.html">Q[2], A[5]</a>, ad 1), by the union of the soul and body in Christ neither a new person is made nor a new hypostasis, but one human nature + is assumed to the Divine Person or hypostasis, which, indeed, does not take place by the power of the human nature, but by + the power of the Divine Person. Now such is the characteristic of the Divine Persons that one does not exclude another from + communicating in the same nature, but + only in the same Person. Hence, since in the mystery of the Incarnation "the whole reason of the deed is the power of the + doer," as Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii), we must judge of it in regard to the quality of the Divine Person assuming, + and not according to the quality of the human nature assumed. Therefore it is not impossible that two or three Divine Persons + should assume one human nature, but it would be impossible for them to assume one human hypostasis or person; thus Anselm + says in the book De Concep. Virg. (Cur Deus Homo ii, 9), that "several Persons cannot assume one and the same man to unity + of Person." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the hypothesis that three Persons assume one human nature, it would be true to say that the three Persons were one man, + because of the one human nature. For just as it is now true to say the three Persons are one God on account of the one Divine + Nature, so it would be true to say they are one man on account of the one human nature. Nor would "one" imply unity of person, + but unity in human nature; for it could not be argued that because the three + Persons were one man they were one simply. For nothing hinders our saying that men, who are many simply, are in some respect + one, e.g. one people, and as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 3): "The Spirit of God and the spirit of man are by nature different, + but by inherence one spirit results," according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:17</a>: "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In this supposition the human nature would be assumed to the unity, not indeed of one Person, but to the unity of each Person, + so that even as the Divine Nature has a natural unity with each Person, so also the human nature would have a unity with each + Person by assumption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In the mystery of the Incarnation, there results a communication of the properties belonging to the nature, because whatever + belongs to the nature can be predicated of the Person subsisting in that nature, no matter to which of the natures it may + apply. Hence in this hypothesis, of the Person of the Father may be predicated what belongs to the human nature and what belongs + to the Divine; and likewise of the Person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But + what belongs to the Person of the Father by reason of His own Person could not be attributed to the Person of the Son or Holy + Ghost on account of the distinction of Persons which would still remain. Therefore it might be said that as the Father was + unbegotten, so the man was unbegotten, inasmuch as "man" stood for the Person of the Father. But if one were to go on to say, + "The man is unbegotten; the Son is man; therefore the Son is unbegotten," it would be the fallacy of figure of speech or of + accident; even as we now say God is unbegotten, because the Father is unbegotten, yet we cannot conclude that the Son is unbegotten, + although He is God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q3_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q3_A7-p0.1">Whether one Divine Person can assume two human natures?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that one Divine Person cannot assume two human natures. For the nature assumed in the mystery of the Incarnation + has no other suppositum than the suppositum of the Divine Person, as is plain from what has been stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A7-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A3.html">Q[2], AA[3]</a>,6). Therefore, if we suppose one Person to assume two human natures, there would be one suppositum of two natures of the + same species; which would seem to imply a contradiction, for the + nature of one species is only multiplied by distinct supposita. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in this hypothesis it could not be said that the Divine Person incarnate was one man, seeing that He would not have + one human nature; neither could it be said that there were several, for several men have distinct supposita, whereas in this + case there would be only one suppositum. Therefore the aforesaid hypothesis is impossible. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the mystery of the Incarnation the whole Divine Nature is united to the whole nature assumed, i.e. to every part + of it, for Christ is "perfect God and perfect man, complete God and complete man," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 7). + But two human natures cannot be wholly united together, inasmuch as the soul of one would be united to the body of the other; + and, again, two bodies would be together, which would give rise to confusion of natures. + Therefore it is not possibly for one Divine Person to assume two human natures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Whatever the Father can do, that also can the Son do. But after the Incarnation the Father can still assume a human nature + distinct from that which the Son has assumed; for in nothing is the power of the Father or the Son lessened by the Incarnation + of the Son. Therefore it seems that after the Incarnation the Son can assume another human nature distinct from the one He + has assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> What has power for one thing, and no more, has a power limited to one. Now the power of a Divine Person is infinite, nor + can it be limited by any created thing. Hence it may not be said that a Divine Person so assumed one human nature as to be + unable to assume another. For it would seem to follow from this that the Personality of the Divine Nature was so comprehended + by one human nature as to be unable to assume another to its Personality; and this is + impossible, for the Uncreated cannot be comprehended by any creature. Hence it is plain that, whether we consider the Divine + Person in regard to His power, which is the principle of the union, or in regard to His Personality, which is the term of + the union, it has to be said that the Divine Person, over and beyond the human nature which He has assumed, can assume another + distinct human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A created nature is completed in its essentials by its form, which is multiplied according to the division of matter. And + hence, if the composition of matter and form constitutes a new suppositum, the consequence is that the nature is multiplied + by the multiplication of supposita. But in the mystery of the Incarnation the union of form and matter, i.e. of soul and body, + does not constitute a new suppositum, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q3_A7-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. Hence there can be a numerical multitude on the part of the nature, on account of the division of matter, without distinction + of supposita. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It might seem possible to reply that in such a hypothesis it would follow that there were two men by reason of the two natures, + just as, on the contrary, the three Persons would be called one man, on account of the one nature assumed, as was said above + (A[6], ad 1). But this does not seem to be true; because we must use words according to the purpose of their signification, + which is in relation to our surroundings. Consequently, in order to judge of a + word's signification or co-signification, we must consider the things which are around us, in which a word derived from some + form is never used in the plural unless there are several supposita. For a man who has on two garments is not said to be "two + persons clothed," but "one clothed with two garments"; and whoever has two qualities is designated in the singular as "such + by reason of the two qualities." Now the assumed nature is, as it were, a garment, although this similitude does not fit at + all points, as has been said above ( + <a id="TP_Q3_A7-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A6.html">Q[2], A[6]</a>, ad 1). And hence, if the Divine Person were to assume two human natures, He would be called, on account of the unity of + suppositum, one man having two human natures. Now many men are said to be one people, inasmuch as they have some one thing + in common, and not on account of the unity of suppositum. So likewise, if two Divine Persons were to assume one singular human + nature, they would be said to be one man, as stated + (A[6], ad 1), not from the unity of suppositum, but because they have some one thing in common. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Divine and human natures do not bear the same relation to the one Divine Person, but the Divine Nature is related first + of all thereto, inasmuch as It is one with It from eternity; and afterwards the human nature is related to the Divine Person, + inasmuch as it is assumed by the Divine Person in time, not indeed that the nature is the Person, but that the Person of God + subsists in human nature. For the Son of God is His Godhead, but is not His + manhood. And hence, in order that the human nature may be assumed by the Divine Person, the Divine Nature must be united by + a personal union with the whole nature assumed, i.e. in all its parts. Now in the two natures assumed there would be a uniform + relation to the Divine Person, nor would one assume the other. Hence it would not be necessary for one of them to be altogether + united to the other, i.e. all the parts of one with all the parts of the other. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A7-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q3_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q3_A8-p0.1">Whether it was more fitting that the Person of the Son rather than any other Divine Person should assume human nature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not more fitting that the Son of God should become incarnate than the Father or the Holy Ghost. + For by the mystery of the Incarnation men are led to the true knowledge of God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.18.37" target="asv"> Jn. 18:37</a>: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, to give testimony to the truth." But by the Person of the Son + of God becoming incarnate many have been kept back from the true knowledge of God, since they + referred to the very Person of the Son what was said of the Son in His human nature, as Arius, who held an inequality of Persons, + according to what is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p2.2" href="./asv.html#John.14.28" target="asv">Jn. 14:28</a>): "The Father is greater than I." Now this error would not have arisen if the Person of the Father had become incarnate, + for no one would have taken the Father to be less than the Son. Hence it seems fitting that the Person of the Father, rather + than the Person of the Son, should have become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the effect of the Incarnation would seem to be, as it were, a second creation of human nature, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.6.15" target="asv"> Gal. 6:15</a>: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." But the power of creation + is appropriated to the Father. Therefore it would have been more becoming to the Father than to the Son to become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Incarnation is ordained to the remission of sins, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.21" target="asv"> Mat. 1:21</a>: "Thou shalt call His name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins." Now the remission of sins is attributed + to the Holy Ghost according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.20.22" target="asv"> Jn. 20:22,23</a>: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Therefore it became the Person of the + Holy Ghost rather than the Person of the Son to + become incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1): "In the mystery of the Incarnation the wisdom and power of God are made known: the + wisdom, for He found a most suitable discharge for a most heavy debt; the power, for He made the conquered conquer." But power + and wisdom are appropriated to the Son, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24</a>: "Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God." Therefore it was fitting that the Person of the Son should become + incarnate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was most fitting that the Person of the Son should become incarnate. First, on the part of the union; for such as are + similar are fittingly united. Now the Person of the Son, Who is the Word of God, has a certain common agreement with all creatures, + because the word of the craftsman, i.e. his concept, is an exemplar likeness of whatever is made by him. Hence the Word of + God, Who is His eternal concept, is the exemplar likeness of all creatures. And + therefore as creatures are established in their proper species, though movably, by the participation of this likeness, so + by the non-participated and personal union of the Word with a creature, it was fitting that the creature should be restored + in order to its eternal and unchangeable perfection; for the craftsman by the intelligible form of his art, whereby he fashioned + his handiwork, restores it when it has fallen into ruin. Moreover, He has a particular agreement with human nature, since + the Word is a concept of the eternal Wisdom, from Whom all man's wisdom is derived. And hence man is perfected in wisdom (which + is his proper perfection, as he is rational) by participating the Word of God, as the disciple is instructed by receiving + the word of his master. Hence it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.1.5" target="asv">Ecclus. 1:5</a>): "The Word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom." And hence for the consummate perfection of man it was fitting that + the very Word of God should be personally united to + human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p7"> Secondly, the reason of this fitness may be taken from the end of the union, which is the fulfilling of predestination, i.e. + of such as are preordained to the heavenly inheritance, which is bestowed only on sons, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.17" target="asv"> Rom. 8:17</a>: "If sons, heirs also." Hence it was fitting that by Him Who is the natural Son, men should share this likeness of sonship + by adoption, as the Apostle says in the same chapter ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv">Rom. 8:29</a>): "For whom He + foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p8"> Thirdly, the reason for this fitness may be taken from the sin of our first parent, for which the Incarnation supplied the + remedy. For the first man sinned by seeking knowledge, as is plain from the words of the serpent, promising to man the knowledge + of good and evil. Hence it was fitting that by the Word of true knowledge man might be led back to God, having wandered from + God through an inordinate thirst for knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> There is nothing which human malice cannot abuse, since it even abuses God's goodness, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.4" target="asv"> Rom. 2:4</a>: "Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness?" Hence, even if the Person of the Father had become incarnate, men would + have been capable of finding an occasion of error, as though the Son were not able to restore human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The first creation of things was made by the power of God the Father through the Word; hence the second creation ought to + have been brought about through the Word, by the power of God the Father, in order that restoration should correspond to creation + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q3_A8-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.19" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:19</a>: "For God indeed was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To be the gift of the Father and the Son is proper to the Holy Ghost. But the remission of sins is caused by the Holy Ghost, + as by the gift of God. And hence it was more fitting to man's justification that the Son should become incarnate, Whose gift + the Holy Ghost is. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q3_A8-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q2_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q4" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q4-p0.1">OF THE MODE OF UNION ON THE PART OF THE HUMAN NATURE (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4-p2"> We must now consider the union on the part of what was assumed. About which we must consider first what things were assumed + by the Word of God; secondly, what were co-assumed, whether perfections or defects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4-p3"> Now the Son of God assumed human nature and its parts. Hence a threefold consideration arises. First, with regard to the + nature; secondly, with regard to its parts; thirdly, with regard to the order of the assumption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4-p4"> Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q4-p5"> (1) Whether human nature was more capable of being assumed than any other nature?</p> + <p id="TP_Q4-p6"> (2) Whether He assumed a person?</p> + <p id="TP_Q4-p7"> (3) Whether He assumed a man?</p> + <p id="TP_Q4-p8"> (4) Whether it was becoming that He should assume human nature abstracted from all individuals?</p> + <p id="TP_Q4-p9"> (5) Whether it was becoming that He should assume human nature in all its individuals?</p> + <p id="TP_Q4-p10"> (6) Whether it was becoming that He should assume human nature in any man begotten of the stock of Adam?</p> + <div id="TP_Q4_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q4_A1-p0.1">Whether human nature was more assumable by the Son of God than any other nature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that human nature is not more capable of being assumed by the Son of God than any other nature. For Augustine + says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii): "In deeds wrought miraculously the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer." Now + the power of God Who wrought the Incarnation, which is a most miraculous work, is not limited to one nature, since the power + of God is infinite. Therefore human nature is not more capable of being assumed than any + other creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, likeness is the foundation of the fittingness of the Incarnation of the Divine Person, as above stated ( + <a id="TP_Q4_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A8.html">Q[3], A[8]</a>). But as in rational creatures we find the likeness of image, so in irrational creatures we find the image of trace. Therefore + the irrational creature was as capable of assumption as human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the angelic nature we find a more perfect likeness than in human nature, as Gregory says: (Hom. de Cent. Ovib.; + xxxiv in Ev.), where he introduces + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.28.12" target="asv"> Ezech. 28:12</a>: "Thou wast the seal of resemblance." And sin is found in angels, even as in man, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Job.4.18" target="asv"> Job 4:18</a>: "And in His angels He found wickedness." Therefore the angelic nature was as capable of assumption as the nature of man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, since the highest perfection belongs to God, the more like to God a thing is, the more perfect it is. But the whole + universe is more perfect than its parts, amongst which is human nature. Therefore the whole universe is more capable of being + assumed than human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.8.31" target="asv">Prov. 8:31</a>) by the mouth of Begotten Wisdom: "My delights were to be with the children of men"; and hence there would seem some fitness + in the union of the Son of God with human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A thing is said to be assumable as being capable of being assumed by a Divine Person, and this capability cannot be taken + with reference to the natural passive power, which does not extend to what transcends the natural order, as the personal union + of a creature with God transcends it. Hence it follows that a thing is said to be assumable according to some fitness for + such a union. Now this fitness in human nature may be taken from two things, viz. according + to its dignity, and according to its need. According to its dignity, because human nature, as being rational and intellectual, + was made for attaining to the Word to some extent by its operation, viz. by knowing and loving Him. According to its need---because + it stood in need of restoration, having fallen under original sin. Now these two things belong to human nature alone. For + in the irrational creature the fitness of dignity is wanting, and in the angelic nature the aforesaid fitness of need + is wanting. Hence it follows that only human nature was assumable. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Creatures are said to be "such" with reference to their proper causes, not with reference to what belongs to them from their + first and universal causes; thus we call a disease incurable, not that it cannot be cured by God, but that it cannot be cured + by the proper principles of the subject. Therefore a creature is said to be not assumable, not as if we withdrew anything + from the power of God, but in order to show the condition of the creature, which + has no capability for this. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The likeness of image is found in human nature, forasmuch as it is capable of God, viz. by attaining to Him through its own + operation of knowledge and love. But the likeness of trace regards only a representation by Divine impression, existing in + the creature, and does not imply that the irrational creature, in which such a likeness is, can attain to God by its own operation + alone. For what does not come up to the less, has no fitness for the greater; + as a body which is not fitted to be perfected by a sensitive soul is much less fitted for an intellectual soul. Now much greater + and more perfect is the union with God in personal being than the union by operation. And hence the irrational creature which + falls short of the union with God by operation has no fitness to be united with Him in personal being. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some say that angels are not assumable, since they are perfect in their personality from the beginning of their creation, + inasmuch as they are not subject to generation and corruption; hence they cannot be assumed to the unity of a Divine Person, + unless their personality be destroyed, and this does not befit the incorruptibility of their nature nor the goodness of the + one assuming, to Whom it does not belong to corrupt any perfection in the creature + assumed. But this would not seem totally to disprove the fitness of the angelic nature for being assumed. For God by producing + a new angelic nature could join it to Himself in unity of Person, and in this way nothing pre-existing would be corrupted + in it. But as was said above, there is wanting the fitness of need, because, although the angelic nature in some is the subject + of sin, their sin is irremediable, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q4_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q64_A2.html">FP, Q[64], A[2]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The perfection of the universe is not the perfection of one person or suppositum, but of something which is one by position + or order, whereof very many parts are not capable of assumption, as was said above. Hence it follows that only human nature + is capable of being assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A1-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q4_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q4_A2-p0.1">Whether the Son of God assumed a person? </h4> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God assumed a person. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) that the Son of God "assumed + human nature 'in atomo,'" i.e. in an individual. But an individual in rational nature is a person, as is plain from Boethius + (De Duab. Nat.). Therefore the Son of God assumed a person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that the Son of God "assumed what He had sown in our nature." But He sowed + our personality there. Therefore the Son of God assumed a person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, nothing is absorbed unless it exist. But Innocent III [*Paschas. Diac., De Spiritu Sanct. ii] says in a Decretal + that "the Person of God absorbed the person of man." Therefore it would seem that the person of man existed previous to its + being assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum ii) that "God assumed the nature, not the person, of man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A thing is said to be assumed inasmuch as it is taken into another. Hence, what is assumed must be presupposed to the assumption, + as what is moved locally is presupposed to the motion. Now a person in human nature is not presupposed to assumption; rather, + it is the term of the assumption, as was said ( + <a id="TP_Q4_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html">Q[3], AA[1]</a>,2). For if it were presupposed, it must either have been corrupted---in which case it was useless; or it remains after the + union---and thus there would be two persons, one assuming and the other assumed, which is false, as was shown above ( + <a id="TP_Q4_A2-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A6.html">Q[2], A[6]</a>). Hence it follows that the Son of God nowise assumed a human person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Son of God assumed human nature "in atomo," i.e. in an individual, which is no other than the uncreated suppositum, the + Person of the Son of God. Hence it does not follow that a person was assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Its proper personality is not wanting to the nature assumed through the loss of anything pertaining to the perfection of + the human nature but through the addition of something which is above human nature, viz. the union with a Divine Person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Absorption does not here imply the destruction of anything pre-existing, but the hindering what might otherwise have been. + For if the human nature had not been assumed by a Divine Person, the human nature would have had its own personality; and + in this way is it said, although improperly, that the Person "absorbed the person," inasmuch as the Divine Person by His union + hindered the human nature from having its personality. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q4_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q4_A3-p0.1">Whether the Divine Person assumed a man?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Divine Person assumed a man. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.64.5" target="asv">Ps. 64:5</a>): "Blessed is he whom Thou hast chosen and taken to Thee," which a gloss expounds of Christ; and Augustine says (De Agone + Christ. xi): "The Son of God assumed a man, and in him bore things human." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the word "man" signifies a human nature. But the Son of God assumed a human nature. Therefore He assumed a man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Son of God is a man. But He is not one of the men He did not assume, for with equal reason He would be Peter + or any other man. Therefore He is the man whom He assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Is the authority of Felix, Pope and Martyr, which is quoted by the Council of Ephesus: "We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, + born of the Virgin Mary, because He is the Eternal Son and Word of God, and not a man assumed by God, in such sort that there + is another besides Him. For the Son of God did not assume a man, so that there be another besides Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As has been said above + <a id="TP_Q4_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q4_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, what is assumed is not the term of the assumption, but is presupposed to the assumption. Now it was said (Q[3], AA[1],2) + that the individual to Whom the human nature is assumed is none other than the Divine Person, Who is the term of the assumption. + Now this word "man" signifies human nature, as it is in a suppositum, because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4,11), + this word God signifies Him Who + has human nature. And hence it cannot properly be said that the Son assumed a man, granted (as it must be, in fact) that in + Christ there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis. But according to such as hold that there are two hypostases or two + supposita in Christ, it may fittingly and properly be said that the Son of God assumed a man. Hence the first opinion quoted + in Sent. iii, D. 6, grants that a man was assumed. But this opinion is erroneous, as was said above (Q[2], A[6]). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These phrases are not to be taken too literally, but are to be loyally explained, wherever they are used by holy doctors; + so as to say that a man was assumed, inasmuch as his nature was assumed; and because the assumption terminated in this---that + the Son of God is man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The word "man" signifies human nature in the concrete, inasmuch as it is in a suppositum; and hence, since we cannot say + a suppositum was assumed, so we cannot say a man was assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Son of God is not the man whom He assumed, but the man whose nature He assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q4_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q4_A4-p0.1">Whether the Son of God ought to have assumed human nature abstracted from all individuals?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God ought to have assumed human nature abstracted from all individuals. For the assumption + of human nature took place for the common salvation of all men; hence it is said of Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.4.10" target="asv">1 Tim. 4:10</a>) that He is "the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful." But nature as it is in individuals withdraws from its universality. + Therefore the Son of God ought to have assumed human nature as it is abstracted from + all individuals. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is noblest in all things ought to be attributed to God. But in every genus what is of itself is best. Therefore + the Son of God ought to have assumed self-existing [per se] man, which, according to Platonists, is human nature abstracted + from its individuals. Therefore the Son of God ought to have assumed this. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human nature was not assumed by the Son of God in the concrete as is signified by the word "man," as was said above + + <a id="TP_Q4_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q4_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Now in this way it signifies human nature as it is in individuals, as is plain from what has been said + <a id="TP_Q4_A4-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q4_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore the Son of God assumed human nature as it is separated from individuals. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11): "God the Word Incarnate did not assume a nature which exists in pure thought; for + this would have been no Incarnation, but a false and fictitious Incarnation." But human nature as it is separated or abstracted + from individuals is "taken to be a pure conception, since it does not exist in itself," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, + 11). Therefore the Son of God did not assume human nature, as it is separated from + individuals. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The nature of man or of any other sensible thing, beyond the being which it has in individuals, may be taken in two ways: + first, as if it had being of itself, away from matter, as the Platonists held; secondly, as existing in an intellect either + human or Divine. Now it cannot subsist of itself, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. vii, 26,27,29,51), because sensible matter + belongs to the specific nature of sensible things, and is placed in its definition, as + flesh and bones in the definition of man. Hence human nature cannot be without sensible matter. Nevertheless, if human nature + were subsistent in this way, it would not be fitting that it should be assumed by the Word of God. First, because this assumption + is terminated in a Person, and it is contrary to the nature of a common form to be thus individualized in a person. Secondly, + because to a common nature can only be attributed common and universal operations, according to which man neither + merits nor demerits, whereas, on the contrary, the assumption took place in order that the Son of God, having assumed our + nature, might merit for us. Thirdly, because a nature so existing would not be sensible, but intelligible. But the Son of + God assumed human nature in order to show Himself in men's sight, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Bar.3.38" target="asv"> Baruch 3:38</a>: "Afterwards He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p7"> Likewise, neither could human nature have been assumed by the Son of God, as it is in the Divine intellect, since it would + be none other than the Divine Nature; and, according to this, human nature would be in the Son of God from eternity. Neither + can we say that the Son of God assumed human nature as it is in a human intellect, for this would mean nothing else but that + He is understood to assume a human nature; and thus if He did not assume it in reality, this would be a false + understanding; nor would this assumption of the human nature be anything but a fictitious Incarnation, as Damascene says (De + Fide Orth. iii, 11). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The incarnate Son of God is the common Saviour of all, not by a generic or specific community, such as is attributed to the + nature separated from the individuals, but by a community of cause, whereby the incarnate Son of God is the universal cause + of human salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Self-existing [per se] man is not to be found in nature in such a way as to be outside the singular, as the Platonists held, + although some say Plato believed that the separate man was only in the Divine intellect. And hence it was not necessary for + it to be assumed by the Word, since it had been with Him from eternity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although human nature was not assumed in the concrete, as if the suppositum were presupposed to the assumption, nevertheless + it is assumed in an individual, since it is assumed so as to be in an individual. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q4_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q4_A5-p0.1">Whether the Son of God ought to have assumed human nature in all individuals?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God ought to have assumed human nature in all individuals. For what is assumed first and by + itself is human nature. But what belongs essentially to a nature belongs to all who exist in the nature. Therefore it was + fitting that human nature should be assumed by the Word of God in all its supposita. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Divine Incarnation proceeded from Divine Love; hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.16" target="asv">Jn. 3:16</a>): "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son." But love makes us give ourselves to our friends as much as we + can, and it was possible for the Son of God to assume several human natures, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q4_A5-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A7.html">Q[3], A[7]</a>), and with equal reason all. Hence it was fitting for the Son of God to assume human nature in all + its supposita. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a skilful workman completes his work in the shortest manner possible. But it would have been a shorter way if all + men had been assumed to the natural sonship than for one natural Son to lead many to the adoption of sons, as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.5" target="asv"> Gal. 4:5 </a>(cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A5-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.10" target="asv"> Heb. 2:10</a>). Therefore human nature ought to have been assumed by God in all its supposita. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) that the Son of God "did not assume human nature as a species, nor did He assume all + its hypostases." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was unfitting for human nature to be assumed by the Word in all its supposita. First, because the multitude of supposita + of human nature, which are natural to it, would have been taken away. For since we must not see any other suppositum in the + assumed nature, except the Person assuming, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q4_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q4_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, if there was no human nature except what was assumed, it would follow that there was but one suppositum of human nature, + which is the Person assuming. Secondly, because this would have been derogatory to the dignity of the incarnate Son of God, + as He is the First-born of many brethren, according to the human nature, even as He is the First-born of all creatures according + to the Divine, for then all men would be of equal dignity. Thirdly, because it is fitting that as one Divine suppositum is + incarnate, so He should assume one human nature, so that on both sides unity might be found. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To be assumed belongs to the human nature of itself, because it does not belong to it by reason of a person, as it belongs + to the Divine Nature to assume by reason of the Person; not, however, that it belongs to it of itself as if belonging to its + essential principles, or as its natural property in which manner it would belong to all its supposita. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The love of God to men is shown not merely in the assumption of human nature, but especially in what He suffered in human + nature for other men, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.8" target="asv"> Rom. 5:8</a>: "But God commendeth His charity towards us; because when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us," which would not + have taken place had He assumed human nature in all its supposita. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In order to shorten the way, which every skilful workman does, what can be done by one must not be done by many. Hence it + was most fitting that by one man all the rest should be saved. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q4_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q4_A6-p0.1">Whether it was fitting for the Son of God to assume human nature of the stock of Adam?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not fitting for the Son of God to assume human nature of the stock of Adam, for the Apostle says + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.26" target="asv">Heb. 7:26</a>): "For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest . . . separated from sinners." But He would have been still + further separated from sinners had He not assumed human nature of the stock of Adam, a sinner. Hence it seems that He ought + not to have assumed human nature of the stock of Adam. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in every genus the principle is nobler than what is from the principle. Hence, if He wished to assume human nature, + He ought to have assumed it in Adam himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Gentiles were greater sinners than the Jews, as a gloss says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.2.15" target="asv"> Gal. 2:15</a>: "For we by nature are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners." Hence, if He wished to assume human nature from sinners, + He ought rather to have assumed it from the Gentiles than from the stock of Abraham, who was just. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3" target="asv">Lk. 3</a>), the genealogy of our Lord is traced back to Adam. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 18): "God was able to assume human nature elsewhere than from the stock of Adam, who by + his sin had fettered the whole human race; yet God judged it better to assume human nature from the vanquished race, and thus + to vanquish the enemy of the human race." And this for three reasons: First, because it would seem to belong to justice that + he who sinned should make amends; and hence that from the nature which he had corrupted + should be assumed that whereby satisfaction was to be made for the whole nature. Secondly, it pertains to man's greater dignity + that the conqueror of the devil should spring from the stock conquered by the devil. Thirdly, because God's power is thereby + made more manifest, since, from a corrupt and weakened nature, He assumed that which was raised to such might and glory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ ought to be separated from sinners as regards sin, which He came to overthrow, and not as regards nature which He + came to save, and in which "it behooved Him in all things to be made like to His brethren," as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.17" target="asv">Heb. 2:17</a>). And in this is His innocence the more wonderful, seeing that though assumed from a mass tainted by sin, His nature was + endowed with such purity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As was said above (ad 1) it behooved Him Who came to take away sins to be separated from sinners as regards sin, to which + Adam was subject, whom Christ "brought out of his sin," as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.10.2" target="asv">Wis. 10:2</a>). For it behooved Him Who came to cleanse all, not to need cleansing Himself; just as in every genus of motion the first + mover is immovable as regards that motion, and the first to alter is itself unalterable. Hence it was not + fitting that He should assume human nature in Adam himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Since Christ ought especially to be separated from sinners as regards sin, and to possess the highest innocence, it was fitting + that between the first sinner and Christ some just men should stand midway, in whom certain forecasts of (His) future holiness + should shine forth. And hence, even in the people from whom Christ was to be born, God appointed signs of holiness, which + began in Abraham, who was the first to receive the promise of Christ, and + circumcision, as a sign that the covenant should be kept, as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q4_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.17.11" target="asv">Gn. 17:11</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q4_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q3_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q5" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q5-p0.1">OF THE PARTS OF HUMAN NATURE WHICH WERE ASSUMED (FOUR ARTICLES) </h3> + <p id="TP_Q5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q5-p2"> We must now consider the assumption of the parts of human nature; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q5-p3"> (1) Whether the Son of God ought to have assumed a true body?</p> + <p id="TP_Q5-p4"> (2) Whether He ought to have assumed an earthly body, i.e. one of flesh and blood?</p> + <p id="TP_Q5-p5"> (3) Whether He ought to have assumed a soul?</p> + <p id="TP_Q5-p6"> (4) Whether He ought to have assumed an intellect?</p> + <div id="TP_Q5_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q5_A1-p0.1">Whether the Son of God ought to have assumed a true body?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a true body. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv">Phil. 2:7</a>), that He was "made in the likeness of men." But what is something in truth is not said to be in the likeness thereof. Therefore + the Son of God did not assume a true body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the assumption of a body in no way diminishes the dignity of the Godhead; for Pope Leo says (Serm. de Nativ.) that + "the glorification did not absorb the lesser nature, nor did the assumption lessen the higher." But it pertains to the dignity + of God to be altogether separated from bodies. Therefore it seems that by the assumption God was not united to a body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, signs ought to correspond to the realities. But the apparitions of the Old Testament which were signs of the manifestation + of Christ were not in a real body, but by visions in the imagination, as is plain from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.60.1" target="asv"> Is. 60:1</a>: "I saw the Lord sitting," etc. Hence it would seem that the apparition of the Son of God in the world was not in a real + body, but only in imagination. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 13): "If the body of Christ was a phantom, Christ deceived us, and if He deceived us, He + is not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth. Therefore His body was not a phantom." Hence it is plain that He assumed a true + body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As is said (De Eccles. Dogm. ii). The Son of God was not born in appearance only, as if He had an imaginary body; but His + body was real. The proof of this is threefold. First, from the essence of human nature to which it pertains to have a true + body. Therefore granted, as already proved ( + <a id="TP_Q5_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q4_A1.html">Q[4], A[1]</a>), that it was fitting for the Son of God to assume human nature, He must consequently have assumed a real body. The second + reason is taken + from what was done in the mystery of the Incarnation. For if His body was not real but imaginary, He neither underwent a real + death, nor of those things which the Evangelists recount of Him, did He do any in very truth, but only in appearance; and + hence it would also follow that the real salvation of man has not taken place; since the effect must be proportionate to the + cause. The third reason is taken from the dignity of the Person assuming, Whom it did not become to have anything fictitious + in His work, since He is the Truth. Hence our Lord Himself deigned to refute this error ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.37" target="asv">Lk. 24:37</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.39" target="asv">39</a>), when the disciples, "troubled and frighted, supposed that they saw a spirit," and not a true body; wherefore He offered + Himself to their touch, saying: "Handle, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This likeness indicates the truth of the human nature in Christ---just as all that truly exist in human nature are said to + be like in species---and not a mere imaginary likeness. In proof of this the Apostle subjoins ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv">Phil. 2:8</a>) that He became "obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross"; which would have been impossible, had it been only + an imaginary likeness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By assuming a true body the dignity of the Son of God is nowise lessened. Hence Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad + Petrum ii): "He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, that He might become a servant; yet did He not lose the fulness + of the form of God." For the Son of God assumed a true body, not so as to become the form of a body, which is repugnant to + the Divine simplicity and purity---for this would be to assume a body to the unity + of the nature, which is impossible, as is plain from what has been stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q5_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html">Q[2], A[1]</a>): but, the natures remaining distinct, He assumed a body to the unity of Person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The figure ought to correspond to the reality as regards the likeness and not as regards the truth of the thing. For if they + were alike in all points, it would no longer be a likeness but the reality itself, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26). + Hence it was more fitting that the apparitions of the old Testament should be in appearance only, being figures; and that + the apparition of the Son of God in the world should be in a real body, being the + thing prefigured by these figures. Hence the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.17" target="asv">Col. 2:17</a>): "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q5_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q5_A2-p0.1">Whether the Son of God ought to have assumed a carnal or earthly body?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ had not a carnal or earthly, but a heavenly body. For the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.41" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:41</a>): "The first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man from heaven, heavenly." But the first man, i.e. Adam, was of the + earth as regards his body, as is plain from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.1" target="asv">Gn. 1</a>. Therefore the second man, i.e. Christ, was of heaven as regards the body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.50" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:50</a>): "Flesh and blood shall not [Vulg.: 'cannot'] possess the kingdom of God." But the kingdom of God is in Christ chiefly. + Therefore there is no flesh or blood in Him, but rather a heavenly body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whatever is best is to be attributed to God. But of all bodies a heavenly body is the best. Therefore it behooved + Christ to assume such a body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.39" target="asv">Lk. 24:39</a>): "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." Now flesh and bones are not of the matter of heavenly bodies, + but are composed of the inferior elements. Therefore the body of Christ was not a heavenly, but a carnal and earthly body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> By the reasons which proved that the body of Christ was not an imaginary one, it may also be shown that it was not a heavenly + body. First, because even as the truth of the human nature of Christ would not have been maintained had His body been an imaginary + one, such as Manes supposed, so likewise it would not have been maintained if we supposed, as did Valentine, that it was a + heavenly body. For since the form of man is a natural thing, it requires + determinate matter, to wit, flesh and bones, which must be placed in the definition of man, as is plain from the Philosopher + (Metaph. vii, 39). Secondly, because this would lessen the truth of such things as Christ did in the body. For since a heavenly + body is impassible and incorruptible, as is proved De Coel. i, 20, if the Son of God had assumed a heavenly body, He would + not have truly hungered or thirsted, nor would he have undergone His passion and death. Thirdly, this would have detracted + from God's truthfulness. For since the Son of God showed Himself to men, as if He had a carnal and earthly body, the manifestation + would have been false, had He had a heavenly body. Hence (De Eccles. Dogm. ii) it is said: "The Son of God was born, taking + flesh of the Virgin's body, and not bringing it with Him from heaven." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ is said in two ways to have come down from heaven. First, as regards His Divine Nature; not indeed that the Divine + Nature ceased to be in heaven, but inasmuch as He began to be here below in a new way, viz. by His assumed. nature, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.13" target="asv"> Jn. 3:13</a>: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of Man, Who is in heaven." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p8"> Secondly, as regards His body, not indeed that the very substance of the body of Christ descended from heaven, but that His + body was formed by a heavenly power, i.e. by the Holy Ghost. Hence Augustine, explaining the passage quoted, says (Ad Orosium + [*Dial. Qq. lxv, qu. 4, work of an unknown author]): "I call Christ a heavenly man because He was not conceived of human seed." + And Hilary expounds it in the same way (De Trin. x). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Flesh and blood are not taken here for the substance of flesh and blood, but for the corruption of flesh, which was not in + Christ as far as it was sinful; but as far as it was a punishment; thus, for a time, it was in Christ, that He might carry + through the work of our redemption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It pertains to the greatest glory of God to have raised a weak and earthly body to such sublimity. Hence in the General Council + of Ephesus (P. II, Act. I) we read the saying of St. Theophilus: "Just as the best workmen are esteemed not merely for displaying + their skill in precious materials, but very often because by making use of the poorest . . . lay and commonest earth, they + show the power of their craft; so the best of all workmen, the Word of + God, did not come down to us by taking a heavenly body of some most precious matter, but shewed the greatness of His skill + in clay." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q5_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q5_A3-p0.1">Whether the Son of God assumed a soul?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a soul. For John has said, teaching the mystery of the Incarnation ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>): "The Word was made flesh"---no mention being made of a soul. Now it is not said that "the Word was made flesh" as if changed + to flesh, but because He assumed flesh. Therefore He seems not to have assumed a soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a soul is necessary to the body, in order to quicken it. But this was not necessary for the body of Christ, as it + would seem, for of the Word of God it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.35.10" target="asv">Ps. 35:10</a>): Lord, "with Thee is the fountain of life." Therefore it would seem altogether superfluous for the soul to be there, when + the Word was present. But "God and nature do nothing uselessly," as the Philosopher says (De Coel. i, 32; ii, 56). Therefore + the Word + would seem not to have assumed a soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by the union of soul and body is constituted the common nature, which is the human species. But "in the Lord Jesus + Christ we are not to look for a common species," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3). Therefore He did not assume a soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxi): "Let us not hearken to such as say that only a human body was assumed by the Word + of God; and take 'the Word was made flesh' to mean that the man had no soul nor any other part of a man, save flesh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Haeres. 69,55), it was first of all the opinion of Arius and then of Apollinaris that the Son of God + assumed only flesh, without a soul, holding that the Word took the place of a soul to the body. And consequently it followed + that there were not two natures in Christ, but only one; for from a soul and body one human nature is constituted. But this + opinion cannot hold, for three reasons. First, because it is counter to the authority of + Scripture, in which our Lord makes mention of His soul, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.38" target="asv"> Mat. 26:38</a>: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death"; and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.10.18" target="asv"> Jn. 10:18</a>: "I have power to lay down My soul [animam meam: Douay: 'My life']." But to this Apollinaris replied that in these words + soul is taken metaphorically, in which way mention is made in the Old Testament of the soul of God ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.1.14" target="asv">Is. 1:14</a>): "My soul hateth your new moons and your solemnities." But, as Augustine says (Qq. + lxxxiii, qu. 80), the Evangelists relate how Jesus wondered, was angered, sad, and hungry. Now these show that He had a true + soul, just as that He ate, slept and was weary shows that He had a true human body: otherwise, if these things are a metaphor, + because the like are said of God in the Old Testament, the trustworthiness of the Gospel story is undermined. For it is one + thing that things were foretold in a figure, and another that historical events were related in very truth by the + Evangelists. Secondly, this error lessens the utility of the Incarnation, which is man's liberation. For Augustine [*Vigilius + Tapsensis] argues thus (Contra Felician. xiii): "If the Son of God in taking flesh passed over the soul, either He knew its + sinlessness, and trusted it did not need a remedy; or He considered it unsuitable to Him, and did not bestow on it the boon + of redemption; or He reckoned it altogether incurable, and was unable to heal it; or He cast it off as worthless and + seemingly unfit for any use. Now two of these reasons imply a blasphemy against God. For how shall we call Him omnipotent, + if He is unable to heal what is beyond hope? Or God of all, if He has not made our soul. And as regards the other two reasons, + in one the cause of the soul is ignored, and in the other no place is given to merit. Is He to be considered to understand + the cause of the soul, Who seeks to separate it from the sin of wilful transgression, enabled as it is to receive the law + by + the endowment of the habit of reason? Or how can His generosity be known to any one who says it was despised on account of + its ignoble sinfulness? If you look at its origin, the substance of the soul is more precious than the body: but if at the + sin of transgression, on account of its intelligence it is worse than the body. Now I know and declare that Christ is perfect + wisdom, nor have I any doubt that He is most loving; and because of the first of these He did not despise what was better + and + more capable of prudence; and because of the second He protected what was most wounded." Thirdly, this position is against + the truth of the Incarnation. For flesh and the other parts of man receive their species through the soul. Hence, if the soul + is absent, there are no bones nor flesh, except equivocally, as is plain from the Philosopher (De Anima ii, 9; Metaph. vii, + 34). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When we say, "The Word was made flesh," "flesh" is taken for the whole man, as if we were to say, "The Word was made man," + as + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.40.5" target="asv">Is. 40:5</a>: "All flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord hath spoken." And the whole man is signified by flesh, because, + as is said in the authority quoted, the Son of God became visible by flesh; hence it is subjoined: "And we saw His glory." + Or because, as Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 80), "in all that union the + Word is the highest, and flesh the last and lowest. Hence, wishing to commend the love of God's humility to us, the Evangelist + mentioned the Word and flesh, leaving the soul on one side, since it is less than the Word and nobler than flesh." Again, + it was reasonable to mention flesh, which, as being farther away from the Word, was less assumable, as it would seem. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Word is the fountain of life, as the first effective cause of life; but the soul is the principle of the life of the + body, as its form. Now the form is the effect of the agent. Hence from the presence of the Word it might rather have been + concluded that the body was animated, just as from the presence of fire it may be concluded that the body, in which fire adheres, + is warm. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is not unfitting, indeed it is necessary to say that in Christ there was a nature which was constituted by the soul coming + to the body. But Damascene denied that in Jesus Christ there was a common species, i.e. a third something resulting from the + Godhead and the humanity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q5_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q5_A4-p0.1">Whether the Son of God assumed a human mind or intellect?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a human mind or intellect. For where a thing is present, its image is not + required. But man is made to God's image, as regards his mind, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 3,6). Hence, since in Christ + there was the presence of the Divine Word itself, there was no need of a human mind. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the greater light dims the lesser. But the Word of God, Who is "the light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh + into this world," as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.9" target="asv"> Jn. 1:9, </a> is compared to the mind as the greater light to the lesser; since our mind is a light, being as it were a lamp enkindled + by the First Light ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.20.27" target="asv">Prov. 20:27</a>): "The spirit of a man is the lamp of the Lord." Therefore in Christ Who is the Word of God, there is + no need of a human mind. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the assumption of human nature by the Word of God is called His Incarnation. But the intellect or human mind is + nothing carnal, either in its substance or in its act. for it is not the act of a body, as is proved De Anima iii, 6. Hence + it would seem that the Son of God did not assume a human mind. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum xiv): "Firmly hold and nowise doubt that Christ the Son of God has true flesh + and a rational soul of the same kind as ours, since of His flesh He says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.39" target="asv">Lk. 24:39</a>): 'Handle, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have.' And He proves that He has a soul, saying + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A4-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.10.17" target="asv">Jn. 10:17</a>): 'I lay down My soul [Douay: 'life'] that I may take it again.' And He proves that He has an + intellect, saying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A4-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.29" target="asv">Mat. 11:29</a>): 'Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart.' And God says of Him by the prophet ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A4-p5.4" href="./asv.html#Isa.52.13" target="asv">Is. 52:13</a>): 'Behold my servant shall understand.'" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Haeres. 49,50), "the Apollinarists thought differently from the Catholic Church concerning the soul + of Christ, saying with the Arians, that Christ took flesh alone, without a soul; and on being overcome on this point by the + Gospel witness, they went on to say that the mind was wanting to Christ's soul, but that the Word supplied its place." But + this position is refuted by the same arguments as the preceding. First, because it runs + counter to the Gospel story, which relates how He marveled (as is plain from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q5_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.10" target="asv"> Mat. 8:10</a>). Now marveling cannot be without reason, since it implies the collation of effect and cause, i.e. inasmuch as when we see + an effect and are ignorant of its cause, we seek to know it, as is said Metaph. i, 2. Secondly, it is inconsistent with the + purpose of the Incarnation, which is the justification of man from sin. For the human soul is not capable of sin nor of justifying + grace except + through the mind. Hence it was especially necessary for the mind to be assumed. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) + that "the Word of God assumed a body and an intellectual and rational soul," and adds afterwards: "The whole was united to + the whole, that He might bestow salvation on me wholly; for what was not assumed is not curable." Thirdly, it is against the + truth of the Incarnation. For since the body is proportioned to the soul as matter to its proper form, it is not truly human + flesh if it is not perfected by human, i.e. a rational soul. And hence if Christ had had a soul without a mind, He would not + have had true human flesh, but irrational flesh, since our soul differs from an animal soul by the mind alone. Hence Augustine + says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 80) that from this error it would have followed that the Son of God "took an animal with the form of + a human body," which, again, is against the Divine truth, which cannot suffer any fictitious untruth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Where a thing is by its presence, its image is not required to supply the place of the thing, as where the emperor is the + soldiers do not pay homage to his image. Yet the image of a thing is required together with its presence, that it may be perfected + by the presence of the thing, just as the image in the wax is perfected by the impression of the seal, and as the image of + man is reflected in the mirror by his presence. Hence in order to perfect the + human mind it was necessary that the Word should unite it to Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The greater light dims the lesser light of another luminous body; but it does not dim, rather it perfects the light of the + body illuminated---at the presence of the sun the light of the stars is put out, but the light of the air is perfected. Now + the intellect or mind of man is, as it were, a light lit up by the light of the Divine Word; and hence by the presence of + the Word the mind of man is perfected rather than overshadowed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the intellective power is not the act of a body, nevertheless the essence of the human soul, which is the form of + the body, requires that it should be more noble, in order that it may have the power of understanding; and hence it is necessary + that a better disposed body should correspond to it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q5_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q4_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q6" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q6-p0.1">OF THE ORDER OF ASSUMPTION (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6-p2"> We must now consider the order of the foregoing assumption, and under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q6-p3"> (1) Whether the Son of God assumed flesh through the medium of the soul?</p> + <p id="TP_Q6-p4"> (2) Whether He assumed the soul through the medium of the spirit or mind?</p> + <p id="TP_Q6-p5"> (3) Whether the soul was assumed previous to the flesh?</p> + <p id="TP_Q6-p6"> (4) Whether the flesh of Christ was assumed by the Word previous to being united to the soul?</p> + <p id="TP_Q6-p7"> (5) Whether the whole human nature was assumed through the medium of the parts?</p> + <p id="TP_Q6-p8"> (6) Whether it was assumed through the medium of grace?</p> + <div id="TP_Q6_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q6_A1-p0.1">Whether the Son of God assumed flesh through the medium of the soul?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God did not assume flesh through the medium of the soul. For the mode in which the Son of God + is united to human nature and its parts, is more perfect than the mode whereby He is in all creatures. But He is in all creatures + immediately by essence, power and presence. Much more, therefore, is the Son of God united to flesh without the medium of + the soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the soul and flesh are united to the Word of God in unity of hypostasis or person. But the body pertains immediately + to the human hypostasis or person, even as the soul. Indeed, the human body, since it is matter, would rather seem to be nearer + the hypostasis than the soul, which is a form, since the principle of individuation, which is implied in the word "hypostasis," + would seem to be matter. Hence the Son of God did not assume flesh through the + medium of the soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, take away the medium and you separate what were joined by the medium; for example, if the superficies be removed + color would leave the body, since it adheres to the body through the medium of the superficies. But though the soul was separated + from the body by death, yet there still remained the union of the Word to the flesh, as will be shown ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q50_A2.html">Q[50], AA[2]</a>,3). Hence the Word was not joined to flesh through the medium of the + soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvi): "The greatness of the Divine power fitted to itself a rational soul, and through + it a human body, so as to raise the whole man to something higher." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A medium is in reference to a beginning and an end. Hence as beginning and end imply order, so also does a medium. Now there + is a twofold order: one, of time; the other, of nature. But in the mystery of the Incarnation nothing is said to be a medium + in the order of time, for the Word of God united the whole human nature to Himself at the same time, as will appear ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q30_A3.html">Q[30], A[3]</a>). An order of nature between things may be taken in two + ways: first, as regards rank of dignity, as we say the angels are midway between man and God; secondly, as regards the idea + of causality, as we say a cause is midway between the first cause and the last effect. And this second order follows the first + to some extent; for as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. xiii), God acts upon the more remote substances through the less remote. + Hence if we consider the rank of dignity, the soul is found to be midway between God and flesh; and in this way it may be + said that the Son of God united flesh to Himself, through the medium of the soul. But even as regards the second order of + causality the soul is to some extent the cause of flesh being united to the Son of God. For the flesh would not have been + assumable, except by its relation to the rational soul, through which it becomes human flesh. For it was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q4_A1.html">Q[4], A[1]</a>) that human nature was assumable before all others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We may consider a twofold order between creatures and God: the first is by reason of creatures being caused by God and depending + on Him as on the principle of their being; and thus on account of the infinitude of His power God touches each thing immediately, + by causing and preserving it, and so it is that God is in all things by essence, presence and power. But the second order + is by reason of things being directed to God as to their end; and it is + here that there is a medium between the creature and God, since lower creatures are directed to God by higher, as Dionysius + says (Eccl. Hier. v); and to this order pertains the assumption of human nature by the Word of God, Who is the term of the + assumption; and hence it is united to flesh through the soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If the hypostasis of the Word of God were constituted simply by human nature, it would follow that the body was nearest to + it, since it is matter which is the principle of individuation; even as the soul, being the specific form, would be nearer + the human nature. But because the hypostasis of the Word is prior to and more exalted than the human nature, the more exalted + any part of the human nature is, the nearer it is to the hypostasis of the Word. + And hence the soul is nearer the Word of God than the body is. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Nothing prevents one thing being the cause of the aptitude and congruity of another, and yet if it be taken away the other + remains; because although a thing's becoming may depend on another, yet when it is in being it no longer depends on it, just + as a friendship brought about by some other may endure when the latter has gone; or as a woman is taken in marriage on account + of her beauty, which makes a woman's fittingness for the marriage tie, yet when + her beauty passes away, the marriage tie still remains. So likewise, when the soul was separated, the union of the Word with + flesh still endured. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q6_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q6_A2-p0.1">Whether the Son of God assumed a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind. For nothing is a medium + between itself and another. But the spirit is nothing else in essence but the soul itself, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q77_A1.html">FP, Q[77], A[1]</a>, ad 1). Therefore the Son of God did not assume a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is the medium of the assumption is itself more assumable. But the spirit or mind is not more assumable than + the soul; which is plain from the fact that angelic spirits are not assumable, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q4_A1.html">Q[4], A[1]</a>). Hence it seems that the Son of God did not assume a soul through the medium of the spirit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which comes later is assumed by the first through the medium of what comes before. But the soul implies the + very essence, which naturally comes before its power---the mind. Therefore it would seem that the Son of God did not assume + a soul through the medium of the spirit or mind. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xviii): "The invisible and unchangeable Truth took a soul by means of the spirit, and a + body by means of the soul." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q6_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the Son of God is said to have assumed flesh through the medium of the soul, on account of the order of dignity, and the + congruity of the assumption. Now both these may be applied to the intellect, which is called the spirit, if we compare it + with the other parts of the soul. For the soul is assumed congruously only inasmuch as it has a capacity for God, being in + His likeness: which is in respect of the mind + that is called the spirit, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q6_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.23" target="asv">Eph. 4:23</a>: "Be renewed in the spirit of your mind." So, too, the intellect is the highest and noblest of the parts of the soul, and + the most like to God, and hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that "the Word of God is united to flesh through the + medium of the intellect; for the intellect is the purest part of the soul, God Himself being an intellect." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the intellect is not distinct from the soul in essence, it is distinct from the other parts of the soul as a power; + and it is in this way that it has the nature of a medium. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Fitness for assumption is wanting to the angelic spirits, not from any lack of dignity, but because of the irremediableness + of their fall, which cannot be said of the human spirit, as is clear from what has been said above ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q62_A8.html">FP, Q[62], A[8]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q6_A2-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q64_A2.html">FP, Q[64], A[2]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The soul, between which and the Word of God the intellect is said to be a medium, does not stand for the essence of the soul, + which is common to all the powers, but for the lower powers, which are common to every soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q6_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q6_A3-p0.1">Whether the soul was assumed before the flesh by the Son of God?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ was assumed before the flesh by the Word. For the Son of God assumed flesh through + the medium of the soul, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q6_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Now the medium is reached before the end. Therefore the Son of God assumed the soul before the body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the soul of Christ is nobler than the angels, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q6_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.96.8" target="asv"> Ps. 96:8</a>: "Adore Him, all you His angels." But the angels were created in the beginning, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A3-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q46_A3.html">FP, Q[46], A[3]</a>). Therefore the soul of Christ also (was created in the beginning). But it was not created before it was assumed, for Damascene + says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2,3,9), that "neither the soul nor the body of Christ ever had any + hypostasis save the hypostasis of the Word." Therefore it would seem that the soul was assumed before the flesh, which was + conceived in the womb of the Virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q6_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>): "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] full of grace and truth," and it is added afterwards that "of His fulness we have all + received" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q6_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv">Jn. 1:16</a>), i.e. all the faithful of all time, as Chrysostom expounds it (Hom. xiii in Joan.). Now this could not have been unless + the soul of Christ had all fulness of grace and truth before all the saints, who were from the beginning of the world, for + the + cause is not subsequent to the effect. Hence since the fulness of grace and truth was in the soul of Christ from union with + the Word, according to what is written in the same place: "We saw His glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of + the Father, full of grace and truth," it would seem in consequence that from the beginning of the world the soul of Christ + was assumed by the Word of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 6): "The intellect was not, as some untruthfully say, united to the true God, and henceforth + called Christ, before the Incarnation which was of the Virgin." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Origen (Peri Archon i, 7,8; ii, 8) maintained that all souls, amongst which he placed Christ's soul, were created in the + beginning. But this is not fitting, if we suppose that it was first of all created, but not at once joined to the Word, since + it would follow that this soul once had its proper subsistence without the Word; and thus, since it was assumed by the Word, + either the union did not take place in the subsistence, or the pre-existing subsistence of + the soul was corrupted. So likewise it is not fitting to suppose that this soul was united to the Word from the beginning, + and that it afterwards became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin; for thus His soul would not seem to be of the same nature + as ours, which are created at the same time that they are infused into bodies. Hence Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Julian. xxxv) that + "Christ's flesh was not of a different nature to ours, nor was a different soul infused into it in the beginning than into + other men." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As was said above + <a id="TP_Q6_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the soul of Christ is said to be the medium in the union of the flesh with the Word, in the order of nature; but it does + not follow from this that it was the medium in the order of time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Pope Leo says in the same Epistle, Christ's soul excels our soul "not by diversity of genus, but by sublimity of power"; + for it is of the same genus as our souls, yet excels even the angels in "fulness of grace and truth." But the mode of creation + is in harmony with the generic property of the soul; and since it is the form of the body, it is consequently created at the + same time that it is infused into and united with the body; which does not + happen to angels, since they are substances entirely free from matter. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Of the fulness of Christ all men receive according to the faith they have in Him; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q6_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.22" target="asv">Rom. 3:22</a>) that "the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe in Him." Now just as we believe + in Him as already born; so the ancients believed in Him as about to be born, since "having the same spirit of faith . . . + we also believe," as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q6_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.4.13" target="asv">2 Cor. 4:13</a>). But + the faith which is in Christ has the power of justifying by reason of the purpose of the grace of God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q6_A3-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.5" target="asv"> Rom. 4:5</a>: "But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice according + to the purpose of the grace of God." Hence because this purpose is eternal, there is nothing to hinder some from being justified + by the faith of Jesus Christ, even before His soul was full of grace and truth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q6_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q6_A4-p0.1">Whether the flesh of Christ was assumed by the Word before being united to the soul?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the flesh of Christ was assumed by the Word before being united to the soul. For Augustine [*Fulgentius] + says (De Fide ad Petrum xviii): "Most firmly hold, and nowise doubt that the flesh of Christ was not conceived in the womb + of the Virgin without the Godhead before it was assumed by the Word." But the flesh of Christ would seem to have been conceived + before being united to the rational soul, because matter or disposition is prior to the + completive form in order of generation. Therefore the flesh of Christ was assumed before being united to the soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as the soul is a part of human nature, so is the body. But the human soul in Christ had no other principle of being + than in other men, as is clear from the authority of Pope Leo, quoted above (A[3] ). Therefore it would seem that the body + of Christ had no other principle of being than we have. But in us the body is begotten before the rational soul comes to it. + Therefore it was the same in Christ; and thus the flesh was assumed by the Word before + being united to the soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as is said (De Causis), the first cause excels the second in bringing about the effect, and precedes it in its union + with the effect. But the soul of Christ is compared to the Word as a second cause to a first. Hence the Word was united to + the flesh before it was to the soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2): "At the same time the Word of God was made flesh, and flesh was united to a rational + and intellectual soul." Therefore the union of the Word with the flesh did not precede the union with the soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The human flesh is assumable by the Word on account of the order which it has to the rational soul as to its proper form. + Now it has not this order before the rational soul comes to it, because when any matter becomes proper to any form, at the + same time it receives that form; hence the alteration is terminated at the same instant in which the substantial form is introduced. + And hence it is that the flesh ought not to have been assumed before it was human + flesh; and this happened when the rational soul came to it. Therefore since the soul was not assumed before the flesh, inasmuch + as it is against the nature of the soul to be before it is united to the body, so likewise the flesh ought not to have been + assumed before the soul, since it is not human flesh before it has a rational soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Human flesh depends upon the soul for its being; and hence, before the coming of the soul, there is no human flesh, but there + may be a disposition towards human flesh. Yet in the conception of Christ, the Holy Ghost, Who is an agent of infinite might, + disposed the matter and brought it to its perfection at the same time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The form actually gives the species; but the matter in itself is in potentiality to the species. And hence it would be against + the nature of a form to exist before the specific nature. And therefore the dissimilarity between our origin and Christ's + origin, inasmuch as we are conceived before being animated, and Christ's flesh is not, is by reason of what precedes the perfection + of the nature, viz. that we are conceived from the seed of man, and Christ + is not. But a difference which would be with reference to the origin of the soul, would bespeak a diversity of nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Word of God is understood to be united to the flesh before the soul by the common mode whereby He is in the rest of creatures + by essence, power, and presence. Yet I say "before," not in time, but in nature; for the flesh is understood as a being, which + it has from the Word, before it is understood as animated, which it has from the soul. But by the personal union we understand + the flesh as united to the soul before it is united to the Word, for it + is from its union with the soul that it is capable of being united to the Word in Person; especially since a person is found + only in the rational nature + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q6_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q6_A5-p0.1">Whether the whole human nature was assumed through the medium of the parts?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God assumed the whole human nature through the medium of its parts. For Augustine says (De + Agone Christ. xviii) that "the invisible and unchangeable Truth assumed the soul through the medium of the spirit, and the + body through the medium of the soul, and in this way the whole man." But the spirit, soul, and body are parts of the whole + man. Therefore He assumed all, through the medium of the parts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Son of God assumed flesh through the medium of the soul because the soul is more like to God than the body. + But the parts of human nature, since they are simpler than the body, would seem to be more like to God, Who is most simple, + than the whole. Therefore He assumed the whole through the medium of the parts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the whole results from the union of parts. But the union is taken to be the term of the assumption, and the parts + are presupposed to the assumption. Therefore He assumed the whole by the parts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 16): "In our Lord Jesus Christ we do not behold parts of parts, but such as are immediately + joined, i.e. the Godhead and the manhood." Now the humanity is a whole, which is composed of soul and body, as parts. Therefore + the Son of God assumed the parts through the medium of the whole. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> When anything is said to be a medium in the assumption of the Incarnation, we do not signify order of time, because the assumption + of the whole and the parts was simultaneous. For it has been shown ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A3.html">AA[3]</a> ,4) that the soul and body were mutually united at the same time in order to constitute the human nature of the Word. But + it is order of nature that is signified. Hence by what is prior in nature, that is assumed which is posterior + in nature. Now a thing is prior in nature in two ways: First on the part of the agent, secondly on the part of the matter; + for these two causes precede the thing. On the part of the agent---that is simply first, which is first included in his intention; + but that is relatively first, with which his operation begins---and this because the intention is prior to the operation. + On the part of the matter---that is first which exists first in the transmutation of the matter. Now in the Incarnation the + order depending on the agent must be particularly considered, because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii), "in + such things the whole reason of the deed is the power of the doer." But it is manifest that, according to the intention of + the doer, what is complete is prior to what is incomplete, and, consequently, the whole to the parts. Hence it must be said + that the Word of God assumed the parts of human nature, through the medium of the whole; for even as He assumed the body on + account of its relation to the rational soul, so likewise He assumed a body and soul on account of their relation to human + nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> From these words nothing may be gathered, except that the Word, by assuming the parts of human nature, assumed the whole + human nature. And thus the assumption of parts is prior in the order of the intellect, if we consider the operation, but not + in order of time; whereas the assumption of the nature is prior if we consider the intention: and this is to be simply first, + as was said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> God is so simple that He is also most perfect; and hence the whole is more like to God than the parts, inasmuch as it is + more perfect. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is a personal union wherein the assumption is terminated, not a union of nature, which springs from a conjunction of parts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q6_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q6_A6-p0.1">Whether the human nature was assumed through the medium of grace?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God assumed human nature through the medium of grace. For by grace we are united to God. But + the human nature in Christ was most closely united to God. Therefore the union took place by grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as the body lives by the soul, which is its perfection, so does the soul by grace. But the human nature was fitted + for the assumption by the soul. Therefore the Son of God assumed the soul through the medium of grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 11) that the incarnate Word is like our spoken word. But our word is united to our + speech by means of "breathing" [spiritus]. Therefore the Word of God is united to flesh by means of the Holy Spirit, and hence + by means of grace, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q6_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:4</a>: "Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Grace is an accident in the soul, as was shown above ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A2.html">FS, Q[110], A[2]</a>). Now the union of the Word with human nature took place in the subsistence, and not accidentally, as was shown above (Q[2], + A[6]). Therefore the human nature was not assumed by means of grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In Christ there was the grace of union and habitual grace. Therefore grace cannot be taken to be the medium of the assumption + of the human nature, whether we speak of the grace of union or of habitual grace. For the grace of union is the personal being + that is given gratis from above to the human nature in the Person of the Word, and is the term of the assumption. Whereas + the habitual grace pertaining to the spiritual holiness of the man is an effect + following the union, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q6_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14</a>: "We saw His glory . . . as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"---by which we are given + to understand that because this Man (as a result of the union) is the Only-begotten of the Father, He is full of grace and + truth. But if by grace we understand the will of God doing or bestowing something gratis, the union took place by grace, not + as a means, but as the efficient cause. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our union with God is by operation, inasmuch as we know and love Him; and hence this union is by habitual grace, inasmuch + as a perfect operation proceeds from a habit. Now the union of the human nature with the Word of God is in personal being, + which depends not on any habit, but on the nature itself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The soul is the substantial perfection of the body; grace is but an accidental perfection of the soul. Hence grace cannot + ordain the soul to personal union, which is not accidental, as the soul ordains the body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Our word is united to our speech, by means of breathing [spiritus], not as a formal medium, but as a moving medium. For from + the word conceived within, the breathing proceeds, from which the speech is formed. And similarly from the eternal Word proceeds + the Holy Spirit, Who formed the body of Christ, as will be shown ( + <a id="TP_Q6_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q32_A1.html">Q[32], A[1]</a>). But it does not follow from this that the grace of the Holy Spirit is the formal medium in the + aforesaid union. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q6_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q5_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q7-p0.1">OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAN (THIRTEEN ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p2"> We must now consider such things as were co-assumed by the Son of God in human nature; and first what belongs to perfection; + secondly, what belongs to defect. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p3"> Concerning the first, there are three points of consideration: (1) The grace of Christ; (2) His knowledge; (3) His power.</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p4"> With regard to His grace we must consider two things: (1) His grace as He is an individual man; (2) His grace as He is the + Head of the Church. Of the grace of union we have already spoken ( + <a id="TP_Q7-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2.html">Q[2])</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p5"> Under the first head there are thirteen points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p6"> (1) Whether in the soul of Christ there was any habitual grace?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p7"> (2) Whether in Christ there were virtues?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p8"> (3) Whether He had faith?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p9"> (4) Whether He had hope?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p10"> (5) Whether in Christ there were the gifts?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p11"> (6) Whether in Christ there was the gift of fear?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p12"> (7) Whether in Christ there were any gratuitous graces?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p13"> (8) Whether in Christ there was prophecy?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p14"> (9) Whether there was the fulness of grace in Him?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p15"> (10) Whether such fulness was proper to Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p16"> (11) Whether the grace of Christ was infinite?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p17"> (12) Whether it could have been increased?</p> + <p id="TP_Q7-p18"> (13) How this grace stood towards the union?</p> + <div id="TP_Q7_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A1-p0.1">Whether in the Soul of Christ there was any habitual grace?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem there was no habitual grace in the soul assumed by the Word. For grace is a certain partaking of the Godhead + by the rational creature, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiPet.1.4" target="asv">2 Pet. 1:4</a>: "By Whom He hath given us most great and precious promises, that by these you may be made partakers of the Divine Nature." + Now Christ is God not by participation, but in truth. Therefore there was no habitual grace in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, grace is necessary to man, that he may operate well, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:10</a>: "I have labored more abundantly than all they; yet not I, but the grace of God with me"; and in order that he may reach + eternal life, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.23" target="asv"> Rom. 6:23</a>: "The grace of God (is) life everlasting." Now the inheritance of everlasting life was due to Christ by the mere fact of + His being the natural Son of God; and by the fact of His + being the Word, by Whom all things were made, He had the power of doing all things well. Therefore His human nature needed + no further grace beyond union with the Word. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what operates as an instrument does not need a habit for its own operations, since habits are rooted in the principal + agent. Now the human nature in Christ was "as the instrument of the Godhead," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15). Therefore + there was no need of habitual grace in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.11.2" target="asv">Is. 11:2</a>): "The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him"---which (Spirit), indeed, is said to be in man by habitual grace, as was said + above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A1-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q8_A3.html">FP, Q[8], A[3]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q7_A1-p5.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q43_A3.html">FP, Q[43], AA[3]</a>,6). Therefore there was habitual grace in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It is necessary to suppose habitual grace in Christ for three reasons. First, on account of the union of His soul with the + Word of God. For the nearer any recipient is to an inflowing cause, the more does it partake of its influence. Now the influx + of grace is from God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.83.12" target="asv"> Ps. 83:12</a>: "The Lord will give grace and glory." And hence it was most fitting that His soul should receive the influx of Divine grace. + Secondly, on account + of the dignity of this soul, whose operations were to attain so closely to God by knowledge and love, to which it is necessary + for human nature to be raised by grace. Thirdly, on account of the relation of Christ to the human race. For Christ, as man, + is the "Mediator of God and men," as is written, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.5" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:5</a>; and hence it behooved Him to have grace which would overflow upon others, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv"> Jn. 1:16</a>: "And of His fulness we have all received, and + grace for grace." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ is the true God in Divine Person and Nature. Yet because together with unity of person there remains distinction of + natures, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html">Q[2], AA[1]</a>,2), the soul of Christ. is not essentially Divine. Hence it behooves it to be Divine by participation, which is by grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To Christ, inasmuch as He is the natural Son of God, is due an eternal inheritance, which is the uncreated beatitude through + the uncreated act of knowledge and love of God, i.e. the same whereby the Father knows and loves Himself. Now the soul was + not capable of this act, on account of the difference of natures. Hence it behooved it to attain to God by a created act of + fruition which could not be without grace. Likewise, inasmuch as He was the Word of + God, He had the power of doing all things well by the Divine operation. And because it is necessary to admit a human operation, + distinct from the Divine operation, as will be shown ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q19_A1.html">Q[19], A[1]</a>), it was necessary for Him to have habitual grace, whereby this operation might be perfect in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The humanity of Christ is the instrument of the Godhead---not, indeed, an inanimate instrument, which nowise acts, but is + merely acted upon; but an instrument animated by a rational soul, which is so acted upon as to act. And hence the nature of + the action demanded that he should have habitual grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A2-p0.1">Whether in Christ there were virtues?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there were no virtues. For Christ had the plenitude of grace. Now grace is sufficient for every + good act, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.9" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:9</a>: "My grace is sufficient for thee." Therefore there were no virtues in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 1), virtue is contrasted with a "certain heroic or godlike habit" which + is attributed to godlike men. But this belongs chiefly to Christ. Therefore Christ had not virtues, but something higher than + virtue. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q65_A1.html">FS, Q[65], AA[1]</a>,2), all the virtues are bound together. But it was not becoming for Christ to have all the virtues, as is clear in the case + of liberality and magnificence, for these have to do with riches, which Christ spurned, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.20" target="asv">Mat. 8:20</a>: "The Son of man hath not where to lay His head." Temperance and continence also regard wicked desires, from which Christ + was free. Therefore Christ had not the + virtues. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.1.2" target="asv"> Ps. 1:2, </a> "But His will is in the law of the Lord," a gloss says: "This refers to Christ, Who is full of all good." But a good quality + of the mind is a virtue. Therefore Christ was full of all virtue. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A3.html">FS, Q[110], AA[3]</a>,4), as grace regards the essence of the soul, so does virtue regard its power. Hence it is necessary that as the powers of + the soul flow from its essence, so do the virtues flow from grace. Now the more perfect a principle is, the more it impresses + its effects. Hence, since the grace of Christ was most perfect, there flowed from it, in consequence, the virtues which perfect + the several powers of + the soul for all the soul's acts; and thus Christ had all the virtues. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Grace suffices a man for all whereby he is ordained to beatitude; nevertheless, it effects some of these by itself---as to + make him pleasing to God, and the like; and some others through the medium of the virtues which proceed from grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A heroic or godlike habit only differs from virtue commonly so called by a more perfect mode, inasmuch as one is disposed + to good in a higher way than is common to all. Hence it is not hereby proved that Christ had not the virtues, but that He + had them most perfectly beyond the common mode. In this sense Plotinus gave to a certain sublime degree of virtue the name + of "virtue of the purified soul" (cf. + <a id="TP_Q7_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q61_A5.html">FS, Q[61] , A[5]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Liberality and magnificence are praiseworthy in regard to riches, inasmuch as anyone does not esteem wealth to the extent + of wishing to retain it, so as to forego what ought to be done. But he esteems them least who wholly despises them, and casts + them aside for love of perfection. And hence by altogether contemning all riches, Christ showed the highest kind of liberality + and magnificence; although He also performed the act of liberality, as far as it + became Him, by causing to be distributed to the poor what was given to Himself. Hence, when our Lord said to Judas ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.13.21" target="asv">Jn. 13:21</a>), "That which thou dost do quickly," the disciples understood our Lord to have ordered him to give something to the poor. + But Christ had no evil desires whatever, as will be shown ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A2-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html">Q[15], AA[1]</a>,2); yet He was not thereby prevented from having temperance, which is the more perfect in man, as he is without evil desires. + Hence, + according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 9), the temperate man differs from the continent in this---that the temperate has + not the evil desires which the continent suffers. Hence, taking continence in this sense, as the Philosopher takes it, Christ, + from the very fact that He had all virtue, had not continence, since it is not a virtue, but something less than virtue. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A3-p0.1">Whether in Christ there was faith?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was faith in Christ. For faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, e.g. temperance and liberality. + Now these were in Christ, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q7_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Much more, therefore, was there faith in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ did not teach virtues which He had not Himself, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.1" target="asv"> Acts 1:1</a>: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But of Christ it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.2" target="asv">Heb. 12:2</a>) that He is "the author and finisher of our faith." Therefore there was faith in Him before all others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, everything imperfect is excluded from the blessed. But in the blessed there is faith; for on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.17" target="asv"> Rom. 1:17, </a> "the justice of God is revealed therein from faith to faith," a gloss says: "From the faith of words and hope to the faith + of things and sight." Therefore it would seem that in Christ also there was faith, since it implies nothing imperfect. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.1" target="asv">Heb. 11:1</a>): "Faith is the evidence of things that appear not." But there was nothing that did not appear to Christ, according to what + Peter said to Him ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.21.17" target="asv">Jn. 21:17</a>): "Thou knowest all things." Therefore there was no faith in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q1_A4.html">SS, Q[1], A[4]</a>), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the + object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment + of His conception Christ saw God's Essence fully, as will be made clear (Q[34], A[1]). Hence there could be no faith in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, seeing that it has to do with nobler matter; nevertheless, it implies a + certain defect with regard to that matter; and this defect was not in Christ. And hence there could be no faith in Him, although + the moral virtues were in Him, since in their nature they imply no defect with regard to their matter. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The merit of faith consists in this---that man through obedience assents to what things he does not see, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.5" target="asv"> Rom. 1:5</a>: "For obedience to the faith in all nations for His name." Now Christ had most perfect obedience to God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv"> Phil. 2:8</a>: "Becoming obedient unto death." And hence He taught nothing pertaining to merit which He did not fulfil more perfectly Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As a gloss says in the same place, faith is that "whereby such things as are not seen are believed." But faith in things + seen is improperly so called, and only after a certain similitude with regard to the certainty and firmness of the assent. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A4-p0.1">Whether in Christ there was hope?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was hope in Christ. For it is said in the Person of Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.30.1" target="asv">Ps. 30:1</a>): "In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped." But the virtue of hope is that whereby a man hopes in God. Therefore the virtue of hope + was in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, hope is the expectation of the bliss to come, as was shown above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q17_A5.html">SS, Q[17], A[5]</a>, ad 3). But Christ awaited something pertaining to bliss, viz. the glorifying of His body. Therefore it seems there was hope + in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, everyone may hope for what pertains to his perfection, if it has yet to come. But there was something still to come + pertaining to Christ's perfection, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.12" target="asv"> Eph. 4:12</a>: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up [Douay: 'edifying'] of the body of + Christ." Hence it seems that it befitted Christ to have hope. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.24" target="asv">Rom. 8:24</a>): "What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?" Thus it is clear that as faith is of the unseen, so also is hope. But there was + no faith in Christ, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q7_A4-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A1.html">(A[1])</a>: neither, consequently, was there hope. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As it is of the nature of faith that one assents to what one sees not, so is it of the nature of hope that one expects what + as yet one has not; and as faith, forasmuch as it is a theological virtue, does not regard everything unseen, but only God; + so likewise hope, as a theological virtue, has God Himself for its object, the fruition of Whom man chiefly expects by the + virtue of hope; yet, in consequence, whoever has the virtue of hope may expect the Divine + aid in other things, even as he who has the virtue of faith believes God not only in Divine things, but even in whatsoever + is divinely revealed. Now from the beginning of His conception Christ had the Divine fruition fully, as will be shown ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A4.html">Q[34], A[4]</a>), and hence he had not the virtue of hope. Nevertheless He had hope as regards such things as He did not yet possess, although + He had not faith with regard to anything; because, although He knew all things fully, + wherefore faith was altogether wanting to Him, nevertheless He did not as yet fully possess all that pertained to His perfection, + viz. immortality and glory of the body, which He could hope for. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This is said of Christ with reference to hope, not as a theological virtue, but inasmuch as He hoped for some other things + not yet possessed, as was said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The glory of the body does not pertain to beatitude as being that in which beatitude principally consists, but by a certain + outpouring from the soul's glory, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q4_A6.html">FS, Q[4], A[6]</a>). Hence hope, as a theological virtue, does not regard the bliss of the body but the soul's bliss, which consists in the + Divine fruition. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The building up of the church by the conversion of the faithful does not pertain to the perfection of Christ, whereby He + is perfect in Himself, but inasmuch as it leads others to a share of His perfection. And because hope properly regards what + is expected by him who hopes, the virtue of hope cannot properly be said to be in Christ, because of the aforesaid reason. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A5-p0.1">Whether in Christ there were the gifts?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the gifts were not in Christ. For, as is commonly said, the gifts are given to help the virtues. But what + is perfect in itself does not need an exterior help. Therefore, since the virtues of Christ were perfect, it seems there were + no gifts in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to give and to receive gifts would not seem to belong to the same; since to give pertains to one who has, and to + receive pertains to one who has not. But it belongs to Christ to give gifts according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.67.19" target="asv"> Ps. 67:19.</a> "Thou hast given gifts to men [Vulg.: 'Thou hast received gifts in men']." Therefore it was not becoming that Christ should + receive gifts of the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, four gifts would seem to pertain to the contemplation of earth, viz. wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and counsel + which pertains to prudence; hence the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 3) enumerates these with the intellectual virtues. But Christ + had the contemplation of heaven. Therefore He had not these gifts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.4.1" target="asv">Is. 4:1</a>): "Seven women shall take hold of one man": on which a gloss says: "That is, the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost shall take + hold of Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q68_A1.html">FS, Q[68], A[1]</a>), the gifts, properly, are certain perfections of the soul's powers, inasmuch a[9] these have a natural aptitude to be moved + by the Holy Ghost, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.1" target="asv"> Luke 4:1</a>: "And Jesus, being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the desert." Hence it + is manifest that in Christ the gifts were in a pre-eminent degree. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> What is perfect in the order of its nature needs to be helped by something of a higher nature; as man, however perfect, needs + to be helped by God. And in this way the virtues, which perfect the powers of the soul, as they are controlled by reason, + no matter how perfect they are, need to be helped by the gifts, which perfect the soul's powers, inasmuch as these are moved + by the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ is not a recipient and a giver of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, in the same respect; for He gives them as God and receives + them as man. Hence Gregory says (Moral. ii) that "the Holy Ghost never quitted the human nature of Christ, from Whose Divine + nature He proceedeth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In Christ there was not only heavenly knowledge, but also earthly knowledge, as will be said (Q[15], A[10]). And yet even + in heaven the gifts of the Holy Ghost will still exist, in a certain manner, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q68_A6.html">FS, Q[68], A[6]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A6-p0.1">Whether in Christ there was the gift of fear?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of fear. For hope would seem to be stronger than fear; since the object + of hope is goodness, and of fear, evil. as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q40_A1.html">FS, Q[40], A[1]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q7_A6-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q42_A1.html">FS, Q[42], A[1]</a>). But in Christ there was not the virtue of hope, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q7_A6-p2.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. Hence, likewise, there was not the gift of fear in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by the gift of fear we fear either to be separated from God, which pertains to "chaste" fear---or to be punished + by Him, which pertains to "servile" fear, as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract. ix). But Christ did not fear being separated + from God by sin, nor being punished by Him on account of a fault, since it was impossible for Him to sin, as will be said + ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html">Q[15], AA[1]</a>,2). Now fear is not of the impossible. Therefore in Christ + there was not the gift of fear. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.4.18" target="asv">1 Jn. 4:18</a>) that "perfect charity casteth out fear." But in Christ there was most perfect charity, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A6-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.19" target="asv"> Eph. 3:19</a>: "The charity of Christ which surpasseth all knowledge." Therefore in Christ there was not the gift of fear. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.11.3" target="asv">Is. 11:3</a>): "And He shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q42_A1.html">FS, Q[42], A[1]</a>), fear regards two objects, one of which is an evil causing terror; the other is that by whose power an evil can be inflicted, + as we fear the king inasmuch as he has the power of putting to death. Now whoever can hurt would not be feared unless he had + a certain greatness of might, to which resistance could not easily be offered; for what we easily repel we do not fear. And + hence it is plain that no + one is feared except for some pre-eminence. And in this way it is said that in Christ there was the fear of God, not indeed + as it regards the evil of separation from God by fault, nor as it regards the evil of punishment for fault; but inasmuch as + it regards the Divine pre-eminence, on account of which the soul of Christ, led by the Holy Spirit, was borne towards God + in an act of reverence. Hence it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.7" target="asv">Heb. 5:7</a>) that in all things "he was heard for his reverence." For + Christ as man had this act of reverence towards God in a fuller sense and beyond all others. And hence Scripture attributes + to Him the fulness of the fear of the Lord. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The habits of virtues and gifts regard goodness properly and of themselves; but evil, consequently; since it pertains to + the nature of virtue to render acts good, as is said Ethic. ii, 6. And hence the nature of the gift of fear regards not that + evil which fear is concerned with, but the pre-eminence of that goodness, viz. of God, by Whose power evil may be inflicted. + on the other hand, hope, as a virtue, regards not only the author of good, but even + the good itself, as far as it is not yet possessed. And hence to Christ, Who already possessed the perfect good of beatitude, + we do not attribute the virtue of hope, but we do attribute the gift of fear. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This reason is based on fear in so far as it regards the evil object. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Perfect charity casts out servile fear, which principally regards punishment. But this kind of fear was not in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A7-p0.1">Whether the gratuitous graces were in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the gratuitous graces were not in Christ. For whoever has anything in its fulness, to him it does not + pertain to have it by participation. Now Christ has grace in its fulness, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14</a>: "Full of grace and truth." But the gratuitous graces would seem to be certain participations, bestowed distributively and + particularly upon divers subjects, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A7-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:4</a>: "Now there are + diversities of graces." Therefore it would seem that there were no gratuitous graces in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is due to anyone would not seem to be gratuitously bestowed on him. But it was due to the man Christ that He + should abound in the word of wisdom and knowledge, and to be mighty in doing wonderful works and the like, all of which pertain + to gratuitous graces: since He is "the power of God and the wisdom of God," as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24.</a> Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to have the gratuitous graces. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, gratuitous graces are ordained to the benefit of the faithful. But it does not seem that a habit which a man does + not use is for the benefit of others, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A7-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.20.32" target="asv"> Ecclus. 20:32</a>: "Wisdom that is hid and treasure that is not seen: what profit is there in them both?" Now we do not read that Christ made + use of these gratuitously given graces, especially as regards the gift of tongues. Therefore not all the gratuitous graces + were in + Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan. cclxxxvii) that "as in the head are all the senses, so in Christ were all the graces." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q3_A1.html">FS, Q[3], AA[1]</a>,4), the gratuitous graces are ordained for the manifestation of faith and spiritual doctrine. For it behooves him who teaches + to have the means of making his doctrine clear; otherwise his doctrine would be useless. Now Christ is the first and chief + teacher of spiritual doctrine and faith, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A7-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.3" target="asv"> Heb. 2:3,4</a>: "Which having begun to be declared by the Lord was confirmed unto + us by them that heard Him, God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders." Hence it is clear that all the gratuitous + graces were most excellently in Christ, as in the first and chief teacher of the faith. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As sanctifying grace is ordained to meritorious acts both interior and exterior, so likewise gratuitous grace is ordained + to certain exterior acts manifestive of the faith, as the working of miracles, and the like. Now of both these graces Christ + had the fulness. since inasmuch as His soul was united to the Godhead, He had the perfect power of effecting all these acts. + But other saints who are moved by God as separated and not united instruments, + receive power in a particular manner in order to bring about this or that act. And hence in other saints these graces are + divided, but not in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ is said to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, inasmuch as He is the Eternal Son of God. But in this respect + it does not pertain to Him to have grace, but rather to be the bestower of grace. but it pertains to Him in His human nature + to have grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The gift of tongues was bestowed on the apostles, because they were sent to teach all nations; but Christ wished to preach + personally only in the one nation of the Jews, as He Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A7-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.24" target="asv">Mat. 15:24</a>): "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel"; and the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A7-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.15.8" target="asv">Rom. 15:8</a>): "I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision." And hence it was not necessary for Him to speak several languages. + Yet was a knowledge of all languages not wanting to Him, since even the secrets of hearts, of which all words are signs, were + not hidden from Him, as will be shown ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A7-p9.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html">Q[10], A[2]</a>). Nor was this knowledge uselessly possessed. just as it is not useless to have a habit, which we do not use when there is + no occasion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A7-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A9.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A8-p0.1">Whether in Christ there was the gift of prophecy?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of prophecy. For prophecy implies a certain obscure and imperfect knowledge, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Num.12.6" target="asv"> Num. 12:6</a>: "If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream." But + Christ had full and unveiled knowledge, much more than Moses, of whom it is subjoined that "plainly and not by riddles and + figures doth he see God" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Num.6.8" target="asv">Num. + 6:8 + </a>). Therefore we ought not to admit prophecy in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as faith has to do with what is not seen, and hope with what is not possessed, so prophecy has to do with what is + not present, but distant; for a prophet means, as it were, a teller of far-off things. But in Christ there could be neither + faith nor hope, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A8-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,4). Hence prophecy also ought not to be admitted in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a prophet is in an inferior order to an angel; hence Moses, who was the greatest of the prophets, as was said above + ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A8-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q174_A4.html">SS, Q[174], A[4]</a>) is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.7.38" target="asv">Acts 7:38</a>) to have spoken with an angel in the desert. But Christ was "made lower than the angels," not as to the knowledge of His + soul, but only as regards the sufferings of His body, as is shown + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.9" target="asv"> Heb. 2:9.</a> Therefore it seems that Christ was + not a prophet. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written of Him ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.18.15" target="asv">Dt. 18:15</a>): "Thy God will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren," and He says of Himself ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.57" target="asv">Mat. 13:57</a>; + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p5.3" href="./asv.html#John.4.44" target="asv"> Jn. 4:44</a>): "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A prophet means, as it were, a teller or seer of far-off things, inasmuch as he knows and announces what things are far from + men's senses, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi, 18). Now we must bear in mind that no one can be called a prophet for + knowing and announcing what is distant from others, with whom he is not. And this is clear in regard to place and time. For + if anyone living in France were to know and announce to others living in France what things + were transpiring in Syria, it would be prophetical, as Eliseus told Giezi ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">4 Kings 5:26</a>) how the man had leaped down from his chariot to meet him. But if anyone living in Syria were to announce what things were + there, it would not be prophetical. And the same appears in regard to time. For it was prophetical of Isaias to announce that + Cyrus, King of the Persians, would rebuild the temple of God, as is clear from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.44.28" target="asv"> Is. 44:28.</a> But it was not prophetical of + Esdras to write it, in whose time it took place. Hence if God or angels, or even the blessed, know and announce what is beyond + our knowing, this does not pertain to prophecy, since they nowise touch our state. Now Christ before His passion touched our + state, inasmuch as He was not merely a "comprehensor," but a "wayfarer." Hence it was prophetical in Him to know and announce + what was beyond the knowledge of other "wayfarers": and for this reason He is called a prophet. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These words do not prove that enigmatical knowledge, viz. by dream and vision, belongs to the nature of prophecy; but the + comparison is drawn between other prophets, who saw Divine things in dreams and visions, and Moses, who saw God plainly and + not by riddles, and who yet is called a prophet, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A8-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.10" target="asv"> Dt. 24:10</a>: "And there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses." Nevertheless it may be said that although Christ had + full and unveiled knowledge as regards the intellective part, yet in the imaginative part He had certain similitudes, in which + Divine things could be viewed, inasmuch as He was not only a "comprehensor," but a "wayfarer." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Faith regards such things as are unseen by him who believes; and hope, too, is of such things as are not possessed by the + one who hopes; but prophecy is of such things as are beyond the sense of men, with whom the prophet dwells and converses in + this state of life. And hence faith and hope are repugnant to the perfection of Christ's beatitude; but prophecy is not. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Angels, being "comprehensors," are above prophets, who are merely "wayfarers"; but not above Christ, Who was both a "comprehensor" + and a "wayfarer." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A8-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A9.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A9" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A10.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A9-p0.1">Whether in Christ there was the fulness of grace?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was not the fulness of grace. For the virtues flow from grace, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A9-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q110_A4.html">FS, Q[110], A[4]</a>). But in Christ there were not all the virtues; for there was neither faith nor hope in Him, as was shown above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A9-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,4). Therefore in Christ there was not the fulness of grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as is plain from what was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A9-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q111_A2.html">FS, Q[111], A[2]</a>), grace is divided into operating and cooperating. Now operating grace signifies that whereby the ungodly is justified, which + has no place in Christ, Who never lay under any sin. Therefore in Christ there was not the fulness of grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A9-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.17" target="asv">James 1:17</a>): "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." But what comes thus is possessed + partially, and not fully. Therefore no creature, not even the soul of Christ, can have the fulness of the gifts of grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A9-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>): "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] full of grace and truth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> To have fully is to have wholly and perfectly. Now totality and perfection can be taken in two ways: First as regards their + "intensive" quantity; for instance, I may say that some man has whiteness fully, because he has as much of it as can naturally + be in him; secondly, "as regards power"; for instance, if anyone be said to have life fully, inasmuch as he has it in all + the effects or works of life; and thus man has life fully, but senseless animals or + plants have not. Now in both these ways Christ has the fulness of grace. First, since He has grace in its highest degree, + in the most perfect way it can be had. And this appears, first, from the nearness of Christ's soul to the cause of grace. + For it was said above + <a id="TP_Q7_A9-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A1.html">(A[1])</a> that the nearer a recipient is to the inflowing cause, the more it receives. And hence the soul of Christ, which is more + closely united to God than all other rational creatures, receives the greatest + outpouring of His grace. Secondly, in His relation to the effect. For the soul of Christ so received grace, that, in a manner, + it is poured out from it upon others. And hence it behooved Him to have the greatest grace; as fire which is the cause of + heat in other hot things, is of all things the hottest. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p7"> Likewise, as regards the "virtue" of grace, He had grace fully, since He had it for all the operations and effects of grace; + and this, because grace was bestowed on Him, as upon a universal principle in the genus of such as have grace. Now the virtue + of the first principle of a genus universally extends itself to all the effects of that genus; thus the force of the sun, + which is the universal cause of generation, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), extends to all things that come + under generation. Hence the second fulness of grace is seen in Christ inasmuch as His grace extends to all the effects of + grace, which are the virtues, gifts, and the like. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Faith and hope signify effects of grace with certain defects on the part of the recipient of grace, inasmuch as faith is + of the unseen, and hope of what is not yet possessed. Hence it was not necessary that in Christ, Who is the author of grace, + there should be any defects such as faith and hope imply; but whatever perfection is in faith and hope was in Christ most + perfectly; as in fire there are not all the modes of heat which are defective by the + subject's defect, but whatever belongs to the perfection of heat. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It pertains essentially to operating grace to justify; but that it makes the ungodly to be just is accidental to it on the + part of the subject, in which sin is found. Therefore the soul of Christ was justified by operating grace, inasmuch as it + was rendered just and holy by it from the beginning of His conception; not that it was until then sinful, or even not just. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The fulness of grace is attributed to the soul of Christ according to the capacity of the creature and not by comparison + with the infinite fulness of the Divine goodness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A9-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A10.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A10" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A11.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A10-p0.1">Whether the fulness of grace is proper to Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. For what is proper to anyone belongs to him alone. But to + be full of grace is attributed to some others; for it was said to the Blessed Virgin ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A10-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.28" target="asv">Lk. 1:28</a>): "Hail, full of grace"; and again it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A10-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.6.8" target="asv">Acts 6:8</a>): "Stephen, full of grace and fortitude." Therefore the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what can be communicated to others through Christ does not seem to be proper to Christ. But the fulness of grace + can be communicated to others through Christ, since the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A10-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.19" target="asv">Eph. 3:19</a>): "That you may be filled unto all the fulness of God." Therefore the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the state of the wayfarer seems to be proportioned to the state of the comprehensor. But in the state of the comprehensor + there will be a certain fulness, since "in our heavenly country with its fulness of all good, although some things are bestowed + in a pre-eminent way, yet nothing is possessed singularly," as is clear from Gregory (Hom. De Cent. Ovib.; xxxiv in Ev.). + Therefore in the state of the comprehensor the fulness of grace is possessed by + everyone, and hence the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. on the contrary, The fulness of grace is attributed to Christ + inasmuch as He is the only-begotten of the Father, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A10-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14</a>: "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] as it were . . . the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." But to be the + Only-begotten of the Father is proper to Christ. Therefore it is proper to Him to be full of grace and truth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p5"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The fulness of grace may be taken in two ways: First, on the part of grace itself, or secondly on the part of the one who + has grace. Now on the part of grace itself there is said to be the fulness of grace when the limit of grace is attained, as + to essence and power, inasmuch as grace is possessed in its highest possible excellence and in its greatest possible extension + to all its effects. And this fulness of grace is proper to Christ. But on the part of the + subject there is said to be the fulness of grace when anyone fully possesses grace according to his condition---whether as + regards intensity, by reason of grace being intense in him, to the limit assigned by God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A10-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.1" target="asv"> Eph. 4:1</a>: "But to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ"---or "as regards power," by reason + of a man having the help of grace for all that belongs to his office or state, as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A10-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.8" target="asv">Eph. + 3:8 + </a>): "To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace . . . to enlighten all men." And this fulness of grace is not + proper to Christ, but is communicated to others by Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p6"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace, not on the part of grace itself---since she had not grace in its greatest + possible excellence---nor for all the effects of grace; but she is said to be full of grace in reference to herself, i.e. + inasmuch as she had sufficient grace for the state to which God had chosen her, i.e. to be the mother of His Only-begotten. + So, too, Stephen is said to be full of grace, since he had sufficient grace to be a fit + minister and witness of God, to which office he had been called. And the same must be said of others. Of these fulnesses one + is greater than another, according as one is divinely pre-ordained to a higher or lower state. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Apostle is there speaking of that fulness which has reference to the subject, in comparison with what man is divinely + pre-ordained to; and this is either something in common, to which all the saints are pre-ordained, or something special, which + pertains to the pre-eminence of some. And in this manner a certain fulness of grace is common to all the saints, viz. to have + grace enough to merit eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of God. And + this is the fulness of grace which the Apostle desires for the faithful to whom he writes. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These gifts which are in common in heaven, viz.: vision, possession and fruition, and the like, have certain gifts corresponding + to them in this life which are also common to all the saints. Yet there are certain prerogatives of saints, both in heaven + and on earth, which are not possessed by all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p9"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A10-p10"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A11.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A11" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A12.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A11-p0.1">Whether the grace of Christ is infinite?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's grace is infinite. For everything immeasurable is infinite. But the grace of Christ is immeasurable; + since it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A11-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.34" target="asv">Jn. 3:34</a>): "For God doth not give the Spirit by measure to His Son [*'To His Son' is lacking in the Vulgate], namely Christ." Therefore + the grace of Christ is infinite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, an infinite effect betokens an infinite power which can only spring from an infinite essence. But the effect of + Christ's grace is infinite, since it extends to the salvation of the whole human race; for He is the propitiation for our + sins . . . and for those of the whole world, as is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A11-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.2" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:2</a>). Therefore the grace of Christ is infinite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every finite thing by addition can attain to the quantity of any other finite thing. Therefore if the grace of Christ + is finite the grace of any other man could increase to such an extent as to reach to an equality with Christ's grace, against + what is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A11-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Job.28.17" target="asv">Job 28:17</a>): "Gold nor crystal cannot equal it," as Gregory expounds it (Moral. xviii). Therefore the grace of Christ is infinite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Grace is something created in the soul. But every created thing is finite, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A11-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.11.21" target="asv"> Wis. 11:21</a>: "Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight." Therefore the grace of Christ is not infinite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was made clear above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A11-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A10.html">Q[2], A[10]</a>), a twofold grace may be considered in Christ; the first being the grace of union, which, as was said ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A11-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A6.html">Q[6], A[6]</a>), is for Him to be personally united to the Son of God, which union has been bestowed gratis on the human nature; and it + is clear that this grace is infinite, as the Person of God is infinite. The second is habitual grace; which may be taken in + two ways: first + as a being, and in this way it must be a finite being, since it is in the soul of Christ, as in a subject, and Christ's soul + is a creature having a finite capacity; hence the being of grace cannot be infinite, since it cannot exceed its subject. Secondly + it may be viewed in its specific nature of grace; and thus the grace of Christ can be termed infinite, since it is not limited, + i.e. it has whatsoever can pertain to the nature of grace, and what pertains to the nature of grace is not bestowed + on Him in a fixed measure; seeing that "according to the purpose" of God to Whom it pertains to measure grace, it is bestowed + on Christ's soul as on a universal principle for bestowing grace on human nature, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A11-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.5" target="asv"> Eph. 1:5,6, </a> "He hath graced us in His beloved Son"; thus we might say that the light of the sun is infinite, not indeed in being, but + in the nature of light, as having whatever can pertain to the nature of light. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When it is said that the Father "doth not give the Spirit by measure," it may be expounded of the gift which God the Father + from all eternity gave the Son, viz. the Divine Nature, which is an infinite gift. Hence the comment of a certain gloss: "So + that the Son may be as great as the Father is." Or again, it may be referred to the gift which is given the human nature, + to be united to the Divine Person, and this also is an infinite gift. Hence a gloss + says on this text: "As the Father begot a full and perfect Word, it is united thus full and perfect to human nature." Thirdly, + it may be referred to habitual grace, inasmuch as the grace of Christ extends to whatever belongs to grace. Hence Augustine + expounding this (Tract. xiv in Joan.) says: "The division of the gifts is a measurement. For to one indeed by the Spirit is + given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge." But Christ the giver does not receive by measure. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The grace of Christ has an infinite effect, both because of the aforesaid infinity of grace, and because of the unity [*Perhaps + we should read 'infinity'---Ed.] of the Divine Person, to Whom Christ's soul is united. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The lesser can attain by augment to the quantity of the greater, when both have the same kind of quantity. But the grace + of any man is compared to the grace of Christ as a particular to a universal power; hence as the force of fire, no matter + how much it increases, can never equal the sun's strength, so the grace of a man, no matter how much it increases, can never + equal the grace of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A11-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A12.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A12" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A13.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A12-p0.1">Whether the grace of Christ could increase?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the grace of Christ could increase. For to every finite thing addition can be made. But the grace of Christ + was finite. Therefore it could increase. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is by Divine power that grace is increased, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A12-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.9.8" target="asv">2 Cor. 9:8</a>: "And God is able to make all grace abound in you." But the Divine power, being infinite, is confined by no limits. Therefore + it seems that the grace of Christ could have been greater. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A12-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.52" target="asv">Lk. 2:52</a>) that the child "Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men." Therefore the grace of Christ could increase. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A12-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>): "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] as it were . . . the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." But nothing + can be or can be thought greater than that anyone should be the Only-begotten of the Father. Therefore no greater grace can + be or can be thought than that of which Christ was full. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> For a form to be incapable of increase happens in two ways: First on the part of the subject; secondly, on the part of the + form itself. On the part of the subject, indeed, when the subject reaches the utmost limit wherein it partakes of this form, + after its own manner, e.g. if we say that air cannot increase in heat, when it has reached the utmost limit of heat which + can exist in the nature of air, although there may be greater heat in actual existence, viz. + the heat of fire. But on the part of the form, the possibility of increase is excluded when a subject reaches the utmost perfection + which this form can have by nature, e.g. if we say the heat of fire cannot be increased because there cannot be a more perfect + grade of heat than that to which fire attains. Now the proper measure of grace, like that of other forms, is determined by + the Divine wisdom, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A12-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.11.21" target="asv"> Wis. 11:21</a>: "Thou hast ordered all things in number, weight and + measure." And it is with reference to its end that a measure is set to every form. as there is no greater gravity than that + of the earth, because there is no lower place than that of the earth. Now the end of grace is the union of the rational creature + with God. But there can neither be nor be thought a greater union of the rational creature with God than that which is in + the Person. And hence the grace of Christ reached the highest measure of grace. Hence it is clear that the grace of Christ + cannot be increased on the part of grace. But neither can it be increased on the part of the subject, since Christ as man + was a true and full comprehensor from the first instant of His conception. Hence there could have been no increase of grace + in Him, as there could be none in the rest of the blessed, whose grace could not increase, seeing that they have reached their + last end. But as regards men who are wholly wayfarers, their grace can be increased not merely on the part of the form, since + they have not attained the highest degree of grace, but also on the part of the subject, since they have not yet attained + their end. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> If we speak of mathematical quantity, addition can be made to any finite quantity, since there is nothing on the part of + finite quantity which is repugnant to addition. But if we speak of natural quantity, there may be repugnance on the part of + the form to which a determined quantity is due, even as other accidents are determined. Hence the Philosopher says (De Anima + ii, 41) that "there is naturally a term of all things, and a fixed limit of magnitude + and increase." And hence to the quantity of the whole there can be no addition. And still more must we suppose a term in the + forms themselves, beyond which they may not go. Hence it is not necessary that addition should be capable of being made to + Christ's grace, although it is finite in its essence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the Divine power can make something greater and better than the habitual grace of Christ, yet it could not make + it to be ordained to anything greater than the personal union with the Only-begotten Son of the Father; and to this union, + by the purpose of the Divine wisdom, the measure of grace is sufficient. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Anyone may increase in wisdom and grace in two ways. First inasmuch as the very habits of wisdom and grace are increased; + and in this way Christ did not increase. Secondly, as regards the effects, i.e. inasmuch as they do wiser and greater works; + and in this way Christ increased in wisdom and grace even as in age, since in the course of time He did more perfect works, + to prove Himself true man, both in the things of God, and in the things of man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A12-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A13.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q7_A13" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q7_A13-p0.1">Whether the habitual grace of Christ followed after the union?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the habitual grace did not follow after the union. For nothing follows itself. But this habitual grace + seems to be the same as the grace of union; for Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): "Every man becomes a Christian from + the beginning of his belief, by the same grace whereby this Man from His beginning became Christ"; and of these two the first + pertains to habitual grace and the second to the grace of union. Therefore it would seem + that habitual grace did not follow upon the union. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, disposition precedes perfection, if not in time, at least in thought. But the habitual grace seems to be a disposition + in human nature for the personal union. Therefore it seems that the habitual grace did not follow but rather preceded the + union. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the common precedes the proper. But habitual grace is common to Christ and other men; and the grace of union is + proper to Christ. Therefore habitual grace is prior in thought to the union. Therefore it does not follow it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A13-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.42.1" target="asv">Is. 42:1</a>): "Behold my servant, I will uphold Him . . . "and farther on: "I have given My Spirit upon Him"; and this pertains to the + gift of habitual grace. Hence it remains that the assumption of human nature to the unity of the Person preceded the habitual + grace of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The union of the human nature with the Divine Person, which, as we have said above ( + <a id="TP_Q7_A13-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A10.html">Q[2], A[10]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q7_A13-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A6.html"> Q[6], A[6]</a>), is the grace of union, precedes the habitual grace of Christ, not in order of time, but by nature and in thought; and this + for a triple reason: First, with reference to the order of the principles of both. For the principle of the union is the Person + of the Son assuming human nature, Who is said to be + sent into the world, inasmuch as He assumed human nature; but the principle of habitual grace, which is given with charity, + is the Holy Ghost, Who is said to be sent inasmuch as He dwells in the mind by charity. Now the mission of the Son is prior, + in the order of nature, to the mission of the Holy Ghost, even as in the order of nature the Holy Ghost proceeds from the + Son, and love from wisdom. Hence the personal union, according to which the mission of the Son took place, is prior in the + order + of nature to habitual grace, according to which the mission of the Holy Ghost takes place. Secondly, the reason of this order + may be taken from the relation of grace to its cause. For grace is caused in man by the presence of the Godhead, as light + in the air by the presence of the sun. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q7_A13-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Ezek.43.2" target="asv">Ezech. 43:2</a>): "The glory of the God of Israel came in by the way of the east . . . and the earth shone with His majesty." But the presence + of God in Christ is by the + union of human nature with the Divine Person. Hence the habitual grace of Christ is understood to follow this union, as light + follows the sun. Thirdly, the reason of this union can be taken from the end of grace, since it is ordained to acting rightly, + and action belongs to the suppositum and the individual. Hence action and, in consequence, grace ordaining thereto, presuppose + the hypostasis which operates. Now the hypostasis did not exist in the human nature before the union, as is clear + from + <a id="TP_Q7_A13-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q4_A2.html"> Q[4], A[2]</a>. Therefore the grace of union precedes, in thought, habitual grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine here means by grace the gratuitous will of God, bestowing benefits gratis; and hence every man is said to be made + a Christian by the same grace whereby a Man became Christ, since both take place by the gratuitous will of God without merits. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As disposition in the order of generation precedes the perfection to which it disposes, in such things as are gradually perfected; + so it naturally follows the perfection which one has already obtained; as heat, which was a disposition to the form of fire, + is an effect flowing from the form of already existing fire. Now the human nature in Christ is united to the Person of the + Word from the beginning without succession. Hence habitual grace is not + understood to have preceded the union, but to have followed it; as a natural property. Hence, as Augustine says (Enchiridion + xl): "Grace is in a manner natural to the Man Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The common precedes the proper, when both are of the same genus; but when they are of divers genera, there is nothing to + prevent the proper being prior to the common. Now the grace of union is not in the same genus as habitual grace; but is above + all genera even as the Divine Person Himself. Hence there is nothing to prevent this proper from being before the common since + it does not result from something being added to the common, but is rather the + principle and source of that which is common. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q7_A13-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q6_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q8" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A13.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q8-p0.1">OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST, AS HE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8-p2"> We must now consider the grace of Christ as the Head of the Church; and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q8-p3"> (1) Whether Christ is the Head of the Church?</p> + <p id="TP_Q8-p4"> (2) Whether He is the Head of men as regards their bodies or only as regards their souls?</p> + <p id="TP_Q8-p5"> (3) Whether He is the Head of all men?</p> + <p id="TP_Q8-p6"> (4) Whether He is the Head of the angels?</p> + <p id="TP_Q8-p7"> (5) Whether the grace of Christ as Head of the Church is the same as His habitual grace as an individual man?</p> + <p id="TP_Q8-p8"> (6) Whether to be Head of the Church is proper to Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q8-p9"> (7) Whether the devil is the head of all the wicked?</p> + <p id="TP_Q8-p10"> (8) Whether Anti-christ can be called the head of all the wicked?</p> + <div id="TP_Q8_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q8_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ is the Head of the Church?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man to be Head of the Church. For the head imparts sense and motion to + the members. Now spiritual sense and motion which are by grace, are not imparted to us by the Man Christ, because, as Augustine + says (De Trin. i, 12; xv, 24), "not even Christ, as man, but only as God, bestows the Holy Ghost." Therefore it does not belong + to Him as man to be Head of the Church. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is not fitting for the head to have a head. But God is the Head of Christ, as man, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:3, </a> "The Head of Christ is God." Therefore Christ Himself is not a head. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Furthermore, the head of a man is a particular member, receiving an influx from the heart. But Christ is the universal principle + of the whole Church. Therefore He is not the Head of the Church. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.22" target="asv">Eph. 1:22</a>): "And He . . . hath made Him head over all the Church." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As the whole Church is termed one mystic body from its likeness to the natural body of a man, which in divers members has + divers acts, as the Apostle teaches ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.12" target="asv">Rom. 12</a>; + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 12</a>), so likewise Christ is called the Head of the Church from a likeness with the human head, in which we may consider three + things, viz. order, perfection, and power: "Order," indeed; for the head is the first part of man, beginning from the higher + part; and hence it is that every + principle is usually called a head according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Ezek.16.25" target="asv"> Ezech. 16:25</a>: "At every head of the way, thou hast set up a sign of thy prostitution"---"Perfection," inasmuch as in the head dwell all + the senses, both interior and exterior, whereas in the other members there is only touch, and hence it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Isa.9.15" target="asv">Is. 9:15</a>): "The aged and honorable, he is the head"---"Power," because the power and movement of the other members, together with + the direction of them in their + acts, is from the head, by reason of the sensitive and motive power there ruling; hence the ruler is called the head of a + people, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p6.5" href="./asv.html#iKgs.15.17" target="asv">1 Kings 15:17</a>: "When thou wast a little one in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel?" Now these three things + belong spiritually to Christ. First, on account of His nearness to God His grace is the highest and first, though not in time, + since all have received grace on account of His grace, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p6.6" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv"> Rom. 8:29</a>: "For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He might be the first-born + amongst many brethren." Secondly, He had perfection as regards the fulness of all graces, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p6.7" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14, </a> "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] . . . full of grace and truth," as was shown + <a id="TP_Q8_A1-p6.8" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A9.html">, Q[7], A[9]</a>. Thirdly, He has the power of bestowing grace on all the members of the Church, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p6.9" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv"> Jn. 1:16</a>: "Of His fulness we have all received." And thus it is plain that Christ is fittingly called the Head of the Church. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To give grace or the Holy Ghost belongs to Christ as He is God, authoritatively; but instrumentally it belongs also to Him + as man, inasmuch as His manhood is the instrument of His Godhead. And hence by the power of the Godhead His actions were beneficial, + i.e. by causing grace in us, both meritoriously and efficiently. But Augustine denies that Christ as man gives the Holy Ghost + authoritatively. Even other saints are said to give the Holy Ghost + instrumentally, or ministerially, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.5" target="asv"> Gal. 3:5</a>: "He . . . who giveth to you the Spirit." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In metaphorical speech we must not expect a likeness in all respects; for thus there would be not likeness but identity. + Accordingly a natural head has not another head because one human body is not part of another; but a metaphorical body, i.e. + an ordered multitude, is part of another multitude as the domestic multitude is part of the civil multitude; and hence the + father who is head of the domestic multitude has a head above him, i.e. the civil + governor. And hence there is no reason why God should not be the Head of Christ, although Christ Himself is Head of the Church. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The head has a manifest pre-eminence over the other exterior members; but the heart has a certain hidden influence. And hence + the Holy Ghost is likened to the heart, since He invisibly quickens and unifies the Church; but Christ is likened to the Head + in His visible nature in which man is set over man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q8_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q8_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ is the Head of men as to their bodies or only as to their souls?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ is not the Head of men as to their bodies. For Christ is said to be the Head of the Church inasmuch + as He bestows spiritual sense and the movement of grace on the Church. But a body is not capable of this spiritual sense and + movement. Therefore Christ is not the Head of men as regards their bodies. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we share bodies with the brutes. If therefore Christ was the Head of men as to their bodies, it would follow that + He was the Head of brute animals; and this is not fitting. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ took His body from other men, as is clear from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1" target="asv">Mat. 1</a> and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.3" target="asv">Luke 3</a>. But the head is the first of the members, as was said above (A[1], ad 3). Therefore Christ is not the Head of the Church + as regards bodies. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.21" target="asv">Phil. 3:21</a>): "Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The human body has a natural relation to the rational soul, which is its proper form and motor. Inasmuch as the soul is its + form, it receives from the soul life and the other properties which belong specifically to man; but inasmuch as the soul is + its motor, the body serves the soul instrumentally. Therefore we must hold that the manhood of Christ had the power of "influence," + inasmuch as it is united to the Word of God, to Whom His body is united through + the soul, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q8_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html">Q[6], A[1]</a>). Hence the whole manhood of Christ, i.e. according to soul and body, influences all, both in soul and body; but principally + the soul, and secondarily the body: First, inasmuch as the "members of the body are presented as instruments of justice" in + the soul that lives through Christ, as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.13" target="asv">Rom. 6:13</a>): secondly, inasmuch as the life of glory flows from the soul on to the body, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.11" target="asv"> + Rom. 8:11 + </a>: "He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The spiritual sense of grace does not reach to the body first and principally, but secondarily and instrumentally, as was + said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The body of an animal has no relation to a rational soul, as the human body has. Hence there is no parity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although Christ drew the matter of His body from other men, yet all draw from Him the immortal life of their body, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.22" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:22</a>: "And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q8_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q8_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ is the Head of all men?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ is not the Head of all men. For the head has no relation except to the members of its body. Now + the unbaptized are nowise members of the Church which is the body of Christ, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.23" target="asv">Eph. 1:23</a>). Therefore Christ is not the Head of all men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle writes to the Ephesians (5:25,27): "Christ delivered Himself up for" the Church "that He might present + it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing." But there are many of the faithful in whom + is found the spot or the wrinkle of sin. Therefore Christ is not the Head of all the faithful. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Old Law are compared to Christ as the shadow to the body, as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.17" target="asv">Col. 2:17</a>). But the fathers of the Old Testament in their day served unto these sacraments, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.8.5" target="asv"> Heb. 8:5</a>: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." Hence they did not pertain to Christ's body, and therefore Christ + is not the Head of all men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.4.10" target="asv">1 Tim. 4:10</a>): "Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful," and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.2" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:2</a>): "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Now to save men and + to be a propitiation for their sins belongs to Christ as Head. Therefore Christ is the Head of all men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> This is the difference between the natural body of man and the Church's mystical body, that the members of the natural body + are all together, and the members of the mystical are not all together---neither as regards their natural being, since the + body of the Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of the world until its end---nor as regards their + supernatural being, since, of those who are at any one time, some there are who are without + grace, yet will afterwards obtain it, and some have it already. We must therefore consider the members of the mystical body + not only as they are in act, but as they are in potentiality. Nevertheless, some are in potentiality who will never be reduced + to act, and some are reduced at some time to act; and this according to the triple class, of which the first is by faith, + the second by the charity of this life, the third by the fruition of the life to come. Hence we must say that if we take the + whole time of the world in general, Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head + of such as are united to Him by glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity; thirdly, of those who + are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet reduced + to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in + potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, + however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in potentiality to be + united to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted + in two things---first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; + secondly, in free-will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To be "a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle" is the ultimate end to which we are brought by the Passion of Christ. + Hence this will be in heaven, and not on earth, in which "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves," as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.1.8" target="asv">1 Jn. 1:8</a>). Nevertheless, there are some, viz. mortal, sins from which they are free who are members of Christ by the actual union + of charity; but such as are tainted with these sins are + not members of Christ actually, but potentially; except, perhaps, imperfectly, by formless faith, which unites to God, relatively + but not simply, viz. so that man partake of the life of grace. For, as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Jas.2.20" target="asv">James 2:20</a>): "Faith without works is dead." Yet such as these receive from Christ a certain vital act, i.e. to believe, as if a lifeless + limb were moved by a man to some extent. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The holy Fathers made use of the legal sacraments, not as realities, but as images and shadows of what was to come. Now it + is the same motion to an image as image, and to the reality, as is clear from the Philosopher (De Memor. et Remin. ii). Hence + the ancient Fathers, by observing the legal sacraments, were borne to Christ by the same faith and love whereby we also are + borne to Him, and hence the ancient Fathers belong to the same Church as we. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q8_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q8_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ is the Head of the angels?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ as man is not the head of the angels. For the head and members are of one nature. But Christ as + man is not of the same nature with the angels, but only with men, since, as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.16" target="asv">Heb. 2:16</a>): "For nowhere doth He take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold." Therefore Christ as man is not + the head of the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ is the head of such as belong to the Church, which is His Body, as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.23" target="asv">Eph. 1:23</a>). But the angels do not belong to the Church. For the Church is the congregation of the faithful: and in the angels there + is no faith, for they do not "walk by faith" but "by sight," otherwise they would be "absent from the Lord," as the Apostle + argues ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.6" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:6,7</a>). Therefore Christ as man is not head of the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (Tract. xix; xxiii in Joan.), that as "the Word" which "was in the beginning with the Father" quickens + souls, so the "Word made flesh" quickens bodies, which angels lack. But the Word made flesh is Christ as man. Therefore Christ + as man does not give life to angels, and hence as man He is not the head of the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.10" target="asv">Col. 2:10</a>), "Who is the head of all Principality and Power," and the same reason holds good with the other orders of angels. Therefore + Christ is the Head of the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (A[1], ad 2), where there is one body we must allow that there is one head. Now a multitude ordained to + one end, with distinct acts and duties, may be metaphorically called one body. But it is manifest that both men and angels + are ordained to one end, which is the glory of the Divine fruition. Hence the mystical body of the Church consists not only + of men but of angels. Now of all this multitude Christ is the Head, since He is nearer God, + and shares His gifts more fully, not only than man, but even than angels; and of His influence not only men but even angels + partake, since it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.20" target="asv">Eph. 1:20-22</a>): that God the Father set "Him," namely Christ, "on His right hand in the heavenly places, above all Principality and Power + and Virtue and Dominion and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. And He hath + subjected all things under His feet." Therefore Christ is not only the Head of men, + but of angels. Hence we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.11" target="asv">Mat. 4:11</a>) that "angels came and ministered to Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's influence over men is chiefly with regard to their souls; wherein men agree with angels in generic nature, though + not in specific nature. By reason of this agreement Christ can be said to be the Head of the angels, although the agreement + falls short as regards the body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Church, on earth, is the congregation of the faithful; but, in heaven, it is the congregation of comprehensors. Now Christ + was not merely a wayfarer, but a comprehensor. And therefore He is the Head not merely of the faithful, but of comprehensors, + as having grace and glory most fully. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Augustine here uses the similitude of cause and effect, i.e. inasmuch as corporeal things act on bodies, and spiritual things + on spiritual things. Nevertheless, the humanity of Christ, by virtue of the spiritual nature, i.e. the Divine, can cause something + not only in the spirits of men, but also in the spirits of angels, on account of its most close conjunction with God, i.e. + by personal union. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q8_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q8_A5-p0.1">Whether the grace of Christ, as Head of the Church, is the same as His habitual grace, inasmuch as He is Man?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the grace whereby Christ is Head of the Church and the individual grace of the Man are not the same. For + the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.15" target="asv">Rom. 5:15</a>): "If by the offense of one many died, much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath + abounded unto many." But the actual sin of Adam is distinct from original sin which he transmitted to his posterity. Hence + the personal grace which is proper to Christ + is distinct from His grace, inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, which flows to others from Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, habits are distinguished by acts. But the personal grace of Christ is ordained to one act, viz. the sanctification + of His soul; and the capital grace is ordained to another, viz. to sanctifying others. Therefore the personal grace of Christ + is distinct from His grace as He is the Head of the Church. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q8_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A6.html">Q[6], A[6]</a>), in Christ we distinguish a threefold grace, viz. the grace of union, capital grace, and the individual grace of the Man. + Now the individual grace of Christ is distinct from the grace of union. Therefore it is also distinct from the capital grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv">Jn. 1:16</a>): "Of His fulness we all have received." Now He is our Head, inasmuch as we receive from Him. Therefore He is our Head, inasmuch + as He has the fulness of grace. Now He had the fulness of grace, inasmuch as personal grace was in Him in its perfection, + as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q8_A5-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A9.html">Q[7], A[9]</a>). Hence His capital and personal grace are not distinct. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Since everything acts inasmuch as it is a being in act, it must be the same act whereby it is in act and whereby it acts, + as it is the same heat whereby fire is hot and whereby it heats. Yet not every act whereby anything is in act suffices for + its being the principle of acting upon others. For since the agent is nobler than the patient, as Augustine says (Gen. ad + lit. xii, 16) and the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 19), the agent must act on others by reason of + a certain pre-eminence. Now it was said above + <a id="TP_Q8_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[7], A[9]) grace was received by the soul of Christ in the highest way; and therefore from this pre-eminence of grace which + He received, it is from Him that this grace is bestowed on others---and this belongs to the nature of head. Hence the personal + grace, whereby the soul of Christ is justified, is essentially the same as His grace, as He is the Head of the Church, and + justifies others; but there is a distinction of + reason between them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Original sin in Adam, which is a sin of the nature, is derived from his actual sin, which is a personal sin, because in him + the person corrupted the nature; and by means of this corruption the sin of the first man is transmitted to posterity, inasmuch + as the corrupt nature corrupts the person. Now grace is not vouchsafed us by means of human nature, but solely by the personal + action of Christ Himself. Hence we must not distinguish a twofold grace in + Christ, one corresponding to the nature, the other to the person as in Adam we distinguish the sin of the nature and of the + person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Different acts, one of which is the reason and the cause of the other, do not diversify a habit. Now the act of the personal + grace which is formally to sanctify its subject, is the reason of the justification of others, which pertains to capital grace. + Hence it is that the essence of the habit is not diversified by this difference. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Personal and capital grace are ordained to an act; but the grace of union is not ordained to an act, but to the personal + being. Hence the personal and the capital grace agree in the essence of the habit; but the grace of union does not, although + the personal grace can be called in a manner the grace of union, inasmuch as it brings about a fitness for the union; and + thus the grace of union, the capital, and the personal grace are one in essence, though + there is a distinction of reason between them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q8_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q8_A6-p0.1">Whether it is proper to Christ to be Head of the Church?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it is not proper to Christ to be Head of the Church. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.15.17" target="asv">1 Kings 15:17</a>): "When thou wast a little one in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel?" Now there is but one + Church in the New and the Old Testament. Therefore it seems that with equal reason any other man than Christ might be head + of the Church. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ is called Head of the Church from His bestowing grace on the Church's members. But it belongs to others also + to grant grace to others, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.29" target="asv"> Eph. 4:29</a>: "Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good to the edification of faith, that it may administer + grace to the hearers." Therefore it seems to belong also to others than Christ to be head of the Church. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ by His ruling over the Church is not only called "Head," but also "Shepherd" and "Foundation." Now Christ + did not retain for Himself alone the name of Shepherd, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.5.4" target="asv">1 Pet. 5:4, </a> "And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory"; nor the name of Foundation, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A6-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.14" target="asv"> Apoc. 21:14</a>: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations." Therefore it seems + that He did not retain the name of Head for Himself alone. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.19" target="asv">Col. 2:19</a>): "The head" of the Church is that "from which the whole body, by joints and bands being supplied with nourishment and compacted + groweth unto the increase of God." But this belongs only to Christ. Therefore Christ alone is Head of the Church. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The head influences the other members in two ways. First, by a certain intrinsic influence, inasmuch as motive and sensitive + force flow from the head to the other members; secondly, by a certain exterior guidance, inasmuch as by sight and the senses, + which are rooted in the head, man is guided in his exterior acts. Now the interior influx of grace is from no one save Christ, + Whose manhood, through its union with the Godhead, has the power of justifying; but + the influence over the members of the Church, as regards their exterior guidance, can belong to others; and in this way others + may be called heads of the Church, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Amos.6.1" target="asv"> Amos 6:1, </a> "Ye great men, heads of the people"; differently, however, from Christ. First, inasmuch as Christ is the Head of all who + pertain to the Church in every place and time and state; but all other men are called heads with reference to certain special + places, as bishops of their Churches. Or with + reference to a determined time as the Pope is the head of the whole Church, viz. during the time of his Pontificate, and with + reference to a determined state, inasmuch as they are in the state of wayfarers. Secondly, because Christ is the Head of the + Church by His own power and authority; while others are called heads, as taking Christ's place, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.2.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 2:10, </a> "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes I have done it in the person of + Christ," and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.20" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:20, </a> "For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God, as it were, exhorting by us." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The word "head" is employed in that passage in regard to exterior government; as a king is said to be the head of his kingdom. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Man does not distribute grace by interior influx, but by exteriorly persuading to the effects of grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Tract. xlvi in Joan.): "If the rulers of the Church are Shepherds, how is there one Shepherd, except that + all these are members of one Shepherd?" So likewise others may be called foundations and heads, inasmuch as they are members + of the one Head and Foundation. Nevertheless, as Augustine says (Tract. xlvii), "He gave to His members to be shepherds; yet + none of us calleth himself the Door. He kept this for Himself alone." And this + because by door is implied the principal authority, inasmuch as it is by the door that all enter the house; and it is Christ + alone by "Whom also we have access . . . into this grace, wherein we stand" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.2" target="asv">Rom. 5:2</a>); but by the other names above-mentioned there may be implied not merely the principal but also the secondary authority. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q8_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q8_A7-p0.1">Whether the devil is the head of all the wicked?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the devil is not the head of the wicked. For it belongs to the head to diffuse sense and movement into + the members, as a gloss says, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.22" target="asv"> Eph. 1:22, </a> "And made Him head," etc. But the devil has no power of spreading the evil of sin, which proceeds from the will of the sinner. + Therefore the devil cannot be called the head of the wicked. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by every sin a man is made evil. But not every sin is from the devil; and this is plain as regards the demons, who + did not sin through the persuasion of another; so likewise not every sin of man proceeds from the devil, for it is said (De + Eccles. Dogm. lxxxii): "Not all our wicked thoughts are always raised up by the suggestion of the devil; but sometimes they + spring from the movement of our will." Therefore the devil is not the head of all the + wicked. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, one head is placed on one body. But the whole multitude of the wicked do not seem to have anything in which they + are united, for evil is contrary to evil and springs from divers defects, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore the + devil cannot be called the head of all the wicked. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xiv] on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Job.18.17" target="asv"> Job 18:17, </a> "Let the memory of him perish from the earth," says: "This is said of every evil one, yet so as to be referred to the head," + i.e. the devil. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above + <a id="TP_Q8_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A6.html">(A[6])</a>, the head not only influences the members interiorly, but also governs them exteriorly, directing their actions to an end. + Hence it may be said that anyone is the head of a multitude, either as regards both, i.e. by interior influence and exterior + governance, and thus Christ is the Head of the Church, as was stated + <a id="TP_Q8_A7-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A6.html">(A[6])</a>; or as regards exterior governance, and thus every prince or + prelate is head of the multitude subject to him. And in this way the devil is head of all the wicked. For, as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A7-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Job.41.25" target="asv">Job 41:25</a>): "He is king over all the children of pride." Now it belongs to a governor to lead those whom he governs to their end. But + the end of the devil is the aversion of the rational creature from God; hence from the beginning he has endeavored to lead + man from obeying the Divine precept. But aversion from God has the nature of an end, inasmuch as it + is sought for under the appearance of liberty, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A7-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Jer.2.20" target="asv"> Jer. 2:20</a>: "Of old time thou hast broken my yoke, thou hast burst my bands, and thou saidst, 'I will not serve.'" Hence, inasmuch as + some are brought to this end by sinning, they fall under the rule and government of the devil, and therefore he is called + their head. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the devil does not influence the rational mind interiorly, yet he beguiles it to evil by persuasion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A governor does not always suggest to his subjects to obey his will; but proposes to all the sign of his will, in consequence + of which some are incited by inducement, and some of their own free-will, as is plain in the leader of an army, whose standard + all the soldiers follow, though no one persuades them. Therefore in the same way, the first sin of the devil, who "sinneth + from the beginning" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A7-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.3.8" target="asv">1 Jn. 3:8</a>), is held out to all to be + followed, and some imitate at his suggestion, and some of their own will without any suggestion. And hence the devil is the + head of all the wicked, inasmuch as they imitate Him, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A7-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.2.24" target="asv">Wis. 2:24,25</a>: "By the envy of the devil, death came into the world. And they follow him that are of his side." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> All sins agree in aversion from God, although they differ by conversion to different changeable goods. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A7-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q8_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q8_A8-p0.1">Whether Anti-christ may be called the head of all the wicked?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Antichrist is not the head of the wicked. For there are not several heads of one body. But the devil is + the head of the multitude of the wicked. Therefore Anti-christ is not their head. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Anti-christ is a member of the devil. Now the head is distinguished from the members. Therefore Anti-christ is not + the head of the wicked. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the head has an influence over the members. But Anti-christ has no influence over the wicked who have preceded him. + Therefore Anti-christ is not the head of the wicked. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xv] on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Job.21.29" target="asv"> Job 21:29, </a> "Ask any of them that go by the way," says: "Whilst he was speaking of the body of all the wicked, suddenly he turned his + speech to Anti-christ the head of all evil-doers." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above + <a id="TP_Q8_A8-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, in the head are found three things: order, perfection, and the power of influencing. But as regards the order of the body, + Anti-christ is not said to be the head of the wicked as if his sin had preceded, as the sin of the devil preceded. So likewise + he is not called the head of the wicked from the power of influencing, although he will pervert some in his day by exterior + persuasion; nevertheless those who + were before him were not beguiled into wickedness by him nor have imitated his wickedness. Hence he cannot be called the head + of all the wicked in this way, but of some. Therefore it remains to be said that he is the head of all the wicked by reason + of the perfection of his wickedness. Hence, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A8-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiThess.2.4" target="asv">2 Thess. 2:4, </a> "Showing himself as if he were God," a gloss says: "As in Christ dwelt the fulness of the Godhead, so in Anti-christ the + fulness of all wickedness." Not indeed as if + his humanity were assumed by the devil into unity of person, as the humanity of Christ by the Son of God; but that the devil + by suggestion infuses his wickedness more copiously into him than into all others. And in this way all the wicked who have + gone before are signs of Anti-christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A8-p6.3" href="./asv.html#iiThess.2.7" target="asv">2 Thess. 2:7, </a> "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The devil and Anti-christ are not two heads, but one; since Anti-christ is called the head, inasmuch as the wickedness of + the devil is most fully impressed on him. Hence, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q8_A8-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiThess.2.4" target="asv">2 Thess. 2:4, </a> "Showing himself as if he were God," a gloss says: "The head of all the wicked, namely the devil, who is king over all the + children of pride will be in him." Now he is said to be in him not by personal union, nor by indwelling, since "the Trinity + alone dwells in the mind" (as is said De Eccles. Dogm. lxxxiii), but by the effect of wickedness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the head of Christ is God, and yet He is the Head of the Church, as was said above (A[1], ad 2), so likewise Anti-christ + is a member of the devil and yet is head of the wicked. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Anti-christ is said to be the head of all the wicked not by a likeness of influence, but by a likeness of perfection. For + in him the devil, as it were, brings his wickedness to a head, in the same way that anyone is said to bring his purpose to + a head when he executes it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q8_A8-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q7_A13.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q9" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q9-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q9-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q9-p2"> We must now consider Christ's knowledge; concerning which the consideration will be twofold. First, of Christ's knowledge + in general; secondly, of each particular kind of knowledge He had. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9-p3"> Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q9-p4"> (1) Whether Christ had any knowledge besides the Divine?</p> + <p id="TP_Q9-p5"> (2) Whether He had the knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors have?</p> + <p id="TP_Q9-p6"> (3) Whether He had an imprinted or infused knowledge?</p> + <p id="TP_Q9-p7"> (4) Whether He had any acquired knowledge?</p> + <div id="TP_Q9_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q9_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ had any knowledge besides the Divine?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was no knowledge except the Divine. For knowledge is necessary that things may be known + thereby. But by His Divine knowledge Christ knew all things. Therefore any other knowledge would have been superfluous in + Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the lesser light is dimmed by the greater. But all created knowledge in comparison with the uncreated knowledge + of God is as the lesser to the greater light. Therefore there shone in Christ no other knowledge except the Divine. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the union of the human nature with the Divine took place in the Person, as is clear from + <a id="TP_Q9_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html"> Q[2], A[2]</a>. Now, according to some there is in Christ a certain "knowledge of the union," whereby Christ knew what belongs to the mystery + of the Incarnation more fully than anyone else. Hence, since the personal union contains two natures, it would seem that there + are not two knowledges in Christ, but one only, pertaining to both + natures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Incarnat. vii): "God assumed the perfection of human nature in the flesh; He took upon Himself the sense + of man, but not the swollen sense of the flesh." But created knowledge pertains to the sense of man. Therefore in Christ there + was created knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As said above ( + <a id="TP_Q9_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q5.html">Q[5])</a>, the Son of God assumed an entire human nature, i.e. not only a body, but also a soul, and not only a sensitive, but also + a rational soul. And therefore it behooved Him to have created knowledge, for three reasons. First, on account of the soul's + perfection. For the soul, considered in itself, is in potentiality to knowing intelligible things. since it is like "a tablet + on which nothing is written," and yet it may be + written upon through the possible intellect, whereby it may become all things, as is said De Anima iii, 18. Now what is in + potentiality is imperfect unless reduced to act. But it was fitting that the Son of God should assume, not an imperfect, but + a perfect human nature, since the whole human race was to be brought back to perfection by its means. Hence it behooved the + soul of Christ to be perfected by a knowledge, which would be its proper perfection. And therefore it was necessary that there + should be another knowledge in Christ besides the Divine knowledge, otherwise the soul of Christ would have been more imperfect + than the souls of the rest of men. Secondly, because, since everything is on account of its operation, as stated De Coel. + ii, 17, Christ would have had an intellective soul to no purpose if He had not understood by it; and this pertains to created + knowledge. Thirdly, because some created knowledge pertains to the nature of the human soul, viz. that whereby we naturally + know first principles; since we are here taking knowledge for any cognition of the human intellect. Now nothing natural was + wanting to Christ, since He took the whole human nature, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q9_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q5.html">Q[5])</a>. And hence the Sixth Council [*Third Council of Constantinople, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.4" target="asv">Act. 4</a>] condemned the opinion of those who denied that in Christ there are two knowledges or wisdoms. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ knew all things with the Divine knowledge by an uncreated operation which is the very Essence of God; since God's + understanding is His substance, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. xii, text. 39). Hence this act could not belong to the + human soul of Christ, seeing that it belongs to another nature. Therefore, if there had been no other knowledge in the soul + of Christ, it would have known nothing; and thus it would have been assumed to no + purpose, since everything is on account of its operation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If the two lights are supposed to be in the same order, the lesser is dimmed by the greater, as the light of the sun dims + the light of a candle, both being in the class of illuminants. But if we suppose two lights, one of which is in the class + of illuminants and the other in the class of illuminated, the lesser light is not dimmed by the greater, but rather is strengthened, + as the light of the air by the light of the sun. And in this manner the light + of knowledge is not dimmed, but rather is heightened in the soul of Christ by the light of the Divine knowledge, which is + "the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world," as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.9" target="asv"> Jn. 1:9.</a> + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> On the part of what are united we hold there is a knowledge in Christ, both as to His Divine and as to His human nature; + so that, by reason of the union whereby there is one hypostasis of God and man, the things of God are attributed to man, and + the things of man are attributed to God, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q9_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q3_A1.html">Q[3], AA[1]</a>,6). But on the part of the union itself we cannot admit any knowledge in Christ. For this union is in personal + being, and knowledge belongs to person only by reason of a nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q9_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q9_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ had the knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors have?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was not the knowledge of the blessed or comprehensors. For the knowledge of the blessed + is a participation of Divine light, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.35.10" target="asv"> Ps. 35:10</a>: "In Thy light we shall see light." Now Christ had not a participated light, but He had the Godhead Itself substantially + abiding in Him, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Col.2.9" target="asv"> Col. 2:9</a>: "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally." Therefore in + Christ there was not the knowledge of the blessed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the knowledge of the blessed makes them blessed, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.17.3" target="asv"> Jn. 17:3</a>: "This is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent." But this Man was + blessed through being united to God in person, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.64.5" target="asv"> Ps. 64:5</a>: "Blessed is He Whom Thou hast chosen and taken to Thee." Therefore it is not necessary to suppose the knowledge of the blessed + in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to man belongs a double knowledge---one by nature, one above nature. Now the knowledge of the blessed, which consists + in the vision of God, is not natural to man, but above his nature. But in Christ there was another and much higher supernatural + knowledge, i.e. the Divine knowledge. Therefore there was no need of the knowledge of the blessed in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The knowledge of the blessed consists in the knowledge of God. But He knew God fully, even as He was man, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.55" target="asv"> Jn. 8:55</a>: "I do know Him, and do keep His word." Therefore in Christ there was the knowledge of the blessed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> What is in potentiality is reduced to act by what is in act; for that whereby things are heated must itself be hot. Now man + is in potentiality to the knowledge of the blessed, which consists in the vision of God; and is ordained to it as to an end; + since the rational creature is capable of that blessed knowledge, inasmuch as he is made in the image of God. Now men are + brought to this end of beatitude by the humanity of Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.10" target="asv"> Heb. + 2:10 + </a>: "For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things, Who had brought many children unto glory, to perfect + the author of their salvation by His passion." And hence it was necessary that the beatific knowledge, which consists in the + vision of God, should belong to Christ pre-eminently, since the cause ought always to be more efficacious than the effect. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Godhead is united to the manhood of Christ in Person, not in essence or nature; yet with the unity of Person remains + the distinction of natures. And therefore the soul of Christ, which is a part of human nature, through a light participated + from the Divine Nature, is perfected with the beatific knowledge whereby it sees God in essence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By the union this Man is blessed with the uncreated beatitude, even as by the union He is God; yet besides the uncreated + beatitude it was necessary that there should be in the human nature of Christ a created beatitude, whereby His soul was established + in the last end of human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The beatific vision and knowledge are to some extent above the nature of the rational soul, inasmuch as it cannot reach it + of its own strength; but in another way it is in accordance with its nature, inasmuch as it is capable of it by nature, having + been made to the likeness of God, as stated above. But the uncreated knowledge is in every way above the nature of the human + soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q9_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q9_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ had an imprinted or infused knowledge?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was not in Christ another infused knowledge besides the beatific knowledge. For all other knowledge + compared to the beatific knowledge is like imperfect to perfect. But imperfect knowledge is removed by the presence of perfect + knowledge, as the clear "face-to-face" vision removes the enigmatical vision of faith, as is plain from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:10,12.</a> Since, therefore, in Christ there was the beatific knowledge, as + stated above + <a id="TP_Q9_A3-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, it would seem that there could not be any other imprinted knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, an imperfect mode of cognition disposes towards a more perfect, as opinion, the result of dialectical syllogisms, + disposes towards science, which results from demonstrative syllogisms. Now, when perfection is reached, there is no further + need of the disposition, even as on reaching the end motion is no longer necessary. Hence, since every created cognition is + compared to beatific cognition, as imperfect to perfect and as disposition to its term, it + seems that since Christ had beatific knowledge, it was not necessary for Him to have any other knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as corporeal matter is in potentiality to sensible forms, so the possible intellect is in potentiality to intelligible + forms. Now corporeal matter cannot receive two forms at once! one more perfect and the other less perfect. Therefore neither + can the soul receive a double knowledge at once, one more perfect and the other less perfect; and hence the same conclusion + as above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.3" target="asv">Col. 2:3</a>) that in Christ "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q9_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, it was fitting that the human nature assumed by the Word of God should not be imperfect. Now everything in potentiality + is imperfect unless it be reduced to act. But the passive intellect of man is in potentiality to all intelligible things. + and it is reduced to act by intelligible species, which are its completive forms, as is plain from what is said De Anima iii, + 32,38. And hence we must admit in the soul of + Christ an infused knowledge, inasmuch as the Word of God imprinted upon the soul of Christ, which is personally united to + Him, intelligible species of all things to which the possible intellect is in potentiality; even as in the beginning of the + creation of things, the Word of God imprinted intelligible species upon the angelic mind, as is clear from Augustine (Gen. + ad lit. ii, 8). And therefore, even as in the angels, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22,24,30), there is a double + knowledge---one the morning knowledge, whereby they know things in the Word; the other the evening knowledge, whereby they + know things in their proper natures by infused species; so likewise, besides the Divine and uncreated knowledge in Christ, + there is in His soul a beatific knowledge, whereby He knows the Word, and things in the Word; and an infused or imprinted + knowledge, whereby He knows things in their proper nature by intelligible species proportioned to the human mind. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The imperfect vision of faith is essentially opposed to manifest vision, seeing that it is of the essence of faith to have + reference to the unseen, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q9_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q1_A4.html">SS, Q[1], A[4]</a>). But cognition by infused species includes no opposition to beatific cognition. Therefore there is no parity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Disposition is referred to perfection in two ways: first, as a way leading to perfection; secondly, as an effect proceeding + from perfection; thus matter is disposed by heat to receive the form of fire, and, when this comes, the heat does not cease, + but remains as an effect of this form. So, too, opinion caused by a dialectical syllogism is a way to knowledge, which is + acquired by demonstration, yet, when this has been acquired, there may still remain + the knowledge gained by the dialectical syllogism, following, so to say, the demonstrative knowledge, which is based on the + cause, since he who knows the cause is thereby enabled the better to understand the probable signs from which dialectical + syllogisms proceed. So likewise in Christ, together with the beatific knowledge, there still remains infused knowledge, not + as a way to beatitude, but as strengthened by beatitude. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The beatific knowledge is not by a species, that is a similitude of the Divine Essence, or of whatever is known in the Divine + Essence, as is plain from what has been said in the + <a id="TP_Q9_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A2.html">FP, Q[12], A[2]</a>; but it is a knowledge of the Divine Essence immediately, inasmuch as the Divine Essence itself is united to the beatified + mind as an intelligible to an intelligent being; and the Divine Essence is a form exceeding the capacity of any + creature whatsoever. Hence, together with this super-exceeding form, there is nothing to hinder from being in the rational + mind, intelligible species, proportioned to its nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q9_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q9_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ had any acquired knowledge?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was no empiric and acquired knowledge. For whatever befitted Christ, He had most perfectly. + Now Christ did not possess acquired knowledge most perfectly, since He did not devote Himself to the study of letters, by + which knowledge is acquired in its perfection; for it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.7.15" target="asv">Jn. 7:15</a>): "The Jews wondered, saying: How doth this Man know letters, having never learned?" Therefore it seems that in Christ + there was no acquired knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing can be added to what is full. But the power of Christ's soul was filled with intelligible species divinely + infused, as was said above (A. 3). Therefore no acquired species could accrue to His soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, he who already has the habit of knowledge, acquires no new habit, through what he receives from the senses (otherwise + two forms of the same species would be in the same thing together); but the habit which previously existed is strengthened + and increased. Therefore, since Christ had the habit of infused knowledge, it does not seem that He acquired a new knowledge + through what He perceived by the senses. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.8" target="asv">Heb. 5:8</a>): "Whereas . . . He was the Son of God, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered," i.e. "experienced," says a + gloss. Therefore there was in the soul of Christ an empiric knowledge, which is acquired knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As is plain from A[1], nothing that God planted in our nature was wanting to the human nature assumed by the Word of God. + Now it is manifest that God planted in human nature not only a passive, but an active intellect. Hence it is necessary to + say that in the soul of Christ there was not merely a passive, but also an active intellect. But if in other things God and + nature make nothing in vain, as the Philosopher says (De Coel. i, 31; ii, 59), still less in + the soul of Christ is there anything in vain. Now what has not its proper operation is useless, as is said in De Coel. ii, + 17. Now the proper operation of the active intellect is to make intelligible species in act, by abstracting them from phantasms; + hence, it is said (De Anima iii, 18) that the active intellect is that "whereby everything is made actual." And thus it is + necessary to say that in Christ there were intelligible species received in the passive intellect by the action of the + active intellect---which means that there was acquired knowledge in Him, which some call empiric. And hence, although I wrote + differently (Sent. iii, D, xiv, A[3]; D, xviii, A[3]), it must be said that in Christ there was acquired knowledge, which + is properly knowledge in a human fashion, both as regards the subject receiving and as regards the active cause. For such + knowledge springs from Christ's active intellect, which is natural to the human soul. But infused knowledge is attributed + to the + soul, on account of a light infused from on high, and this manner of knowing is proportioned to the angelic nature. But the + beatific knowledge, whereby the very Essence of God is seen, is proper and natural to God alone, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q9_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A4.html">FP, Q[12], A[4]</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Since there is a twofold way of acquiring knowledge---by discovery and by being taught---the way of discovery is the higher, + and the way of being taught is secondary. Hence it is said (Ethic. i, 4): "He indeed is the best who knows everything by himself: + yet he is good who obeys him that speaks aright." And hence it was more fitting for Christ to possess a knowledge acquired + by discovery than by being taught, especially since He was given to be the + Teacher of all, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q9_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Joel.2.23" target="asv">Joel 2:23</a>: "Be joyful in the Lord your God, because He hath given you a Teacher of justice." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The human mind has two relations---one to higher things, and in this respect the soul of Christ was full of the infused knowledge. + The other relation is to lower things, i.e. to phantasms, which naturally move the human mind by virtue of the active intellect. + Now it was necessary that even in this respect the soul of Christ should be filled with knowledge, not that the first fulness + was insufficient for the human mind in itself, but that it behooved + it to be also perfected with regard to phantasms. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Acquired and infused habits are not to be classed together; for the habit of knowledge is acquired by the relation of the + human mind to phantasms; hence, another habit of the same kind cannot be again acquired. But the habit of infused knowledge + is of a different nature, as coming down to the soul from on high, and not from phantasms. And hence there is no parity between + these habits. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q9_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q8_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q10" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q10-p0.1">OF THE BEATIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST'S SOUL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q10-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q10-p2"> Now we must consider each of the aforesaid knowledges. Since, however, we have treated of the Divine knowledge in the FP, + Q[14], it now remains to speak of the three others: (1) of the beatific knowledge; (2) of the infused knowledge; (3) of the + acquired knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10-p3"> But again, because much has been said in the FP, Q[12], of the beatific knowledge, which consists in the vision of God, we + shall speak here only of such things as belong properly to the soul of Christ. Under this head there are four points of inquiry: + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10-p4"> (1) Whether the soul of Christ comprehended the Word or the Divine Essence?</p> + <p id="TP_Q10-p5"> (2) Whether it knew all things in the Word?</p> + <p id="TP_Q10-p6"> (3) Whether the soul of Christ knew the infinite in the Word?</p> + <p id="TP_Q10-p7"> (4) Whether it saw the Word or the Divine Essence clearer than did any other creature?</p> + <div id="TP_Q10_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q10_A1-p0.1">Whether the soul of Christ comprehended the Word or the Divine Essence?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ comprehended and comprehends the Word or Divine Essence. For Isidore says (De Summo + Bono i, 3) that "the Trinity is known only to Itself and to the Man assumed." Therefore the Man assumed communicates with + the Holy Trinity in that knowledge of Itself which is proper to the Trinity. Now this is the knowledge of comprehension. Therefore + the soul of Christ comprehends the Divine Essence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to be united to God in personal being is greater than to be united by vision. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. + iii, 6), "the whole Godhead in one Person is united to the human nature in Christ." Therefore much more is the whole Divine + Nature seen by the soul of Christ; and hence it would seem that the soul of Christ comprehended the Divine Essence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what belongs by nature to the Son of God belongs by grace to the Son of Man, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 13). + But to comprehend the Divine Essence belongs by nature to the Son of God. Therefore it belongs by grace to the Son of Man; + and thus it seems that the soul of Christ comprehended the Divine Essence by grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 14): "Whatsoever comprehends itself is finite to itself." But the Divine Essence is not + finite with respect to the soul of Christ, since It infinitely exceeds it. Therefore the soul of Christ does not comprehend + the Word. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As is plain from Q[2], AA[1],6, the union of the two natures in the Person of Christ took place in such a way that the properties + of both natures remained unconfused, i.e. "the uncreated remained uncreated, and the created remained within the limits of + the creature," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3,4). Now it is impossible for any creature to comprehend the Divine + Essence, as was shown in the + <a id="TP_Q10_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A1.html">FP, Q[12], AA[1]</a>,4,7, seeing that + the infinite is not comprehended by the finite. And hence it must be said that the soul of Christ nowise comprehends the Divine + Essence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Man assumed is reckoned with the Divine Trinity in the knowledge of Itself, not indeed as regards comprehension, but + by reason of a certain most excellent knowledge above the rest of creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Not even in the union by personal being does the human nature comprehend the Word of God or the Divine Nature, for although + it was wholly united to the human nature in the one Person of the Son, yet the whole power of the Godhead was not circumscribed + by the human nature. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): "I would have you know that it is not the Christian + doctrine that God was united to flesh in such a manner as to quit or lose the + care of the world's government, neither did Ne narrow or reduce it when He transferred it to that little body." So likewise + the soul of Christ sees the whole Essence of God, yet does not comprehend It; since it does not see It totally, i.e. not as + perfectly as It is knowable, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q10_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A7.html">FP, Q[12], A[7]</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This saying of Augustine is to be understood of the grace of union, by reason of which all that is said of the Son of God + in His Divine Nature is also said of the Son of Man on account of the identity of suppositum. And in this way it may be said + that the Son of Man is a comprehensor of the Divine Essence, not indeed by His soul, but in His Divine Nature; even as we + may also say that the Son of Man is the Creator. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q10_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q10_A2-p0.1">Whether the Son of God knew all things in the Word?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ does not know all things in the Word. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.13.32" target="asv">Mk. 13:32</a>): "But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father." Therefore He does not + know all things in the Word. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the more perfectly anyone knows a principle the more he knows in the principle. But God sees His Essence more perfectly + than the soul of Christ does. Therefore He knows more than the soul of Christ knows in the Word. Therefore the soul of Christ + does not know all things in the Word. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the extent depends on the number of things known. If, therefore, the soul of Christ knew in the Word all that the + Word knows, it would follow that the knowledge of the soul of Christ would equal the Divine knowledge, i.e. the created would + equal the uncreated, which is impossible. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.5.12" target="asv"> Apoc. 5:12, </a> "The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive . . . divinity and wisdom," a gloss says, i.e. "the knowledge of all things." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> When it is inquired whether Christ knows all things in the Word, "all things" may be taken in two ways: First, properly, + to stand for all that in any way whatsoever is, will be, or was done, said, or thought, by whomsoever and at any time. And + in this way it must be said that the soul of Christ knows all things in the Word. For every created intellect knows in the + Word, not all simply, but so many more things the more perfectly it sees the Word. Yet no + beatified intellect fails to know in the Word whatever pertains to itself. Now to Christ and to His dignity all things to + some extent belong, inasmuch as all things are subject to Him. Moreover, He has been appointed Judge of all by God, "because + He is the Son of Man," as is said + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.27" target="asv"> Jn. 5:27</a>; and therefore the soul of Christ knows in the Word all things existing in whatever time, and the thoughts of men, of which + He is the Judge, so that what is said of Him ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.2.25" target="asv">Jn. + 2:25 + </a>), "For He knew what was in man," can be understood not merely of the Divine knowledge, but also of His soul's knowledge, + which it had in the Word. Secondly, "all things" may be taken widely, as extending not merely to such things as are in act + at some time, but even to such things as are in potentiality, and never have been nor ever will be reduced to act. Now some + of these are in the Divine power alone, and not all of these does the soul of Christ know in the Word. For this + would be to comprehend all that God could do, which would be to comprehend the Divine power, and, consequently, the Divine + Essence. For every power is known from the knowledge of all it can do. Some, however, are not only in the power of God, but + also in the power of the creature; and all of these the soul of Christ knows in the Word; for it comprehends in the Word the + essence of every creature, and, consequently, its power and virtue, and all things that are in the power of the creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Arius and Eunomius understood this saying, not of the knowledge of the soul, which they did not hold to be in Christ, as + was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q10_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A1.html">Q[9], A[1]</a>), but of the Divine knowledge of the Son, Whom they held to be less than the Father as regards knowledge. But this will not + stand, since all things were made by the Word of God, as is said + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.3" target="asv">Jn. 1:3</a>, and, amongst other things, all times were made by Him. Now He is not ignorant of + anything that was made by Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p8"> He is said, therefore, not to know the day and the hour of the Judgment, for that He does not make it known, since, on being + asked by the apostles ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.7" target="asv">Acts 1:7</a>), He was unwilling to reveal it; and, on the contrary, we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.22.12" target="asv">Gn. 22:12</a>): "Now I know that thou fearest God," i.e. "Now I have made thee know." But the Father is said to know, because He imparted + this knowledge to the Son. Hence, by saying but the Father, we are given to understand + that the Son knows, not merely in the Divine Nature, but also in the human, because, as Chrysostom argues (Hom. lxxviii in + Matth.), if it is given to Christ as man to know how to judge---which is greater---much more is it given to Him to know the + less, viz. the time of Judgment. Origen, however (in Matth. Tract. xxx), expounds it of His body, which is the Church, which + is ignorant of this time. Lastly, some say this is to be understood of the adoptive, and not of the natural Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> God knows His Essence so much the more perfectly than the soul of Christ, as He comprehends it. And hence He knows all things, + not merely whatever are in act at any time, which things He is said to know by knowledge of vision, but also what ever He + Himself can do, which He is said to know by simple intelligence, as was shown in the + <a id="TP_Q10_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A9.html">FP, Q[14], A[9]</a>. Therefore the soul of Christ knows all things that God knows in Himself by the + knowledge of vision, but not all that God knows in Himself by knowledge of simple intelligence; and thus in Himself God knows + many more things than the soul of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The extent of knowledge depends not merely on the number of knowable things, but also on the clearness of the knowledge. + Therefore, although the knowledge of the soul of Christ which He has in the Word is equal to the knowledge of vision as regards + the number of things known, nevertheless the knowledge of God infinitely exceeds the knowledge of the soul of Christ in clearness + of cognition, since the uncreated light of the Divine intellect infinitely + exceeds any created light received by the soul of Christ; although, absolutely speaking, the Divine knowledge exceeds the + knowledge of the soul of Christ, not only as regards the mode of knowing, but also as regards the number of things known, + as was stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q10_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q10_A3-p0.1">Whether the soul of Christ can know the infinite in the Word?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ cannot know the infinite in the Word. For that the infinite should be known is repugnant + to the definition of the infinite which (Phys. iii, 63) is said to be that "from which, however much we may take, there always + remains something to be taken." But it is impossible for the definition to be separated from the thing defined, since this + would mean that contradictories exist together. Therefore it is impossible that the + soul of Christ knows the infinite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the knowledge of the infinite is infinite. But the knowledge of the soul of Christ cannot be infinite, because its + capacity is finite, since it is created. Therefore the soul of Christ cannot know the infinite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there can be nothing greater than the infinite. But more is contained in the Divine knowledge, absolutely speaking, + than in the knowledge of Christ's soul, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q10_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore the soul of Christ does not know the infinite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The soul of Christ knows all its power and all it can do. Now it can cleanse infinite sins, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.2" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:2</a>: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Therefore the soul + of Christ knows the infinite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Knowledge regards only being, since being and truth are convertible. Now a thing is said to be a being in two ways: First, + simply, i.e. whatever is a being in act; secondly, relatively, i.e. whatever is a being in potentiality. And because, as is + said Metaph. ix, 20, everything is known as it is in act, and not as it is in potentiality, knowledge primarily and essentially + regards being in act, and secondarily regards being in potentiality, which is not + knowable of itself, but inasmuch as that in whose power it exists is known. Hence, with regard to the first mode of knowledge, + the soul of Christ does not know the infinite. Because there is not an infinite number in act, even though we were to reckon + all that are in act at any time whatsoever, since the state of generation and corruption will not last for ever: consequently + there is a certain number not only of things lacking generation and corruption, but also of things capable of generation + and corruption. But with regard to the other mode of knowing, the soul of Christ knows infinite things in the Word, for it + knows, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q10_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, all that is in the power of the creature. Hence, since in the power of the creature there is an infinite number of things, + it knows the infinite, as it were, by a certain knowledge of simple intelligence, and not by a knowledge of vision. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As we said in the + <a id="TP_Q10_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q8_A1.html">FP, Q[8], A[1]</a>, the infinite is taken in two ways. First, on the part of a form, and thus we have the negatively infinite, i.e. a form or + act not limited by being received into matter or a subject; and this infinite of itself is most knowable on account of the + perfection of the act, although it is not comprehensible by the finite power of the creature; for thus God is said to be infinite. + And this infinite the + soul of Christ knows, yet does not comprehend. Secondly, there is the infinite as regards matter, which is taken privatively, + i.e. inasmuch as it has not the form it ought naturally to have, and in this way we have infinite in quantity. Now such an + infinite of itself, is unknown: inasmuch as it is, as it were, matter with privation of form as is said Phys. iii, 65. But + all knowledge is by form or act. Therefore if this infinite is to be known according to its mode of being, it cannot be known. + For its mode is that part be taken after part, as is said Phys. iii, 62,63. And in this way it is true that, if we take something + from it, i.e. taking part after part, there always remains something to be taken. But as material things can be received by + the intellect immaterially, and many things unitedly, so can infinite things be received by the intellect, not after the manner + of infinite, but finitely; and thus what are in themselves infinite are, in the intellect of the knower, finite. And + in this way the soul of Christ knows an infinite number of things, inasmuch as it knows them not by discoursing from one to + another, but in a certain unity, i.e. in any creature in whose potentiality infinite things exist, and principally in the + Word Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There is nothing to hinder a thing from being infinite in one way and finite in another, as when in quantities we imagine + a surface infinite in length and finite in breadth. Hence, if there were an infinite number of men, they would have a relative + infinity, i.e. in multitude; but, as regards the essence, they would be finite, since the essence of all would be limited + to one specific nature. But what is simply infinite in its essence is God, as was + said in the + <a id="TP_Q10_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q7_A2.html">FP, Q[7], A[2]</a>. Now the proper object of the intellect is "what a thing is," as is said De Anima iii, 26, to which pertains the notion of + the species. And thus the soul of Christ, since it has a finite capacity, attains to, but does not comprehend, what is simply + infinite in essence, as stated above (A[1] ). But the infinite in potentiality which is in creatures can be comprehended by + the soul of Christ, since it is compared to that soul according to its + essence, in which respect it is not infinite. For even our intellect understands a universal---for example, the nature of + a genus or species, which in a manner has infinity, inasmuch as it can be predicated of an infinite number. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> That which is infinite in every way can be but one. Hence the Philosopher says (De Coel. i, 2,3,) that, since bodies have + dimensions in every part, there cannot be several infinite bodies. Yet if anything were infinite in one way only, nothing + would hinder the existence of several such infinite things; as if we were to suppose several lines of infinite length drawn + on a surface of finite breadth. Hence, because infinitude is not a substance, but is + accidental to things that are said to be infinite, as the Philosopher says (Phys. iii, 37,38); as the infinite is multiplied + by different subjects, so, too, a property of the infinite must be multiplied, in such a way that it belongs to each of them + according to that particular subject. Now it is a property of the infinite that nothing is greater than it. Hence, if we take + one infinite line, there is nothing greater in it than the infinite; so, too, if we take any one of other infinite lines, + it is plain that each has infinite parts. Therefore of necessity in this particular line there is nothing greater than all + these infinite parts; yet in another or a third line there will be more infinite parts besides these. We observe this in numbers + also, for the species of even numbers are infinite, and likewise the species of odd numbers are infinite; yet there are more + even and odd numbers than even. And thus it must be said that nothing is greater than the simply and in every way + infinite; but than the infinite which is limited in some respect, nothing is greater in that order; yet we may suppose something + greater outside that order. In this way, therefore, there are infinite things in the potentiality of the creature, and yet + there are more in the power of God than in the potentiality of the creature. So, too, the soul of Christ knows infinite things + by the knowledge of simple intelligence; yet God knows more by this manner of knowledge or understanding. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q10_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q10_A4-p0.1">Whether the soul of Christ sees the Word or the Divine Essence more clearly than does any other creature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ does not see the Word more perfectly than does any other creature. For the perfection + of knowledge depends upon the medium of knowing; as the knowledge we have by means of a demonstrative syllogism is more perfect + than that which we have by means of a probable syllogism. But all the blessed see the Word immediately in the Divine Essence + Itself, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q10_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A2.html">FP, Q[12], A[2]</a>. Therefore the soul + of Christ does not see the Word more perfectly than any other creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the perfection of vision does not exceed the power of seeing. But the rational power of a soul such as is the soul + of Christ is below the intellective power of an angel, as is plain from Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv). Therefore the soul of + Christ did not see the Word more perfectly than the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God sees His Word infinitely more perfectly than does the soul of Christ. Hence there are infinite possible mediate + degrees between the manner in which God sees His Word, and the manner in which the soul of Christ sees the Word. Therefore + we cannot assert that the soul of Christ sees the Word or the Divine Essence more perfectly than does every other creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.20" target="asv">Eph. 1:20,21</a>) that God set Christ "on His right hand in the heavenly places, above all principality and power and virtue and dominion + and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come." But in that heavenly glory the higher + anyone is the more perfectly does he know God. Therefore the soul of Christ sees God more perfectly than does any other creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The vision of the Divine Essence is granted to all the blessed by a partaking of the Divine light which is shed upon them + from the fountain of the Word of God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.1.5" target="asv"> Ecclus. 1:5</a>: "The Word of God on high is the fountain of Wisdom." Now the soul of Christ, since it is united to the Word in person, is + more closely joined to the Word of God than any other creature. Hence it more fully receives the light in which God is seen + by the + Word Himself than any other creature. And therefore more perfectly than the rest of creatures it sees the First Truth itself, + which is the Essence of God; hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q10_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>): "And we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father," "full" not only of "grace" but also of + "truth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Perfection of knowledge, on the part of the thing known, depends on the medium; but as regards the knower, it depends on + the power or habit. And hence it is that even amongst men one sees a conclusion in a medium more perfectly than another does. + And in this way the soul of Christ, which is filled with a more abundant light, knows the Divine Essence more perfectly than + do the other blessed, although all see the Divine Essence in itself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The vision of the Divine Essence exceeds the natural power of any creature, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q10_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q12_A4.html">FP, Q[12], A[4]</a>. And hence the degrees thereof depend rather on the order of grace in which Christ is supreme, than on the order of nature, + in which the angelic nature is placed before the human. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q10_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A12.html">Q[7], A[12]</a>), there cannot be a greater grace than the grace of Christ with respect to the union with the Word; and the same is to be + said of the perfection of the Divine vision; although, absolutely speaking, there could be a higher and more sublime degree + by the infinity of the Divine power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q10_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q9_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q11" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q11-p0.1">OF THE KNOWLEDGE IMPRINTED OR INFUSED IN THE SOUL OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q11-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11-p2"> We must now consider the knowledge imprinted or infused in the soul of Christ, and under this head there are six points of + inquiry: + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11-p3"> (1) Whether Christ knows all things by this knowledge?</p> + <p id="TP_Q11-p4"> (2) Whether He could use this knowledge by turning to phantasms?</p> + <p id="TP_Q11-p5"> (3) Whether this knowledge was collative?</p> + <p id="TP_Q11-p6"> (4) Of the comparison of this knowledge with the angelic knowledge;</p> + <p id="TP_Q11-p7"> (5) Whether it was a habitual knowledge?</p> + <p id="TP_Q11-p8"> (6) Whether it was distinguished by various habits?</p> + <div id="TP_Q11_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q11_A1-p0.1">Whether by this imprinted or infused knowledge Christ knew all things?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that by this knowledge Christ did not know all things. For this knowledge is imprinted upon Christ for the + perfection of the passive intellect. Now the passive intellect of the human soul does not seem to be in potentiality to all + things simply, but only to those things with regard to which it can be reduced to act by the active intellect, which is its + proper motor; and these are knowable by natural reason. Therefore by this knowledge Christ did + not know what exceeded the natural reason. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, phantasms are to the human intellect as colors to sight, as is said De Anima iii, 18,31,39. But it does not pertain + to the perfection of the power of seeing to know what is without color. Therefore it does not pertain to the perfection of + human intellect to know things of which there are no phantasms, such as separate substances. Hence, since this knowledge was + in Christ for the perfection of His intellective soul, it seems that by this knowledge He + did not know separate substances. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it does not belong to the perfection of the intellect to know singulars. Hence it would seem that by this knowledge + the soul of Christ did not know singulars. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q11_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.11.2" target="asv">Is. 11:2</a>) that "the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of knowledge and counsel shall fill Him [*Vulg.: 'The Spirit of the Lord shall + rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel . . . the Spirit of knowledge . . . '; cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q11_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.15.5" target="asv"> Ecclus. 15:5</a>]," under which are included all that may be known; for the knowledge of all Divine things belongs to wisdom, the knowledge + of all + immaterial things to understanding, the knowledge of all conclusions to knowledge [scientia], the knowledge of all practical + things to counsel. Hence it would seem that by this knowledge Christ had the knowledge of all things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q11_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A1.html">Q[9], A[1]</a>), it was fitting that the soul of Christ should be wholly perfected by having each of its powers reduced to act. Now it must + be borne in mind that in the human soul, as in every creature, there is a double passive power: one in comparison with a natural + agent; the other in comparison with the first agent, which can reduce any creature to a higher act than a natural agent can + reduce it, and this is usually + called the obediential power of a creature. Now both powers of Christ's soul were reduced to act by this divinely imprinted + knowledge. And hence, by it the soul of Christ knew: First, whatever can be known by force of a man's active intellect, e.g. + whatever pertains to human sciences; secondly, by this knowledge Christ knew all things made known to man by Divine revelation, + whether they belong to the gift of wisdom or the gift of prophecy, or any other gift of the Holy Ghost; since the soul of + Christ knew these things more fully and completely than others. Yet He did not know the Essence of God by this knowledge, + but by the first alone, of which we spoke above ( + <a id="TP_Q11_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q10.html">Q[10])</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This reason refers to the natural power of an intellective soul in comparison with its natural agent, which is the active + intellect. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The human soul in the state of this life, since it is somewhat fettered by the body, so as to be unable to understand without + phantasms, cannot understand separate substances. But after the state of this life the separated soul will be able, in a measure, + to know separate substances by itself, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q11_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q89_A1.html">FP, Q[89], AA[1]</a>,2, and this is especially clear as regards the souls of the blessed. Now before His Passion, Christ + was not merely a wayfarer but also a comprehensor; hence His soul could know separate substances in the same way that a separated + soul could. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The knowledge of singulars pertains to the perfection of the intellective soul, not in speculative knowledge, but in practical + knowledge, which is imperfect without the knowledge of singulars, in which operations exist, as is said Ethic. vi, 7. Hence + for prudence are required the remembrance of past things, knowledge of present things, and foresight of future things, as + Tully says (De Invent. ii). Therefore, since Christ had the fulness of prudence by + the gift of counsel, He consequently knew all singular things---present, past, and future. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q11_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q11_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ could use this knowledge by turning to phantasms?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ could not understand by this knowledge except by turning to phantasms, because, as + is stated De Anima iii, 18,31,39, phantasms are compared to man's intellective soul as colors to sight. But Christ's power + of seeing could not become actual save by turning to colors. Therefore His intellective soul could understand nothing except + by turning to phantasms. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's soul is of the same nature as ours. otherwise He would not be of the same species as we, contrary to what + the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q11_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv">Phil. 2:7</a>) " . . . being made in the likeness of men." But our soul cannot understand except by turning to phantasms. Hence, neither + can Christ's soul otherwise understand. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, senses are given to man to help his intellect. Hence, if the soul of Christ could understand without turning to + phantasms, which arise in the senses, it would follow that in the soul of Christ the senses were useless, which is not fitting. + Therefore it seems that the soul of Christ can only understand by turning to phantasms. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The soul of Christ knew certain things which could not be known by the senses, viz. separate substances. Therefore it could + understand without turning to phantasms. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In the state before His Passion Christ was at the same time a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as will be more clearly shown + ( + <a id="TP_Q11_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A10.html">Q[15], A[10]</a>). Especially had He the conditions of a wayfarer on the part of the body, which was passible; but the conditions of a comprehensor + He had chiefly on the part of the soul. Now this is the condition of the soul of a comprehensor, viz. that it is nowise subject + to its body, or dependent upon it, but + wholly dominates it. Hence after the resurrection glory will flow from the soul to the body. But the soul of man on earth + needs to turn to phantasms, because it is fettered by the body and in a measure subject to and dependent upon it. And hence + the blessed both before and after the resurrection can understand without turning to phantasms. And this must be said of the + soul of Christ, which had fully the capabilities of a comprehensor. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This likeness which the Philosopher asserts is not with regard to everything. For it is manifest that the end of the power + of seeing is to know colors; but the end of the intellective power is not to know phantasms, but to know intelligible species, + which it apprehends from and in phantasms, according to the state of the present life. Therefore there is a likeness in respect + of what both powers regard, but not in respect of that in which the condition + of both powers is terminated. Now nothing prevents a thing in different states from reaching its end by different ways: albeit + there is never but one proper end of a thing. Hence, although the sight knows nothing without color; nevertheless in a certain + state the intellect can know without phantasms, but not without intelligible species. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the soul of Christ was of the same nature as our souls, yet it had a state which our souls have not yet in fact, + but only in hope, i.e. the state of comprehension. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the soul of Christ could understand without turning to phantasms, yet it could also understand by turning to phantasms. + Hence the senses were not useless in it; especially as the senses are not afforded to man solely for intellectual knowledge, + but for the need of animal life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q11_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q11_A3-p0.1">Whether this knowledge is collative?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ had not this knowledge by way of comparison. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, + 14): "We do not uphold counsel or choice in Christ." Now these things are withheld from Christ only inasmuch as they imply + comparison and discursion. Therefore it seems that there was no collative or discursive knowledge in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, man needs comparison and discursion of reason in order to find out the unknown. But the soul of Christ knew everything, + as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q11_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html">Q[10], A[2]</a>). Hence there was no discursive or collative knowledge in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the knowledge in Christ's soul was like that of comprehensors, who are likened to the angels, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q11_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.30" target="asv"> Mat. 22:30.</a> Now there is no collative or discursive knowledge in the angels, as Dionysius shows (Div. Nom. vii). Therefore there was + no discursive or collative knowledge in the soul of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Christ had a rational soul, as was shown ( + <a id="TP_Q11_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q5_A4.html">Q[5], A[4]</a>). Now the proper operation of a rational soul consists in comparison and discursion from one thing to another. Therefore + there was collative and discursive knowledge in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Knowledge may be discursive or collative in two ways. First, in the acquisition of the knowledge, as happens to us, who proceed + from one thing to the knowledge of another, as from causes to effects, and conversely. And in this way the knowledge in Christ's + soul was not discursive or collative, since this knowledge which we are now considering was divinely infused, and not acquired + by a process of reasoning. Secondly, knowledge may be called discursive or + collative in use; as at times those who know, reason from cause to effect, not in order to learn anew, but wishing to use + the knowledge they have. And in this way the knowledge in Christ's soul could be collative or discursive; since it could conclude + one thing from another, as it pleased, as in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q11_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.24" target="asv">Mat. 17:24,25</a>, when our Lord asked Peter: "Of whom do the kings of the earth receive tribute, of their own children, or of strangers?" + On Peter replying: "Of strangers," He concluded: "Then the children + are free." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> From Christ is excluded that counsel which is with doubt; and consequently choice, which essentially includes such counsel; + but the practice of using counsel is not excluded from Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This reason rests upon discursion and comparison, as used to acquire knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The blessed are likened to the angels in the gifts of graces; yet there still remains the difference of natures. And hence + to use comparison and discursion is connatural to the souls of the blessed, but not to angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q11_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q11_A4-p0.1">Whether in Christ this knowledge was greater than the knowledge of the angels?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q11_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this knowledge was not greater in Christ than in the angels. For perfection is proportioned to the thing + perfected. But the human soul in the order of nature is below the angelic nature. Therefore since the knowledge we are now + speaking of is imprinted upon Christ's soul for its perfection, it seems that this knowledge is less than the knowledge by + which the angelic nature is perfected. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the knowledge of Christ's soul was in a measure comparative and discursive, which cannot be said of the angelic + knowledge. Therefore the knowledge of Christ's soul was less than the knowledge of the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the more immaterial knowledge is, the greater it is. But the knowledge of the angels is more immaterial than the + knowledge of Christ's soul, since the soul of Christ is the act of a body, and turns to phantasms, which cannot be said of + the angels. Therefore the knowledge of angels is greater than the knowledge of Christ's soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q11_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.9" target="asv">Heb. 2:9</a>): "For we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor"; + from which it is plain that Christ is said to be lower than the angels only in regard to the suffering of death. And hence, + not in knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The knowledge imprinted on Christ's soul may be looked at in two ways: First, as regards what it has from the inflowing cause; + secondly, as regards what it has from the subject receiving it. Now with regard to the first, the knowledge imprinted upon + the soul of Christ was more excellent than the knowledge of the angels, both in the number of things known and in the certainty + of the knowledge; since the spiritual light, which is imprinted on the soul of + Christ, is much more excellent than the light which pertains to the angelic nature. But as regards the second, the knowledge + imprinted on the soul of Christ is less than the angelic knowledge, in the manner of knowing that is natural to the human + soul, i.e. by turning to phantasms, and by comparison and discursion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A4-p7"> And hereby the reply to the objections is made clear.</p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A4-p8"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A4-p9"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q11_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q11_A5-p0.1">Whether this knowledge was habitual?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was no habitual knowledge. For it has been said ( + <a id="TP_Q11_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A1.html">Q[9], A[1]</a>) that the highest perfection of knowledge befitted Christ's soul. But the perfection of an actually existing knowledge is + greater than that of a potentially or habitually existing knowledge. Therefore it was fitting for Him to know all things actually. + Therefore He had not habitual knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, since habits are ordained to acts, a habitual knowledge which is never reduced to act would seem useless. Now, since + Christ knew all things, as was said + <a id="TP_Q11_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html"> Q[10], A[2]</a>, He could not have considered all things actually, thinking over one after another, since the infinite cannot be passed over + by enumeration. Therefore the habitual knowledge of certain things would have been useless to Him---which is unfitting. Therefore + He had an + actual and not a habitual knowledge of what He knew. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, habitual knowledge is a perfection of the knower. But perfection is more noble than the thing perfected. If, therefore, + in the soul of Christ there was any created habit of knowledge, it would follow that this created thing was nobler than the + soul of Christ. Therefore there was no habitual knowledge in Christ's soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The knowledge of Christ we are now speaking about was univocal with our knowledge, even as His soul was of the same species + as ours. But our knowledge is in the genus of habit. Therefore the knowledge of Christ was habitual. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q11_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q11_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, the mode of the knowledge impressed on the soul of Christ befitted the subject receiving it. For the received is in the + recipient after the mode of the recipient. Now the connatural mode of the human soul is that it should understand sometimes + actually, and sometimes potentially. But the medium between a pure power and a completed act is a habit: and extremes and + medium are of the same genus. Thus it is plain + that it is the connatural mode of the human soul to receive knowledge as a habit. Hence it must be said that the knowledge + imprinted on the soul of Christ was habitual, for He could use it when He pleased. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In Christ's soul there was a twofold knowledge---each most perfect of its kind: the first exceeding the mode of human nature, + as by it He saw the Essence of God, and other things in It, and this was the most perfect, simply. Nor was this knowledge + habitual, but actual with respect to everything He knew in this way. But the second knowledge was in Christ in a manner proportioned + to human nature, i.e. inasmuch as He knew things by species divinely + imprinted upon Him, and of this knowledge we are now speaking. Now this knowledge was not most perfect, simply, but merely + in the genus of human knowledge; hence it did not behoove it to be always in act. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Habits are reduced to act by the command of the will, since a habit is that "with which we act when we wish." Now the will + is indeterminate in regard to infinite things. Yet it is not useless, even when it does not actually tend to all; provided + it actually tends to everything in fitting place and time. And hence neither is a habit useless, even if all that it extends + to is not reduced to act; provided that that which befits the due end of the will be + reduced to act according as the matter in hand and the time require. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Goodness and being are taken in two ways: First, simply; and thus a substance, which subsists in its being and goodness, + is a good and a being; secondly, being and goodness are taken relatively, and in this way an accident is a being and a good, + not that it has being and goodness, but that its subject is a being and a good. And hence habitual knowledge is not simply + better or more excellent than the soul of Christ; but relatively, since the whole + goodness of habitual knowledge is added to the goodness of the subject. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q11_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q11_A6-p0.1">Whether this knowledge was distinguished by divers habits?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in the soul of Christ there was only one habit of knowledge. For the more perfect knowledge is, the more + united it is; hence the higher angels understand by the more universal forms, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q11_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q55_A3.html">FP, Q[55], A[3]</a>. Now Christ's knowledge was most perfect. Therefore it was most one. Therefore it was not distinguished by several habits. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our faith is derived from Christ's knowledge; hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q11_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.2" target="asv">Heb. 12:2</a>): "Looking on Jesus the author and finisher of faith." But there is only one habit of faith about all things believed, as + was said in the + <a id="TP_Q11_A6-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q4_A6.html">SS, Q[4], A[6]</a>. Much more, therefore, was there only one habit of knowledge in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, knowledge is distinguished by the divers formalities of knowable things. But the soul of Christ knew everything + under one formality, i.e. by a divinely infused light. Therefore in Christ there was only one habit of knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q11_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Zech.3.9" target="asv">Zech. 3:9</a>) that on "one" stone, i.e. Christ, "there are seven eyes." Now by the eye is understood knowledge. Therefore it would seem + that in Christ there were several habits of knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q11_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q11_A4.html">AA[4]</a>,5), the knowledge imprinted on Christ's soul has a mode connatural to a human soul. Now it is connatural to a human soul + to receive species of a lesser universality than the angels receive; so that it knows different specific natures by different + intelligible species. But it so happens that we have different habits of knowledge, because there are different classes of + knowable things, inasmuch as what are in one + genus are known by one habit; thus it is said (Poster. i, 42) that "one science is of one class of object." And hence the + knowledge imprinted on Christ's soul was distinguished by different habits. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As was said + <a id="TP_Q11_A6-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q11_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, the knowledge of Christ's soul is most perfect, and exceeds the knowledge of angels with regard to what is in it on the + part of God's gift; but it is below the angelic knowledge as regards the mode of the recipient. And it pertains to this mode + that this knowledge is distinguished by various habits, inasmuch as it regards more particular species. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Our faith rests upon the First Truth; and hence Christ is the author of our faith by the Divine knowledge, which is simply + one. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The divinely infused light is the common formality for understanding what is divinely revealed, as the light of the active + intellect is with regard to what is naturally known. Hence, in the soul of Christ there must be the proper species of singular + things, in order to know each with proper knowledge; and in this way there must be divers habits of knowledge in Christ's + soul, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q11_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q10_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q12" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q12-p0.1">OF THE ACQUIRED OR EMPIRIC KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST'S SOUL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q12-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q12-p2"> We must now consider the acquired or empiric knowledge of Christ's soul; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q12-p3"> (1) Whether Christ knew all things by this knowledge?</p> + <p id="TP_Q12-p4"> (2) Whether He advanced in this knowledge?</p> + <p id="TP_Q12-p5"> (3) Whether He learned anything from man?</p> + <p id="TP_Q12-p6"> (4) Whether He received anything from angels?</p> + <div id="TP_Q12_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q12_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ knew all things by this acquired or empiric knowledge?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not know everything by this knowledge. For this knowledge is acquired by experience. But Christ + did not experience everything. Therefore He did not know everything by this knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, man acquires knowledge through the senses. But not all sensible things were subjected to Christ's bodily senses. + Therefore Christ did not know everything by this knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the extent of knowledge depends on the things knowable. Therefore if Christ knew all things by this knowledge, His + acquired knowledge would have been equal to His infused and beatific knowledge; which is not fitting. Therefore Christ did + not know all things by this knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Nothing imperfect was in Christ's soul. Now this knowledge of His would have been imperfect if He had not known all things + by it, since the imperfect is that to which addition may be made. Hence Christ knew all things by this knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Acquired knowledge is held to be in Christ's soul, as we have said + <a id="TP_Q12_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A4.html"> Q[9], A[4]</a>, by reason of the active intellect, lest its action, which is to make things actually intelligible, should be wanting; even + as imprinted or infused knowledge is held to be in Christ's soul for the perfection of the passive intellect. Now as the passive + intellect is that by which "all things are in potentiality," so the active intellect is that by which "all + are in act," as is said De Anima iii, 18. And hence, as the soul of Christ knew by infused knowledge all things to which the + passive intellect is in any way in potentiality, so by acquired knowledge it knew whatever can be known by the action of the + active intellect. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The knowledge of things may be acquired not merely by experiencing the things themselves, but by experiencing other things; + since by virtue of the light of the active intellect man can go on to understand effects from causes, and causes from effects, + like from like, contrary from contrary. Therefore Christ, though He did not experience all things, came to the knowledge of + all things from what He did experience. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although all sensible things were not subjected to Christ's bodily senses, yet other sensible things were subjected to His + senses; and from this He could come to know other things by the most excellent force of His reason, in the manner described + in the previous reply; just as in seeing heavenly bodies He could comprehend their powers and the effects they have upon things + here below, which were not subjected to His senses; and for the same reason, + from any other things whatsoever, He could come to the knowledge of yet other things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By this knowledge the soul of Christ did not know all things simply, but all such as are knowable by the light of man's active + intellect. Hence by this knowledge He did not know the essences of separate substances, nor past, present, or future singulars, + which, nevertheless, He knew by infused knowledge, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q12_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q11.html">Q[11])</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q12_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q12_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ advanced in acquired or empiric knowledge?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not advance in this knowledge. For even as Christ knew all things by His beatific and His infused + knowledge, so also did He by this acquired knowledge, as is plain from what has been said + <a id="TP_Q12_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q12_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But He did not advance in these knowledges. Therefore neither in this. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to advance belongs to the imperfect, since the perfect cannot be added to. Now we cannot suppose an imperfect knowledge + in Christ. Therefore Christ did not advance in this knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 22): "Whoever say that Christ advanced in wisdom and grace, as if receiving additional + sensations, do not venerate the union which is in hypostasis." But it is impious not to venerate this union. Therefore it + is impious to say that His knowledge received increase. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q12_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.52" target="asv">Lk. 2:52</a>): "Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men"; and Ambrose says (De Incar. Dom. vii) that "He advanced + in human wisdom." Now human wisdom is that which is acquired in a human manner, i.e. by the light of the active intellect. + Therefore Christ advanced in this knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There is a twofold advancement in knowledge: one in essence, inasmuch as the habit of knowledge is increased; the other in + effect---e.g. if someone were with one and the same habit of knowledge to prove to someone else some minor truths at first, + and afterwards greater and more subtle conclusions. Now in this second way it is plain that Christ advanced in knowledge and + grace, even as in age, since as His age increased He wrought greater deeds, and showed + greater knowledge and grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p7"> But as regards the habit of knowledge, it is plain that His habit of infused knowledge did not increase, since from the beginning + He had perfect infused knowledge of all things; and still less could His beatific knowledge increase; while in the + <a id="TP_Q12_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A15.html">FP, Q[14], A[15]</a>, we have already said that His Divine knowledge could not increase. Therefore, if in the soul of Christ there was no habit + of acquired knowledge, beyond the habit of infused knowledge, as appears + to some [*Blessed Albert the Great, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure], and sometime appeared to me (Sent. iii, D, xiv), + no knowledge in Christ increased in essence, but merely by experience, i.e. by comparing the infused intelligible species + with phantasms. And in this way they maintain that Christ's knowledge grew in experience, e.g. by comparing the infused intelligible + species with what He received through the senses for the first time. But because it seems unfitting that any natural + intelligible action should be wanting to Christ, and because to extract intelligible species from phantasms is a natural action + of man's active intellect, it seems becoming to place even this action in Christ. And it follows from this that in the soul + of Christ there was a habit of knowledge which could increase by this abstraction of species; inasmuch as the active intellect, + after abstracting the first intelligible species from phantasms, could abstract others, and others again. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Both the infused knowledge and the beatific knowledge of Christ's soul were the effects of an agent of infinite power, which + could produce the whole at once; and thus in neither knowledge did Christ advance; since from the beginning He had them perfectly. + But the acquired knowledge of Christ is caused by the active intellect which does not produce the whole at once, but successively; + and hence by this knowledge Christ did not know everything from the + beginning, but step by step, and after a time, i.e. in His perfect age; and this is plain from what the Evangelist says, viz. + that He increased in "knowledge and age" together. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Even this knowledge was always perfect for the time being, although it was not always perfect, simply and in comparison to + the nature; hence it could increase. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This saying of Damascene regards those who say absolutely that addition was made to Christ's knowledge, i.e. as regards any + knowledge of His, and especially as regards the infused knowledge which is caused in Christ's soul by union with the Word; + but it does not regard the increase of knowledge caused by the natural agent. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q12_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q12_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ learned anything from man?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ learned something from man. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q12_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.46" target="asv">Lk. 2:46,47</a>) that, "They found Him in the temple in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions." But to ask questions + and to reply pertains to a learner. Therefore Christ learned something from man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to acquire knowledge from a man's teaching seems more noble than to acquire it from sensible things, since in the + soul of the man who teaches the intelligible species are in act; but in sensible things the intelligible species are only + in potentiality. Now Christ received empiric knowledge from sensible things, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q12_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q12_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Much more, therefore, could He receive knowledge by learning from men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by empiric knowledge Christ did not know everything from the beginning, but advanced in it, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q12_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q12_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. But anyone hearing words which mean something, may learn something he does not know. Therefore Christ could learn from men + something He did not know by this knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q12_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.45.4" target="asv">Ps. 45:4</a>): "Behold, I have given Him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles." Now a master is not + taught, but teaches. Therefore Christ did not receive any knowledge by the teaching of any man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In every genus that which is the first mover is not moved according to the same species of movement; just as the first alterative + is not itself altered. Now Christ is established by God the Head of the Church---yea, of all men, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q12_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A3.html">Q[8], A[3]</a>), so that not only all might receive grace through Him, but that all might receive the doctrine of Truth from Him. Hence + He Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q12_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.18.37" target="asv">Jn. 18:37</a>): "For this + was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth." And thus it did not befit His + dignity that He should be taught by any man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Origen says (Hom. xix in Luc.): "Our Lord asked questions not in order to learn anything, but in order to teach by questioning. + For from the same well of knowledge came the question and the wise reply." Hence the Gospel goes on to say that "all that + heard Him were astonished at His wisdom and His answers." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Whoever learns from man does not receive knowledge immediately from the intelligible species which are in his mind, but through + sensible words, which are signs of intelligible concepts. Now as words formed by a man are signs of his intellectual knowledge; + so are creatures, formed by God, signs of His wisdom. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q12_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.1.10" target="asv">Ecclus. 1:10</a>) that God "poured" wisdom "out upon all His works." Hence, just as it is better to be + taught by God than by man, so it is better to receive our knowledge from sensible creatures and not by man's teaching. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Jesus advanced in empiric knowledge, as in age, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q12_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q12_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Now as a fitting age is required for a man to acquire knowledge by discovery, so also that he may acquire it by being taught. + But our Lord did nothing unbecoming to His age; and hence He did not give ear to hearing the lessons of doctrine until such + time as He was able to have reached that grade of knowledge by way of experience. Hence Gregory says (Sup. + Ezech. Lib. i, Hom. ii): "In the twelfth year of His age He deigned to question men on earth, since in the course of reason, + the word of doctrine is not vouchsafed before the age of perfection." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q12_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q12_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ received knowledge from the angels?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ received knowledge from the angels. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q12_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.43" target="asv">Lk. 22:43</a>) that "there appeared to Him an angel from heaven, strengthening Him." But we are strengthened by the comforting words of + a teacher, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q12_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Job.4.3" target="asv"> Job 4:3,4</a>: "Behold thou hast taught many and hast strengthened the weary hand. Thy words have confirmed them that were staggering." + Therefore Christ was taught by angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): "For I see that even Jesus---the super-substantial substance of supercelestial + substances---when without change He took our substance upon Himself, was subject in obedience to the instructions of the Father + and God by the angels." Hence it seems that even Christ wished to be subject to the ordinations of the Divine law, whereby + men are taught by means of angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as in the natural order the human body is subject to the celestial bodies, so likewise is the human mind to angelic + minds. Now Christ's body was subject to the impressions of the heavenly bodies, for He felt the heat in summer and the cold + in winter, and other human passions. Therefore His human mind was subject to the illuminations of supercelestial spirits. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that "the highest angels question Jesus, and learn the knowledge of His Divine work, and + of the flesh assumed for us; and Jesus teaches them directly." Now to teach and to be taught do not belong to the same. Therefore + Christ did not receive knowledge from the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Since the human soul is midway between spiritual substances and corporeal things, it is perfected naturally in two ways. + First by knowledge received from sensible things; secondly, by knowledge imprinted or infused by the illumination of spiritual + substances. Now in both these ways the soul of Christ was perfected; first by empirical knowledge of sensible things, for + which there is no need of angelic light, since the light of the active intellect suffices; + secondly, by the higher impression of infused knowledge, which He received directly from God. For as His soul was united to + the Word above the common mode, in unity of person, so above the common manner of men was it filled with knowledge and grace + by the Word of God Himself; and not by the medium of angels, who in their beginning received the knowledge of things by the + influence of the Word, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This strengthening by the angel was for the purpose not of instructing Him, but of proving the truth of His human nature. + Hence Bede says (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q12_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.43" target="asv"> Lk. 22:43</a>): "In testimony of both natures are the angels said to have ministered to Him and to have strengthened Him. For the Creator + did not need help from His creature; but having become man, even as it was for our sake that He was sad, so was it for our + sake that He was strengthened," + i.e. in order that our faith in the Incarnation might be strengthened. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Dionysius says that Christ was subject to the angelic instructions, not by reason of Himself, but by reason of what happened + at His Incarnation, and as regards the care of Him whilst He was a child. Hence in the same place he adds that "Jesus' withdrawal + to Egypt decreed by the Father is announced to Joseph by angels, and again His return to Judaea from Egypt." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Son of God assumed a passible body (as will be said hereafter ( + <a id="TP_Q12_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">Q[14], A[1]</a>)) and a soul perfect in knowledge and grace ( + <a id="TP_Q12_A4-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">Q[14] , A[1]</a>, ad 1; A[4]). Hence His body was rightly subject to the impression of heavenly bodies; but His soul was not subject to the + impression of heavenly spirits. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q12_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q11_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q13" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q13-p0.1">OF THE POWER OF CHRIST'S SOUL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q13-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q13-p2"> We must now consider the power of Christ's soul; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q13-p3"> (1) Whether He had omnipotence simply?</p> + <p id="TP_Q13-p4"> (2) Whether He had omnipotence with regard to corporeal creatures?</p> + <p id="TP_Q13-p5"> (3) Whether He had omnipotence with regard to His own body?</p> + <p id="TP_Q13-p6"> (4) Whether He had omnipotence as regards the execution of His own will?</p> + <div id="TP_Q13_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q13_A1-p0.1">Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ had omnipotence. For Ambrose [*Gloss, Ord.] says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.32" target="asv"> Lk. 1:32</a>: "The power which the Son of God had naturally, the Man was about to receive in time." Now this would seem to regard the + soul principally, since it is the chief part of man. Hence since the Son of God had omnipotence from all eternity, it would + seem that the soul of Christ received omnipotence in time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as the power of God is infinite, so is His knowledge. But the soul of Christ in a manner had the knowledge of all + that God knows, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q13_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html">Q[10], A[2]</a>). Therefore He had all power; and thus He was omnipotent. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the soul of Christ has all knowledge. Now knowledge is either practical or speculative. Therefore He has a practical + knowledge of what He knows, i.e. He knew how to do what He knows; and thus it seems that He can do all things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> What is proper to God cannot belong to any creature. But it is proper to God to be omnipotent, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.15.2" target="asv"> Ex. 15:2,3</a>: "He is my God and I will glorify Him," and further on, "Almighty is His name." Therefore the soul of Christ, as being a + creature, has not omnipotence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q13_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html">Q[2], A[1]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q13_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q10_A1.html"> Q[10], A[1]</a>) in the mystery of the Incarnation the union in person so took place that there still remained the distinction of natures, + each nature still retaining what belonged to it. Now the active principle of a thing follows its form, which is the principle + of action. But the form is either the very nature of the thing, as in simple things; or is the constituent of the nature + of the thing; as in such as are composed of matter and form. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p7"> And it is in this way that omnipotence flows, so to say, from the Divine Nature. For since the Divine Nature is the very + uncircumscribed Being of God, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom. v), it has an active power over everything that can have + the nature of being; and this is to have omnipotence; just as every other thing has an active power over such things as the + perfection of its nature extends to; as what is hot gives heat. Therefore since the soul of Christ is a part of + human nature, it cannot possibly have omnipotence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By union with the Person, the Man receives omnipotence in time, which the Son of God had from eternity; the result of which + union is that as the Man is said to be God, so is He said to be omnipotent; not that the omnipotence of the Man is distinct + (as neither is His Godhead) from that of the Son of God, but because there is one Person of God and man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> According to some, knowledge and active power are not in the same ratio; for an active power flows from the very nature of + the thing, inasmuch as action is considered to come forth from the agent; but knowledge is not always possessed by the very + essence or form of the knower, since it may be had by assimilation of the knower to the thing known by the aid of received + species. But this reason seems not to suffice, because even as we may understand by a + likeness obtained from another, so also may we act by a form obtained from another, as water or iron heats, by heat borrowed + from fire. Hence there would be no reason why the soul of Christ, as it can know all things by the similitudes of all things + impressed upon it by God, cannot do these things by the same similitudes. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p10"> It has, therefore, to be further considered that what is received in the lower nature from the higher is possessed in an + inferior manner; for heat is not received by water in the perfection and strength it had in fire. Therefore, since the soul + of Christ is of an inferior nature to the Divine Nature, the similitudes of things are not received in the soul of Christ + in the perfection and strength they had in the Divine Nature. And hence it is that the knowledge of Christ's soul is + inferior to Divine knowledge as regards the manner of knowing, for God knows (things) more perfectly than the soul of Christ; + and also as regards the number of things known, since the soul of Christ does not know all that God can do, and these God + knows by the knowledge of simple intelligence; although it knows all things present, past, and future, which God knows by + the knowledge of vision. So, too, the similitudes of things infused into Christ's soul do not equal the Divine power in acting, + i.e. so as to do all that God can do, or to do in the same manner as God does, Who acts with an infinite might whereof the + creature is not capable. Now there is no thing, to know which in some way an infinite power is needed, although a certain + kind of knowledge belongs to an infinite power; yet there are things which can be done only by an infinite power, as creation + and the like, as is plain from what has been said in the + <a id="TP_Q13_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q45.html">FP, Q[45].</a> Hence Christ's soul which, being a + creature, is finite in might, can know, indeed, all things, but not in every way; yet it cannot do all things, which pertains + to the nature of omnipotence; and, amongst other things, it is clear it cannot create itself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's soul has practical and speculative knowledge; yet it is not necessary that it should have practical knowledge of + those things of which it has speculative knowledge. Because for speculative knowledge a mere conformity or assimilation of + the knower to the thing known suffices; whereas for practical knowledge it is required that the forms of the things in the + intellect should be operative. Now to have a form and to impress this form upon + something else is more than merely to have the form; as to be lightsome and to enlighten is more than merely to be lightsome. + Hence the soul of Christ has a speculative knowledge of creation (for it knows the mode of God's creation), but it has no + practical knowledge of this mode, since it has no knowledge operative of creation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A1-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q13_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q13_A2-p0.1">Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures. For He Himself says + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.18" target="asv">Mat. 28:18</a>): "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth." Now by the words "heaven and earth" are meant all creatures, as is plain + from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.1" target="asv"> Gn. 1:1</a>: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Therefore it seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard + to the transmutation of + creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the soul of Christ is the most perfect of all creatures. But every creature can be moved by another creature; for + Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4) that "even as the denser and lower bodies are ruled in a fixed way by the subtler and stronger + bodies; so are all bodies by the spirit of life, and the irrational spirit of life by the rational spirit of life, and the + truant and sinful rational spirit of life by the rational, loyal, and righteous spirit of + life." But the soul of Christ moves even the highest spirits, enlightening them, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii). Therefore + it seems that the soul of Christ has omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's soul had in its highest degree the "grace of miracles" or works of might. But every transmutation of the + creature can belong to the grace of miracles; since even the heavenly bodies were miraculously changed from their course, + as Dionysius proves (Ep. ad Polycarp). Therefore Christ's soul had omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> To transmute creatures belongs to Him Who preserves them. Now this belongs to God alone, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.3" target="asv"> Heb. 1:3</a>: "Upholding all things by the word of His power." Therefore God alone has omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of + creatures. Therefore this does not belong to Christ's soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Two distinctions are here needed. of these the first is with respect to the transmutation of creatures, which is three-fold. + The first is natural, being brought about by the proper agent naturally; the second is miraculous, being brought about by + a supernatural agent above the wonted order and course of nature, as to raise the dead; the third is inasmuch as every creature + may be brought to nothing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p7"> The second distinction has to do with Christ's soul, which may be looked at in two ways: first in its proper nature and with + its power of nature or of grace; secondly, as it is the instrument of the Word of God, personally united to Him. Therefore + if we speak of the soul of Christ in its proper nature and with its power of nature or of grace, it had power to cause those + effects proper to a soul (e.g. to rule the body and direct human acts, and also, by the fulness of grace and + knowledge to enlighten all rational creatures falling short of its perfection), in a manner befitting a rational creature. + But if we speak of the soul of Christ as it is the instrument of the Word united to Him, it had an instrumental power to effect + all the miraculous transmutations ordainable to the end of the Incarnation, which is "to re-establish all things that are + in heaven and on earth" [* + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.10" target="asv">Eph. 1:10</a>]. But the transmutation of creatures, inasmuch as they may be brought + to nothing, corresponds to their creation, whereby they were brought from nothing. And hence even as God alone can create, + so, too, He alone can bring creatures to nothing, and He alone upholds them in being, lest they fall back to nothing. And + thus it must be said that the soul of Christ had not omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Jerome says (on the text quoted): "Power is given Him," i.e. to Christ as man, "Who a little while before was crucified, + buried in the tomb, and afterwards rose again." But power is said to have been given Him, by reason of the union whereby it + was brought about that a Man was omnipotent, as was said above (A[1], ad 1). And although this was made known to the angels + before the Resurrection, yet after the Resurrection it was made known to all men, + as Remigius says (cf. Catena Aurea). Now, "things are said to happen when they are made known" [*Hugh of St. Victor: Qq. in + Ep. ad Philip.]. Hence after the Resurrection our Lord says "that all power is given" to Him "in heaven and on earth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although every creature is transmutable by some other creature, except, indeed, the highest angel, and even it can be enlightened + by Christ's soul; yet not every transmutation that can be made in a creature can be made by a creature; since some transmutations + can be made by God alone. Yet all transmutations that can be made in creatures can be made by the soul of Christ, as the instrument + of the Word, but not in its proper nature and power, since some + of these transmutations pertain to the soul neither in the order of nature nor in the order of grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As was said in the + <a id="TP_Q13_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q178_A1.html">SS, Q[178], A[1]</a>, ad 1, the grace of mighty works or miracles is given to the soul of a saint, so that these miracles are wrought not by his + own, but by Divine power. Now this grace was bestowed on Christ's soul most excellently, i.e. not only that He might work + miracles, but also that He might communicate this grace to others. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A2-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.1" target="asv">Mat. 10:1</a>) that, "having called His + twelve disciples together, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, + and all manner of infirmities." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q13_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q13_A3-p0.1">Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence with regard to His own body?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's soul had omnipotence with regard to His own body. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20,23) + that "all natural things were voluntary to Christ; He willed to hunger, He willed to thirst, He willed to fear, He willed + to die." Now God is called omnipotent because "He hath done all things whatsoever He would" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.113.11" target="asv">Ps. 113:11</a>). Therefore it seems that Christ's soul had omnipotence with regard to the natural operations of the body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, human nature was more perfect in Christ than in Adam, who had a body entirely subject to the soul, so that nothing + could happen to the body against the will of the soul---and this on account of the original justice which it had in the state + of innocence. Much more, therefore, had Christ's soul omnipotence with regard to His body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the body is naturally changed by the imaginations of the soul; and so much more changed, the stronger the soul's + imagination, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q13_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q117_A3.html">FP, Q[117], A[3]</a>, ad 3. Now the soul of Christ had most perfect strength as regards both the imagination and the other powers. Therefore the + soul of Christ was omnipotent with regard to His own body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.17" target="asv">Heb. 2:17</a>) that "it behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren," and especially as regards what belongs to the condition + of human nature. But it belongs to the condition of human nature that the health of the body and its nourishment and growth + are not subject to the bidding of reason or will, since natural things are subject to God alone Who is the author of nature. + Therefore they were not subject in + Christ. Therefore Christ's soul was not omnipotent with regard to His own body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q13_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q13_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, Christ's soul may be viewed in two ways. First, in its proper nature and power; and in this way, as it was incapable of + making exterior bodies swerve from the course and order of nature, so, too, was it incapable of changing its own body from + its natural disposition, since the soul, of its own nature, has a determinate relation to its body. Secondly, Christ's soul + may be viewed as an instrument united in + person to God's Word; and thus every disposition of His own body was wholly subject to His power. Nevertheless, since the + power of an action is not properly attributed to the instrument, but to the principal agent, this omnipotence is attributed + to the Word of God rather than to Christ's soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This saving of Damascene refers to the Divine will of Christ, since, as he says in the preceding chapter (De Fide Orth. xix, + 14,15), it was by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what was proper to it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It was no part of the original justice which Adam had in the state of innocence that a man's soul should have the power of + changing his own body to any form, but that it should keep it from any hurt. Yet Christ could have assumed even this power + if He had wished. But since man has three states---viz. innocence, sin, and glory, even as from the state of glory He assumed + comprehension and from the state of innocence, freedom from sin---so also from the + state of sin did He assume the necessity of being under the penalties of this life, as will be said ( + <a id="TP_Q13_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A2.html">Q[14], A[2]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If the imagination be strong, the body obeys naturally in some things, e.g. as regards falling from a beam set on high, since + the imagination was formed to be a principle of local motion, as is said De Anima iii, 9,10. So, too, as regards alteration + in heat and cold, and their consequences; for the passions of the soul, wherewith the heart is moved, naturally follow the + imagination, and thus by commotion of the spirits the whole body is altered. But + the other corporeal dispositions which have no natural relation to the imagination are not transmuted by the imagination, + however strong it is, e.g. the shape of the hand, or foot, or such like. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q13_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q13_A4-p0.1">Whether the soul of Christ had omnipotence as regards the execution of His will?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ had not omnipotence as regards the execution of His own will. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.7.24" target="asv">Mk. 7:24</a>) that "entering into a house, He would that no man should know it, and He could not be hid." Therefore He could not carry + out the purpose of His will in all things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a command is a sign of will, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q13_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q19_A12.html">FP, Q[19], A[12]</a>. But our Lord commanded certain things to be done, and the contrary came to pass, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.30" target="asv">Mat. 9:30, 31</a>) that Jesus strictly charged them whose eyes had been opened, saying: "See that no man know this. But they going out spread + His fame abroad in all that country." Therefore He could not carry out the purpose of His will in + everything. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a man does not ask from another for what he can do himself. But our Lord besought the Father, praying for what He + wished to be done, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.12" target="asv">Lk. 6:12</a>): "He went out into a mountain to pray, and He passed the whole night in the prayer of God." Therefore He could not carry + out the purpose of His will in all things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. 77): "It is impossible for the will of the Saviour not to be fulfilled: nor is + it possible for Him to will what He knows ought not to come to pass." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's soul willed things in two ways. First, what was to be brought about by Himself; and it must be said that He was + capable of whatever He willed thus, since it would not befit His wisdom if He willed to do anything of Himself that was not + subject to His will. Secondly, He wished things to be brought about by the Divine power, as the resurrection of His own body + and such like miraculous deeds, which He could not effect by His own power, except as the + instrument of the Godhead, as was said above + <a id="TP_Q13_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q13_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. 77): "What came to pass, this Christ must be said to have willed. For it must + be remarked that this happened in the country of the Gentiles, to whom it was not yet time to preach. Yet it would have been + invidious not to welcome such as came spontaneously for the faith. Hence He did not wish to be heralded by His own, and yet + He wished to be sought; and so it came to pass." Or it may be said that this will + of Christ was not with regard to what was to be carried out by it, but with regard to what was to be done by others, which + did not come under His human will. Hence in the letter of Pope Agatho, which was approved in the Sixth Council [*Third Council + of Constantinople, Act. iv], we read: "When He, the Creator and Redeemer of all, wished to be hid and could not, must not + this be referred only to His human will which He deigned to assume in time?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Gregory says (Moral. xix), by the fact that "Our Lord charged His mighty works to be kept secret, He gave an example to + His servants coming after Him that they should wish their miracles to be hidden; and yet, that others may profit by their + example, they are made public against their will." And thus this command signified His will to fly from human glory, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.50" target="asv"> Jn. 8:50, </a> "I seek not My own glory." Yet He wished + absolutely, and especially by His Divine will, that the miracle wrought should be published for the good of others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ prayed both for things that were to be brought about by the Divine power, and for what He Himself was to do by His + human will, since the power and operation of Christ's soul depended on God, "Who works in all [Vulg.: 'you'], both to will + and to accomplish" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q13_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.13" target="asv">Phil. 2:13</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q13_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q12_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q14" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q14-p0.1">OF THE DEFECTS OF BODY ASSUMED BY THE SON OF GOD (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q14-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q14-p2"> We must now consider the defects Christ assumed in the human nature; and first, of the defects of body; secondly, of the + defects of soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14-p3"> Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q14-p4"> (1) Whether the Son of God should have assumed in human nature defects of body?</p> + <p id="TP_Q14-p5"> (2) Whether He assumed the obligation of being subject to these defects?</p> + <p id="TP_Q14-p6"> (3) Whether He contracted these defects?</p> + <p id="TP_Q14-p7"> (4) Whether He assumed all these defects?</p> + <div id="TP_Q14_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q14_A1-p0.1">Whether the Son of God in human nature ought to have assumed defects of body?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Son of God ought not to have assumed human nature with defects of body. For as His soul is personally + united to the Word of God, so also is His body. But the soul of Christ had every perfection, both of grace and truth, as was + said above ( + <a id="TP_Q14_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A9.html">Q[7], A[9]</a>; Q[9], seqq.). Hence, His body also ought to have been in every way perfect, not having any imperfection in it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the soul of Christ saw the Word of God by the vision wherein the blessed see, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q14_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A2.html">Q[9], A[2]</a>), and thus the soul of Christ was blessed. Now by the beatification of the soul the body is glorified; since, as Augustine + says (Ep. ad Dios. cxviii), "God made the soul of a nature so strong that from the fulness of its blessedness there pours + over even into the lower nature" (i.e. the body), "not indeed the bliss proper + to the beatific fruition and vision, but the fulness of health" (i.e. the vigor of incorruptibility). Therefore the body of + Christ was incorruptible and without any defect. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, penalty is the consequence of fault. But there was no fault in Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.22" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:22</a>: "Who did no guile." Therefore defects of body, which are penalties, ought not to have been in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, no reasonable man assumes what keeps him from his proper end. But by such like bodily defects, the end of the Incarnation + seems to be hindered in many ways. First, because by these infirmities men were kept back from knowing Him, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.2" target="asv"> Is. 53:2,3</a>: "[There was no sightliness] that we should be desirous of Him. Despised and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows and + acquainted with infirmity, and His look was, as it were, + hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed Him not." Secondly, because the de. sire of the Fathers would not seem to be fulfilled, + in whose person it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.51.9" target="asv">Is. 51:9</a>): "Arise, arise, put on Thy strength, O Thou Arm of the Lord." Thirdly, because it would seem more fitting for the devil's + power to be overcome and man's weakness healed, by strength than by weakness. Therefore it does not seem to have been fitting + that the Son of God assumed human nature with infirmities + or defects of body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.18" target="asv">Heb. 2:18</a>): "For in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted." Now + He came to succor us. hence David said of Him ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.120.1" target="asv">Ps. 120:1</a>): "I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me." Therefore it was fitting for the Son of + God to assume flesh subject to human infirmities, in order to suffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to + us. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially for + three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, + came into the world. Now one satisfies for another's sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other. + But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment + of sin, which was brought into the world by Adam, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.12" target="asv"> Rom. 5:12</a>: "By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death." Hence it was useful for the end of the Incarnation that He should + assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.4" target="asv"> Is. 53:4, </a> "Surely He hath borne our infirmities." Secondly, in order to cause belief in the Incarnation. For since human nature is + known to men only as it is subject to these defects, if the + Son of God had assumed human nature without these defects, He would not have seemed to be true man, nor to have true, but + imaginary, flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is said, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv"> Phil. 2:7</a>: "He . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." + Hence, Thomas, by the sight of His wounds, was recalled to the faith, as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p7.4" href="./asv.html#John.20.26" target="asv"> Jn. 20:26.</a> Thirdly, in order to show us an example of + patience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and defects. Hence it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p7.5" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.3" target="asv">Heb. 12:3</a>) that He "endured such opposition from sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied. fainting in your minds." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The penalties one suffers for another's sin are the matter, as it were, of the satisfaction for that sin; but the principle + is the habit of soul, whereby one is inclined to wish to satisfy for another, and from which the satisfaction has its efficacy, + for satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it proceeded from charity, as will be explained ( + <a id="TP_Q14_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q14_A2.html">XP, Q[14], A[2]</a>). Hence, it behooved the soul of Christ to be perfect as regards + the habit of knowledge and virtue, in order to have the power of satisfying; but His body was subject to infirmities, that + the matter of satisfaction should not be wanting. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> From the natural relationship which is between the soul and the body, glory flows into the body from the soul's glory. Yet + this natural relationship in Christ was subject to the will of His Godhead, and thereby it came to pass that the beatitude + remained in the soul, and did not flow into the body; but the flesh suffered what belongs to a passible nature; thus Damascene + says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15) that, "it was by the consent of the Divine will that + the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Punishment always follows sin actual or original, sometimes of the one punished, sometimes of the one for whom he who suffers + the punishment satisfies. And so it was with Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.5" target="asv"> Is. 53:5</a>: "He was wounded for our iniquities, He was bruised for our sins." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The infirmity assumed by Christ did not impede, but greatly furthered the end of the Incarnation, as above stated. And although + these infirmities concealed His Godhead, they made known His Manhood, which is the way of coming to the Godhead, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.1" target="asv"> Rom. 5:1,2</a>: "By Jesus Christ we have access to God." Moreover, the ancient Fathers did not desire bodily strength in Christ, but spiritual + strength, wherewith He vanquished the + devil and healed human weakness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A1-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q14_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q14_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ was of necessity subject to these defects?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was not of necessity subject to these defects. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.7" target="asv">Is. 53:7</a>): "He was offered because it was His own will"; and the prophet is speaking of the offering of the Passion. But will is opposed + to necessity. Therefore Christ was not of necessity subject to bodily defects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20): "Nothing obligatory is seen in Christ: all is voluntary." Now what is voluntary + is not necessary. Therefore these defects were not of necessity in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, necessity is induced by something more powerful. But no creature is more powerful than the soul of Christ, to which + it pertained to preserve its own body. Therefore these defects were not of necessity in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.3" target="asv">Rom. 8:3</a>) that "God" sent "His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." Now it is a condition of sinful flesh to be under the necessity + of dying, and suffering other like passions. Therefore the necessity of suffering these defects was in Christ's flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Necessity is twofold. one is a necessity of "constraint," brought about by an external agent; and this necessity is contrary + to both nature and will, since these flow from an internal principle. The other is "natural" necessity, resulting from the + natural principles---either the form (as it is necessary for fire to heat), or the matter (as it is necessary for a body composed + of contraries to be dissolved). Hence, with this necessity, which results from the + matter, Christ's body was subject to the necessity of death and other like defects, since, as was said (A[1], ad 2), "it was + by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh was allowed to do and suffer what belonged to it." And this necessity results + from the principles of human nature, as was said above in this article. But if we speak of necessity of constraint, as repugnant + to the bodily nature, thus again was Christ's body in its own natural condition subject to necessity in regard to the + nail that pierced and the scourge that struck. Yet inasmuch as such necessity is repugnant to the will, it is clear that in + Christ these defects were not of necessity as regards either the Divine will, or the human will of Christ considered absolutely, + as following the deliberation of reason; but only as regards the natural movement of the will, inasmuch as it naturally shrinks + from death and bodily hurt. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ is said to be "offered because it was His own will," i.e. Divine will and deliberate human will; although death was + contrary to the natural movement of His human will, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23,24). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This is plain from what has been said. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Nothing was more powerful than Christ's soul, absolutely; yet there was nothing to hinder a thing being more powerful in + regard to this or that effect, as a nail for piercing. And this I say, in so far as Christ's soul is considered in its own + proper nature and power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q14_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q14_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ contracted these defects?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ contracted bodily defects. For we are said to contract what we derive with our nature from birth. + But Christ, together with human nature, derived His bodily defects and infirmities through His birth from His mother, whose + flesh was subject to these defects. Therefore it seems that He contracted these defects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is caused by the principles of nature is derived together with nature, and hence is contracted. Now these penalties + are caused by the principles of human nature. Therefore Christ contracted them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ is likened to other men in these defects, as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.17" target="asv"> Heb. 2:17.</a> But other men contract these defects. Therefore it seems that Christ contracted these defects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> These defects are contracted through sin, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.12" target="asv"> Rom. 5:12</a>: "By one man sin entered into this world and by sin, death." Now sin had no place in Christ. Therefore Christ did not contract + these defects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In the verb "to contract" is understood the relation of effect to cause, i.e. that is said to be contracted which is derived + of necessity together with its cause. Now the cause of death and such like defects in human nature is sin, since "by sin death + entered into this world," according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.12" target="asv"> Rom. 5:12.</a> And hence they who incur these defects, as due to sin, are properly said to contract them. Now Christ had not these defects, + as due to sin, + since, as Augustine [*Alcuin in the Gloss, Ord.], expounding + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q14_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.3.31" target="asv"> Jn. 3:31, </a> "He that cometh from above, is above all," says: "Christ came from above, i.e. from the height of human nature, which it + had before the fall of the first man." For He received human nature without sin, in the purity which it had in the state of + innocence. In the same way He might have assumed human nature without defects. Thus it is clear that Christ did not contract + these defects as if taking them upon + Himself as due to sin, but by His own will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin, [*See introductory note to Q[27]] and therefore contracted these defects. + But from the Virgin, Christ's flesh assumed the nature without sin, and He might likewise have assumed the nature without + its penalties. But He wished to bear its penalties in order to carry out the work of our redemption, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q14_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore He had these defects---not that He + contracted them, but that He assumed them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The cause of death and other corporeal defects of human nature is twofold: the first is remote, and results from the material + principles of the human body, inasmuch as it is made up of contraries. But this cause was held in check by original justice. + Hence the proximate cause of death and other defects is sin, whereby original justice is withdrawn. And thus, because Christ + was without sin, He is said not to have contracted these defects, but to have + assumed them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ was made like to other men in the quality and not in the cause of these defects; and hence, unlike others, He did + not contract them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q14_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q14_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ ought to have assumed all the bodily defects of men?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ ought to have assumed all the bodily defects of men. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6,18): + "What is unassumable is incurable." But Christ came to cure all our defects. Therefore He ought to have assumed all our defects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further it was said + <a id="TP_Q14_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, that in order to satisfy for us, Christ ought to have had perfective habits of soul and defects of body. Now as regards + the soul, He assumed the fulness of all grace. Therefore as regards the body, He ought to have assumed all defects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, amongst all bodily defects death holds the chief place. Now Christ assumed death. Much more, therefore, ought He + to have assumed other defects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Contraries cannot take place simultaneously in the same. Now some infirmities are contrary to each other, being caused by + contrary principles. Hence it could not be that Christ assumed all human infirmities. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q14_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), Christ assumed human defects in order to satisfy for the sin of human nature, and for this it was necessary for Him to + have the fulness of knowledge and grace in His soul. Hence Christ ought to have assumed those defects which flow from the + common sin of the whole nature, yet are not incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace. And thus it was not fitting + for Him to assume all human defects or + infirmities. For there are some defects that are incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace, as ignorance, a + proneness towards evil, and a difficulty in well-doing. Some other defects do not flow from the whole of human nature in common + on account of the sin of our first parent, but are caused in some men by certain particular causes, as leprosy, epilepsy, + and the like; and these defects are sometimes brought about by the fault of the man, e.g. from inordinate eating; sometimes + by + a defect in the formative power. Now neither of these pertains to Christ, since His flesh was conceived of the Holy Ghost, + Who has infinite wisdom and power, and cannot err or fail; and He Himself did nothing wrong in the order of His life. But + there are some third defects, to be found amongst all men in common, by reason of the sin of our first parent, as death, hunger, + thirst, and the like; and all these defects Christ assumed, which Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 11; iii, 20) calls "natural + and + indetractible passions" ---natural, as following all human nature in common; indetractible, as implying no defect of knowledge + or grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> All particular defects of men are caused by the corruptibility and passibility of the body, some particular causes being + added; and hence, since Christ healed the passibility and corruptibility of our body by assuming it, He consequently healed + all other defects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The fulness of all grace and knowledge was due to Christ's soul of itself, from the fact of its being assumed by the Word + of God; and hence Christ assumed all the fulness of knowledge and wisdom absolutely. But He assumed our defects economically, + in order to satisfy for our sin, and not that they belonged to Him of Himself. Hence it was not necessary for Him to assume + them all, but only such as sufficed to satisfy for the sin of the whole nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Death comes to all men from the sin of our first parent; but not other defects, although they are less than death. Hence + there is no parity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q14_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q13_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q15-p0.1">OF THE DEFECTS OF SOUL ASSUMED BY CHRIST (TEN ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q15-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p2"> We must now consider the defects pertaining to the soul; and under this head there are ten points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p3"> (1) Whether there was sin in Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p4"> (2) Whether there was the "fomes" of sin in Him?</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p5"> (3) Whether there was ignorance?</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p6"> (4) Whether His soul was passible?</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p7"> (5) Whether in Him there was sensible pain?</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p8"> (6) Whether there was sorrow?</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p9"> (7) Whether there was fear?</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p10"> (8) Whether there was wonder?</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p11"> (9) Whether there was anger?</p> + <p id="TP_Q15-p12"> (10) Whether He was at once wayfarer and comprehensor?</p> + <div id="TP_Q15_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A1-p0.1">Whether there was sin in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was sin in Christ. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.21.2" target="asv">Ps. 21:2</a>): "O God, My God . . . why hast Thou forsaken Me? Far from My salvation are the words of My sins." Now these words are said + in the person of Christ Himself, as appears from His having uttered them on the cross. Therefore it would seem that in Christ + there were sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.12" target="asv">Rom. 5:12</a>) that "in Adam all have sinned"---namely, because all were in Adam by origin. Now Christ also was in Adam by origin. Therefore + He sinned in him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.18" target="asv">Heb. 2:18</a>) that "in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted." Now + above all do we require His help against sin. Therefore it seems that there was sin in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.21" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:21</a>) that "Him that knew no sin" (i.e. Christ), "for us" God "hath made sin." But that really is, which has been made by God. + Therefore there was really sin in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi), "in the man Christ the Son of God gave Himself to us as a pattern of living." + Now man needs a pattern not merely of right living, but also of repentance for sin. Therefore it seems that in Christ there + ought to have been sin, that He might repent of His sin, and thus afford us a pattern of repentance. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> He Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.46" target="asv">Jn. 8:46</a>): "Which of you shall convince Me of sin?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q15_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">Q[14], A[1]</a>), Christ assumed our defects that He might satisfy for us, that He might prove the truth of His human nature, and that He + might become an example of virtue to us. Now it is plain that by reason of these three things He ought not to have assumed + the defect of sin. First, because sin nowise works our satisfaction; rather, it impedes the power of satisfying, since, as + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.34.23" target="asv">Ecclus. + 34:23 + </a>), "The Most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked." Secondly, the truth of His human nature is not proved by sin, since + sin does not belong to human nature, whereof God is the cause; but rather has been sown in it against its nature by the devil, + as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20). Thirdly, because by sinning He could afford no example of virtue, since sin is + opposed to virtue. Hence Christ nowise assumed the defect of sin---either original or actual---according to + what is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p8.3" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.22" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:22</a>): "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 25), things are said of Christ, first, with reference to His natural and hypostatic + property, as when it is said that God became man, and that He suffered for us; secondly, with reference to His personal and + relative property, when things are said of Him in our person which nowise belong to Him of Himself. Hence, in the seven rules + of Tichonius which Augustine quotes in De Doctr. Christ. iii, 31, the first regards + "Our Lord and His Body," since "Christ and His Church are taken as one person." And thus Christ, speaking in the person of + His members, says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.21.2" target="asv">Ps. 21:2</a>): "The words of My sins"---not that there were any sins in the Head. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x, 20), Christ was in Adam and the other fathers not altogether as we were. For we were in + Adam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance, since, as he goes on to say: "As in the seed there is a visible + bulk and an invisible virtue, both have come from Adam. Now Christ took the visible substance of His flesh from the Virgin's + flesh; but the virtue of His conception did not spring from the seed of man, but far + otherwise---from on high." Hence He was not in Adam according to seminal virtue, but only according to bodily substance. And + therefore Christ did not receive human nature from Adam actively, but only materially---and from the Holy Ghost actively; + even as Adam received his body materially from the slime of the earth---actively from God. And thus Christ did not sin in + Adam, in whom He was only as regards His matter. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In His temptation and passion Christ has succored us by satisfying for us. Now sin does not further satisfaction, but hinders + it, as has been said. Hence, it behooved Him not to have sin, but to be wholly free from sin; otherwise the punishment He + bore would have been due to Him for His own sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> God "made Christ sin"---not, indeed, in such sort that He had sin, but that He made Him a sacrifice for sin: even as it is + written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.4.8" target="asv">Osee 4:8</a>): "They shall eat the sins of My people"---they, i.e. the priests, who by the law ate the sacrifices offered for sin. And + in that way it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.6" target="asv">Is. 53:6</a>) that "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (i.e. He gave Him up to be a victim for the sins of all + men); or "He made Him sin" (i.e. made Him to have "the likeness of sinful flesh"), as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A1-p12.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.3" target="asv">Rom. 8:3</a>), and this on account of the passible and mortal body He assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A penitent can give a praiseworthy example, not by having sinned, but by freely bearing the punishment of sin. And hence + Christ set the highest example to penitents, since He willingly bore the punishment, not of His own sin, but of the sins of + others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A1-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A2-p0.1">Whether there was the "fomes" of sin in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was the "fomes" of sin. For the "fomes" of sin, and the passibility and mortality of the + body spring from the same principle, to wit, from the withdrawal of original justice, whereby the inferior powers of the soul + were subject to the reason, and the body to the soul. Now passibility and mortality of body were in Christ. Therefore there + was also the "fomes" of sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 19), "it was by consent of the Divine will that the flesh of Christ was allowed + to suffer and do what belonged to it." But it is proper to the flesh to lust after its pleasures. Now since the "fomes" of + sin is nothing more than concupiscence, as the gloss says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.8" target="asv"> Rom. 7:8, </a> it seems that in Christ there was the "fomes" of sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is by reason of the "fomes" of sin that "the flesh lusteth against the spirit," as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.17" target="asv">Gal. 5:17</a>). But the spirit is shown to be so much the stronger and worthier to be crowned according as the more completely it overcomes + its enemy---to wit, the concupiscence of the flesh, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.5" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:5, </a> he "is not crowned except he strive lawfully." Now Christ had a most valiant and conquering spirit, + and one most worthy of a crown, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A2-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Rev.6.2" target="asv"> Apoc. 6:2</a>: "There was a crown given Him, and He went forth conquering that He might conquer." Therefore it would especially seem that + the "fomes" of sin ought to have been in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.20" target="asv">Mat. 1:20</a>): "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Now the Holy Ghost drives out sin and the inclination to sin, which + is implied in the word "fomes." Therefore in Christ there ought not to have been the "fomes" of sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (Q[7], AA[2],9), Christ had grace and all the virtues most perfectly. Now moral virtues, which are in the + irrational part of the soul, make it subject to reason, and so much the more as the virtue is more perfect; thus, temperance + controls the concupiscible appetite, fortitude and meekness the irascible appetite, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q15_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q56_A4.html">FS, Q[56], A[4]</a>. But there belongs to the very nature of the "fomes" of sin an + inclination of the sensual appetite to what is contrary to reason. And hence it is plain that the more perfect the virtues + are in any man, the weaker the "fomes" of sin becomes in him. Hence, since in Christ the virtues were in their highest degree, + the "fomes" of sin was nowise in Him; inasmuch, also, as this defect cannot be ordained to satisfaction, but rather inclined + to what is contrary to satisfaction. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The inferior powers pertaining to the sensitive appetite have a natural capacity to be obedient to reason; but not the bodily + powers, nor those of the bodily humors, nor those of the vegetative soul, as is made plain Ethic. i, 13. And hence perfection + of virtue, which is in accordance with right reason, does not exclude passibility of body; yet it excludes the "fomes" of + sin, the nature of which consists in the resistance of the sensitive appetite to + reason. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The flesh naturally seeks what is pleasing to it by the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite; but the flesh of man, who + is a rational animal, seeks this after the manner and order of reason. And thus with the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite + Christ's flesh naturally sought food, drink, and sleep, and all else that is sought in right reason, as is plain from Damascene + (De Fide Orth. iii, 14). Yet it does not therefore follow that in Christ + there was the "fomes" of sin, for this implies the lust after pleasurable things against the order of reason. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The spirit gives evidence of fortitude to some extent by resisting that concupiscence of the flesh which is opposed to it; + yet a greater fortitude of spirit is shown, if by its strength the flesh is thoroughly overcome, so as to be incapable of + lusting against the spirit. And hence this belonged to Christ, whose spirit reached the highest degree of fortitude. And although + He suffered no internal assault on the part of the "fomes" of sin, He sustained + an external assault on the part of the world and the devil, and won the crown of victory by overcoming them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A3-p0.1">Whether in Christ there was ignorance?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was ignorance in Christ. For that is truly in Christ which belongs to Him in His human nature, although + it does not belong to Him in His Divine Nature, as suffering and death. But ignorance belongs to Christ in His human nature; + for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 21) that "He assumed an ignorant and enslaved nature." Therefore ignorance was truly + in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one is said to be ignorant through defect of knowledge. Now some kind of knowledge was wanting to Christ, for the + Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.21" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:21</a>) "Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made sin." Therefore there was ignorance in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.8.4" target="asv">Is. 8:4</a>): "For before the child know to call his Father and his mother, the strength of Damascus . . . shall be taken away." Therefore + in Christ there was ignorance of certain things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Ignorance is not taken away by ignorance. But Christ came to take away our ignorance; for "He came to enlighten them that + sit in darkness and in the shadow of death" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.79" target="asv">Lk. 1:79</a>). Therefore there was no ignorance in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As there was the fulness of grace and virtue in Christ, so too there was the fulness of all knowledge, as is plain from what + has been said above ( + <a id="TP_Q15_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A9.html">Q[7], A[9]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q15_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9.html"> Q[9])</a>. Now as the fulness of grace and virtue in Christ excluded the "fomes" of sin, so the fulness of knowledge excluded ignorance, + which is opposed to knowledge. Hence, even as the "fomes" of sin was not in Christ, neither was there ignorance in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The nature assumed by Christ may be viewed in two ways. First, in its specific nature, and thus Damascene calls it "ignorant + and enslaved"; hence he adds: "For man's nature is a slave of Him" (i.e. God) "Who made it; and it has no knowledge of future + things." Secondly, it may be considered with regard to what it has from its union with the Divine hypostasis, from which it + has the fulness of knowledge and grace, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. + 1:14 + </a>: "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] as it were the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"; and in this way the + human nature in Christ was not affected with ignorance. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ is said not to have known sin, because He did not know it by experience; but He knew it by simple cognition. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The prophet is speaking in this passage of the human knowledge of Christ; thus he says: "Before the Child" (i.e. in His human + nature) "know to call His father" (i.e. Joseph, who was His reputed father), "and His mother" (i.e. Mary), "the strength of + Damascus . . . shall be taken away." Nor are we to understand this as if He had been some time a man without knowing it; but + "before He know" (i.e. before He is a man having human knowledge)---literally, + "the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away by the King of the Assyrians"---or spiritually, "before + His birth He will save His people solely by invocation," as a gloss expounds it. Augustine however (Serm. xxxii de Temp.) + says that this was fulfilled in the adoration of the Magi. For he says: "Before He uttered human words in human flesh, He + received the strength of Damascus, i.e. the riches which Damascus vaunted (for in riches the first place is given to gold). + They themselves were the spoils of Samaria. Because Samaria is taken to signify idolatry; since this people, having turned + away from the Lord, turned to the worship of idols. Hence these were the first spoils which the child took from the domination + of idolatry." And in this way "before the child know" may be taken to mean "before he show himself to know." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ's soul was passible?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the soul of Christ was not passible. For nothing suffers except by reason of something stronger; since + "the agent is greater than the patient," as is clear from Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), and from the Philosopher (De Anima + iii, 5). Now no creature was stronger than Christ's soul. Therefore Christ's soul could not suffer at the hands of any creature; + and hence it was not passible; for its capability of suffering would have been to no + purpose if it could not have suffered at the hands of anything. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Tully (De Tusc. Quaes. iii) says that the soul's passions are ailments [*Cf. + <a id="TP_Q15_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q24_A2.html">FS, Q[24], A[2]</a>]. But Christ's soul had no ailment; for the soul's ailment results from sin, as is plain from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.40.5" target="asv">Ps. 40:5</a>: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee." Therefore in Christ's soul there were no passions. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the soul's passions would seem to be the same as the "fomes" of sin, hence the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.5" target="asv">Rom. 7:5</a>) calls them the "passions of sins." Now the "fomes" of sin was not in Christ, as was said A[2]. Therefore it seems that there + were no passions in His soul; and hence His soul was not passible. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.87.4" target="asv">Ps. 87:4</a>) in the person of Christ: "My soul is filled with evils"---not sins, indeed, but human evils, i.e. "pains," as a gloss expounds + it. Hence the soul of Christ was passible. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A soul placed in a body may suffer in two ways: first with a bodily passion; secondly, with an animal passion. It suffers + with a bodily passion through bodily hurt; for since the soul is the form of the body, soul and body have but one being; and + hence, when the body is disturbed by any bodily passion, the soul, too, must be disturbed, i.e. in the being which it has + in the body. Therefore, since Christ's body was passible and mortal, as was said above + (Q[14], A[2]), His soul also was of necessity passible in like manner. But the soul suffers with an animal passion, in its + operations---either in such as are proper to the soul, or in such as are of the soul more than of the body. And although the + soul is said to suffer in this way through sensation and intelligence, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q15_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q22_A3.html">FS, Q[22], A[3]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q15_A4-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q41_A1.html">FS, Q[41], A[1]</a>; nevertheless the affections of the sensitive appetite are most properly + called passions of the soul. Now these were in Christ, even as all else pertaining to man's nature. Hence Augustine says (De + Civ. Dei xiv, 9): "Our Lord having deigned to live in the form of a servant, took these upon Himself whenever He judged they + ought to be assumed; for there was no false human affection in Him Who had a true body and a true human soul." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p7"> Nevertheless we must know that the passions were in Christ otherwise than in us, in three ways. First, as regards the object, + since in us these passions very often tend towards what is unlawful, but not so in Christ. Secondly, as regards the principle, + since these passions in us frequently forestall the judgment of reason; but in Christ all movements of the sensitive appetite + sprang from the disposition of the reason. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9), that "Christ + assumed these movements, in His human soul, by an unfailing dispensation, when He willed; even as He became man when He willed." + Thirdly, as regards the effect, because in us these movements, at times, do not remain in the sensitive appetite, but deflect + the reason; but not so in Christ, since by His disposition the movements that are naturally becoming to human flesh so remained + in the sensitive appetite that the reason was nowise hindered in doing what was right. Hence Jerome says + (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.37" target="asv"> Mat. 26:37</a>) that "Our Lord, in order to prove the reality of the assumed manhood, 'was sorrowful' in very deed; yet lest a passion should + hold sway over His soul, it is by a propassion that He is said to have 'begun to grow sorrowful and to be sad'"; so that it + is a perfect "passion" when it dominates the soul, i.e. the reason; and a "propassion" when it has its beginning in the sensitive + appetite, but goes no further. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The soul of Christ could have prevented these passions from coming upon it, and especially by the Divine power; yet of His + own will He subjected Himself to these corporeal and animal passions. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Tully is speaking there according to the opinions of the Stoics, who did not give the name of passions to all, but only to + the disorderly movements of the sensitive appetite. Now, it is manifest that passions like these were not in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The "passions of sins" are movements of the sensitive appetite that tend to unlawful things; and these were not in Christ, + as neither was the "fomes" of sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A5-p0.1">Whether there was sensible pain in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no true sensible pain in Christ. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Since with Christ to die was + life, what pain may He be supposed to have suffered in the mystery of His death, Who bestows life on such as die for Him?" + And further on he says: "The Only-begotten assumed human nature, not ceasing to be God; and although blows struck Him and + wounds were inflicted on Him, and scourges fell upon Him, and the cross lifted Him up, yet these + wrought in deed the vehemence of the passion, but brought no pain; as a dart piercing the water." Hence there was no true + pain in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it would seem to be proper to flesh conceived in original sin, to be subject to the necessity of pain. But the flesh + of Christ was not conceived in sin, but of the Holy Ghost in the Virgin's womb. Therefore it lay under no necessity of suffering + pain. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the delight of the contemplation of Divine things dulls the sense of pain; hence the martyrs in their passions bore + up more bravely by thinking of the Divine love. But Christ's soul was in the perfect enjoyment of contemplating God, Whom + He saw in essence, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q15_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A2.html">Q[9], A[2]</a>). Therefore He could feel no pain. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.4" target="asv">Is. 53:4</a>): "Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As is plain from what has been said in the + <a id="TP_Q15_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q35_A7.html">FS, Q[35], A[7]</a>, for true bodily pain are required bodily hurt and the sense of hurt. Now Christ's body was able to be hurt, since it was + passible and mortal, as above stated (Q[14], AA[1],2); neither was the sense of hurt wanting to it, since Christ's soul possessed + perfectly all natural powers. Therefore no one should doubt but that in Christ there was true pain. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In all these and similar words, Hilary does not intend to exclude the reality of the pain, but the necessity of it. Hence + after the foregoing he adds: "Nor, when He thirsted, or hungered, or wept, was the Lord seen to drink, or eat, or grieve. + But in order to prove the reality of the body, the body's customs were assumed, so that the custom of our body was atoned + for by the custom of our nature. Or when He took drink or food, He acceded, not to the + body's necessity, but to its custom." And he uses the word "necessity" in reference to the first cause of these defects, which + is sin, as above stated ( + <a id="TP_Q15_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">Q[14], AA[1]</a>,3), so that Christ's flesh is said not to have lain under the necessity of these defects, in the sense that there was no + sin in it. Hence he adds: "For He" (i.e. Christ) "had a body---one proper to His origin, which did not exist through the unholiness + of our conception, but subsisted in the form of our body + by the strength of His power." But as regards the proximate cause of these defects, which is composition of contraries, the + flesh of Christ lay under the necessity of these defects, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q15_A5-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A2.html">Q[14] , A[2]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Flesh conceived in sin is subject to pain, not merely on account of the necessity of its natural principles, but from the + necessity of the guilt of sin. Now this necessity was not in Christ; but only the necessity of natural principles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q15_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">Q[14], A[1]</a>, ad 2), by the power of the Godhead of Christ the beatitude was economically kept in the soul, so as not to overflow into + the body, lest His passibility and mortality should be taken away; and for the same reason the delight of contemplation was + so kept in the mind as not to overflow into the sensitive powers, lest sensible pain should thereby be prevented. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A6-p0.1">Whether there was sorrow in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was no sorrow. For it is written of Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.42.4" target="asv">Is. 42:4</a>): "He shall not be sad nor troublesome." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.12.21" target="asv">Prov. 12:21</a>): "Whatever shall befall the just man, it shall not make him sad." And the reason of this the Stoics asserted to be that + no one is saddened save by the loss of his goods. Now the just man esteems only justice and virtue as his goods, and these + he cannot lose; otherwise the just man would be subject to fortune if he was saddened by the loss of the goods fortune has + given him. But Christ was most just, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A6-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.23.6" target="asv"> Jer. 23:6</a>: "This is the name that they shall call Him: The Lord, our just one." Therefore there was no sorrow in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 13,14) that all sorrow is "evil, and to be shunned." But in Christ there was no + evil to be shunned. Therefore there was no sorrow in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Furthermore, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6): "Sorrow regards the things we suffer unwillingly." But Christ suffered + nothing against His will, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.7" target="asv">Is. 53:7</a>): "He was offered because it was His own will." Hence there was no sorrow in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.38" target="asv">Mat. 26:38</a>): "My soul is sorrowful even unto death." And Ambrose says (De Trin. ii.) that "as a man He had sorrow; for He bore my sorrow. + I call it sorrow, fearlessly, since I preach the cross." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (A[5], ad 3), by Divine dispensation the joy of contemplation remained in Christ's mind so as not to overflow + into the sensitive powers, and thereby shut out sensible pain. Now even as sensible pain is in the sensitive appetite, so + also is sorrow. But there is a difference of motive or object; for the object and motive of pain is hurt perceived by the + sense of touch, as when anyone is wounded; but the object and motive of sorrow is anything + hurtful or evil interiorly, apprehended by the reason or the imagination, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q15_A6-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q35_A2.html">FS, Q[35], AA[2]</a>,7, as when anyone grieves over the loss of grace or money. Now Christ's soul could apprehend things as hurtful either to + Himself, as His passion and death---or to others, as the sin of His disciples, or of the Jews that killed Him. And hence, + as there could be true pain in Christ, so too could there be true sorrow; otherwise, indeed, than in us, in the three + ways above stated + <a id="TP_Q15_A6-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, when we were speaking of the passions of Christ's soul in general. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sorrow was not in Christ, as a perfect passion; yet it was inchoatively in Him as a "propassion." Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.37" target="asv">Mat. 26:37</a>): "He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad." For "it is one thing to be sorrowful and another to grow sorrowful," as Jerome + says, on this text. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 8), "for the three passions"---desire, joy, and fear---the Stoics held three {eupatheias} + i.e. good passions, in the soul of the wise man, viz. for desire, will---for joy, delight---for fear, caution. But as regards + sorrow, they denied it could be in the soul of the wise man, for sorrow regards evil already present, and they thought that + no evil could befall a wise man; and for this reason, because they believed + that only the virtuous is good, since it makes men good, and that nothing is evil, except what is sinful, whereby men become + wicked. Now although what is virtuous is man's chief good, and what is sinful is man's chief evil, since these pertain to + reason which is supreme in man, yet there are certain secondary goods of man, which pertain to the body, or to the exterior + things that minister to the body. And hence in the soul of the wise man there may be sorrow in the sensitive appetite by his + apprehending these evils; without this sorrow disturbing the reason. And in this way are we to understand that "whatsoever + shall befall the just man, it shall not make him sad," because his reason is troubled by no misfortune. And thus Christ's + sorrow was a propassion, and not a passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> All sorrow is an evil of punishment; but it is not always an evil of fault, except only when it proceeds from an inordinate + affection. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9): "Whenever these affections follow reason, and are caused when and where + needed, who will dare to call them diseases or vicious passions?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> There is no reason why a thing may not of itself be contrary to the will, and yet be willed by reason of the end, to which + it is ordained, as bitter medicine is not of itself desired, but only as it is ordained to health. And thus Christ's death + and passion were of themselves involuntary, and caused sorrow, although they were voluntary as ordained to the end, which + is the redemption of the human race. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A6-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A7-p0.1">Whether there was fear in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no fear in Christ. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.28.1" target="asv">Prov. 28:1</a>): "The just, bold as a lion, shall be without dread." But Christ was most just. Therefore there was no fear in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Hilary says (De Trin. x): "I ask those who think thus, does it stand to reason that He should dread to die, Who + by expelling all dread of death from the Apostles, encouraged them to the glory of martyrdom?" Therefore it is unreasonable + that there should be fear in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, fear seems only to regard what a man cannot avoid. Now Christ could have avoided both the evil of punishment which + He endured, and the evil of fault which befell others. Therefore there was no fear in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.4.33" target="asv">Mk. 4:33</a>): Jesus "began to fear and to be heavy." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As sorrow is caused by the apprehension of a present evil, so also is fear caused by the apprehension of a future evil. Now + the apprehension of a future evil, if the evil be quite certain, does not arouse fear. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, + 5) that we do not fear a thing unless there is some hope of avoiding it. For when there is no hope of avoiding it the evil + is considered present, and thus it causes sorrow rather than fear. Hence fear may be + considered in two ways. First, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite naturally shrinks from bodily hurt, by sorrow if it is present, + and by fear if it is future; and thus fear was in Christ, even as sorrow. Secondly, fear may be considered in the uncertainty + of the future event, as when at night we are frightened at a sound, not knowing what it is; and in this way there was no fear + in Christ, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 23). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The just man is said to be "without dread," in so far as dread implies a perfect passion drawing man from what reason dictates. + And thus fear was not in Christ, but only as a propassion. Hence it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.14.33" target="asv">Mk. 14:33</a>) that Jesus "began to fear and to be heavy," with a propassion, as Jerome expounds ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A7-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.37" target="asv">Mat. 26:37</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Hilary excludes fear from Christ in the same way that he excludes sorrow, i.e. as regards the necessity of fearing. And yet + to show the reality of His human nature, He voluntarily assumed fear, even as sorrow. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although Christ could have avoided future evils by the power of His Godhead, yet they were unavoidable, or not easily avoidable + by the weakness of the flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A7-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A9.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A8-p0.1">Whether there was wonder in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was no wonder. For the Philosopher says (Metaph. i, 2) that wonder results when we see + an effect without knowing its cause; and thus wonder belongs only to the ignorant. Now there was no ignorance in Christ, as + was said A[3]. Therefore there was no wonder in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15) that "wonder is fear springing from the imagination of something great"; and + hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3) that the "magnanimous man does not wonder." But Christ was most magnanimous. Therefore + there was no wonder in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no man wonders at what he himself can do. Now Christ could do whatsoever was great. Therefore it seems that He wondered + at nothing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.10" target="asv">Mat. 8:10</a>): "Jesus hearing this," i.e. the words of the centurion, "marveled." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Wonder properly regards what is new and unwonted. Now there could be nothing new and unwonted as regards Christ's Divine + knowledge, whereby He saw things in the Word; nor as regards the human knowledge, whereby He saw things by infused species. + Yet things could be new and unwonted with regard to His empiric knowledge, in regard to which new things could occur to Him + day by day. Hence, if we speak of Christ with respect to His Divine knowledge, and His + beatific and even His infused knowledge, there was no wonder in Christ. But if we speak of Him with respect to empiric knowledge, + wonder could be in Him; and He assumed this affection for our instruction, i.e. in order to teach us to wonder at what He + Himself wondered at. Hence Augustine says (Super Gen. Cont. Manich. i, 8): "Our Lord wondered in order to show us that we, + who still need to be so affected, must wonder. Hence all these emotions are not signs of a disturbed mind, but of a master + teaching." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although Christ was ignorant of nothing, yet new things might occur to His empiric knowledge, and thus wonder would be caused. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ did not marvel at the Centurion's faith as if it was great with respect to Himself, but because it was great with + respect to others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> He could do all things by the Divine power, for with respect to this there was no wonder in Him, but only with respect to + His human empiric knowledge, as was said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A8-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A9.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15_A9" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A10.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A9-p0.1">Whether there was anger in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no anger in Christ. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.20" target="asv">James 1:20</a>): "The anger of man worketh not the justice of God." Now whatever was in Christ pertained to the justice of God, since of + Him it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A9-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.30" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:30</a>): "For He [Vulg.: 'Who'] of God is made unto us . . . justice." Therefore it seems that there was no anger in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, anger is opposed to meekness, as is plain from Ethic. iv, 5. But Christ was most meek. Therefore there was no anger + in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that "anger that comes of evil blinds the eye of the mind, but anger that comes of zeal + disturbs it." Now the mind's eye in Christ was neither blinded nor disturbed. Therefore in Christ there was neither sinful + anger nor zealous anger. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A9-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.2.17" target="asv">Jn. 2:17</a>) that the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A9-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.58.10" target="asv"> Ps. 58:10, </a> "the zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up," were fulfilled in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said in the + <a id="TP_Q15_A9-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q46_A3.html">FS, Q[46], A[3]</a>, ad 3, and + <a id="TP_Q15_A9-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q158_A2.html">SS, Q[158], A[2]</a>, ad 3, anger is an effect of sorrow. or when sorrow is inflicted upon someone, there arises within him a desire of the sensitive + appetite to repel this injury brought upon himself or others. Hence anger is a passion composed of sorrow and the desire of + revenge. Now it was said + <a id="TP_Q15_A9-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A6.html">(A[6])</a> that sorrow could be in Christ. As to + the desire of revenge it is sometimes with sin, i.e. when anyone seeks revenge beyond the order of reason: and in this way + anger could not be in Christ, for this kind of anger is sinful. Sometimes, however, this desire is without sin---nay, is praiseworthy, + e.g. when anyone seeks revenge according to justice, and this is zealous anger. For Augustine says (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A9-p6.4" href="./asv.html#John.2.17" target="asv"> Jn. 2:17</a>) that "he is eaten up by zeal for the house of God, who seeks to better whatever He sees to be evil in it, + and if he cannot right it, bears with it and sighs." Such was the anger that was in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Gregory says (Moral. v), anger is in man in two ways---sometimes it forestalls reason, and causes it to operate, and in + this way it is properly said to work, for operations are attributed to the principal agent. It is in this way that we must + understand that "the anger of man worketh not the justice of God." Sometimes anger follows reason, and is, as it were, its + instrument, and then the operation, which pertains to justice, is not attributed to + anger but to reason. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is the anger which outsteps the bounds of reason that is opposed to meekness, and not the anger which is controlled and + brought within its proper bounds by reason, for meekness holds the mean in anger. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In us the natural order is that the soul's powers mutually impede each other, i.e. if the operation of one power is intense, + the operation of the other is weakened. This is the reason why any movement whatsoever of anger, even if it be tempered by + reason, dims the mind's eye of him who contemplates. But in Christ, by control of the Divine power, "every faculty was allowed + to do what was proper to it," and one power was not impeded by another. Hence, + as the joy of His mind in contemplation did not impede the sorrow or pain of the inferior part, so, conversely, the passions + of the inferior part no-wise impeded the act of reason. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A9-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A10.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q15_A10" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q15_A10-p0.1">Whether Christ was at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was not at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor. For it belongs to a wayfarer to be moving toward + the end of beatitude, and to a comprehensor it belongs to be resting in the end. Now to be moving towards the end and to be + resting in the end cannot belong to the same. Therefore Christ could not be at once wayfarer and comprehensor. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to tend to beatitude, or to obtain it, does not pertain to man's body, but to his soul; hence Augustine says (Ep. + ad Dios. cxviii) that "upon the inferior nature, which is the body, there overflows, not indeed the beatitude which belongs + to such as enjoy and understand, the fulness of health, i.e. the vigor of incorruption." Now although Christ had a passible + body, He fully enjoyed God in His mind. Therefore Christ was not a wayfarer but a + comprehensor. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Saints, whose souls are in heaven and whose bodies are in the tomb, enjoy beatitude in their souls, although + their bodies are subject to death, yet they are called not wayfarers, but only comprehensors. Hence, with equal reason, would + it seem that Christ was a pure comprehensor and nowise a wayfarer, since His mind enjoyed God although His body was mortal. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A10-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.14.8" target="asv">Jer. 14:8</a>): "Why wilt Thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man turning in to lodge?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A man is called a wayfarer from tending to beatitude, and a comprehensor from having already obtained beatitude, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A10-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:24</a>: "So run that you may comprehend [Douay: 'obtain']"; and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A10-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.12" target="asv">Phil. 3:12</a>: "I follow after, if by any means I may comprehend [Douay: 'obtain']". Now man's perfect beatitude consists in both soul + and body, as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q15_A10-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q4_A6.html">FS, Q[4], A[6]</a>. In the soul, as regards what is proper to it, + inasmuch as the mind sees and enjoys God; in the body, inasmuch as the body "will rise spiritual in power and glory and incorruption," + as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q15_A10-p6.4" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.42" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:42.</a> Now before His passion Christ's mind saw God fully, and thus He had beatitude as far as it regards what is proper to the + soul; but beatitude was wanting with regard to all else, since His soul was passible, and His body both passible and mortal, + as is clear from the above + <a id="TP_Q15_A10-p6.5" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A4.html">(A[4];</a> Q[14], + AA[1],2). Hence He was at once comprehensor, inasmuch as He had the beatitude proper to the soul, and at the same time wayfarer, + inasmuch as He was tending to beatitude, as regards what was wanting to His beatitude. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is impossible to be moving towards the end and resting in the end, in the same respect; but there is nothing against this + under a different respect---as when a man is at once acquainted with what he already knows, and yet is a learner with regard + to what he does not know. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Beatitude principally and properly belongs to the soul with regard to the mind, yet secondarily and, so to say, instrumentally, + bodily goods are required for beatitude; thus the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8), that exterior goods minister "organically" + to beatitude. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There is no parity between the soul of a saint and of Christ, for two reasons: first, because the souls of saints are not + passible, as Christ's soul was; secondly, because their bodies do nothing by which they tend to beatitude, as Christ by His + bodily sufferings tended to beatitude as regards the glory of His body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q15_A10-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q14_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q16-p0.1">OF THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO CHRIST IN HIS BEING AND BECOMING (TWELVE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q16-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p2"> We must now consider the consequences of the union; and first as to what belongs to Christ in Himself; secondly, as to what + belongs to Christ in relation with His Father; thirdly, as to what belongs to Christ in relation to us. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p3"> Concerning the first, there occurs a double consideration. The first is about such things as belong to Christ in being and + becoming; the second regards such things as belong to Christ by reason of unity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p4"> Under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p5"> (1) Whether this is true: "God is man"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p6"> (2) Whether this is true: "Man is God"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p7"> (3) Whether Christ may be called a lordly man?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p8"> (4) Whether what belongs to the Son of Man may be predicated of the Son of God, and conversely?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p9"> (5) Whether what belongs to the Son of Man may be predicated of the Divine Nature, and what belongs to the Son of God of + the human nature? + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p10"> (6) Whether this is true: "The Son of God was made man"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p11"> (7) Whether this is true: "Man became God"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p12"> (8) Whether this is true: "Christ is a creature"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p13"> (9) Whether this is true: "This man," pointing out Christ, "began to be"? or "always was"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p14"> (10) Whether this is true: "Christ as man is a creature"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p15"> (11) Whether this is true: "Christ as man is God"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q16-p16"> (12) Whether this is true: "Christ as man is a hypostasis or person"?</p> + <div id="TP_Q16_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A1-p0.1">Whether this is true: "God is man"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this is false: "God is man." For every affirmative proposition of remote matter is false. Now this proposition, + "God is man," is on remote matter, since the forms signified by the subject and predicate are most widely apart. Therefore, + since the aforesaid proposition is affirmative, it would seem to be false. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the three Divine Persons are in greater mutual agreement than the human nature and the Divine. But in the mystery + of the Incarnation one Person is not predicated of another; for we do not say that the Father is the Son, or conversely. Therefore + it seems that the human nature ought not to be predicated of God by saying that God is man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Athanasius says (Symb. Fid.) that, "as the soul and the flesh are one man, so are God and man one Christ." But this + is false: "The soul is the body." Therefore this also is false: "God is man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it was said in the + <a id="TP_Q16_A1-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html">FP, Q[39], A[4]</a> that what is predicated of God not relatively but absolutely, belongs to the whole Trinity and to each of the Persons. But + this word "man" is not relative, but absolute. Hence, if it is predicated of God, it would follow that the whole Trinity and + each of the Persons is man; and this is clearly false. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.6" target="asv">Phil. 2:6,7</a>): "Who being in the form of God . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man, and + in habit found as a man"; and thus He Who is in the form of God is man. Now He Who is in the form of God is God. Therefore + God is man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> This proposition "God is man," is admitted by all Christians, yet not in the same way by all. For some admit the proposition, + but not in the proper acceptation of the terms. Thus the Manicheans say the Word of God is man, not indeed true, but fictitious + man, inasmuch as they say that the Son of God assumed an imaginary body, and thus God is called man as a bronze figure is + called man if it has the figure of a man. So, too, those who held that Christ's body + and soul were not united, could not say that God is true man, but that He is figuratively called man by reason of the parts. + Now both these opinions were disproved above ( + <a id="TP_Q16_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A5.html">Q[2], A[5]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q16_A1-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q5_A1.html"> Q[5], A[1]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p8"> Some, on the contrary, hold the reality on the part of man, but deny the reality on the part of God. For they say that Christ, + Who is God and man, is God not naturally, but by participation, i.e. by grace; even as all other holy men are called gods---Christ + being more excellently so than the rest, on account of His more abundant grace. And thus, when it is said that "God is man," + God does not stand for the true and natural God. And this is the heresy of Photinus, which was + disproved above ( + <a id="TP_Q16_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A10.html">Q[2], AA[10]</a>,11). But some admit this proposition, together with the reality of both terms, holding that Christ is true God and true man; + yet they do not preserve the truth of the predication. For they say that man is predicated of God by reason of a certain conjunction + either of dignity, or of authority, or of affection or indwelling. It was thus that Nestorius held God to be man---nothing + further being meant than that God is joined to man by such a + conjunction that man is dwelt in by God, and united to Him in affection, and in a share of the Divine authority and honor. + And into the same error fall those who suppose two supposita or hypostases in Christ, since it is impossible to understand + how, of two things distinct in suppositum or hypostasis, one can be properly predicated of the other: unless merely by a figurative + expression, inasmuch as they are united in something, as if we were to say that Peter is John because they are somehow + mutually joined together. And these opinions also were disproved above ( + <a id="TP_Q16_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A3.html">Q[2], AA[3]</a>,6). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p9"> Hence, supposing the truth of the Catholic belief, that the true Divine Nature is united with true human nature not only + in person, but also in suppositum or hypostasis; we say that this proposition is true and proper, "God is man"---not only + by the truth of its terms, i.e. because Christ is true God and true man, but by the truth of the predication. For a word signifying + the common nature in the concrete may stand for all contained in the common nature, as this word "man" may + stand for any individual man. And thus this word "God," from its very mode of signification, may stand for the Person of the + Son of God, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q16_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html">FP, Q[39], A[4]</a>. Now of every suppositum of any nature we may truly and properly predicate a word signifying that nature in the concrete, + as "man" may properly and truly be predicated of Socrates and Plato. Hence, since the Person of the Son of God for Whom this + word "God" stands, is a suppositum of human nature this + word man may be truly and properly predicated of this word "God," as it stands for the Person of the Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When different forms cannot come together in one suppositum, the proposition is necessarily in remote matter, the subject + signifying one form and the predicate another. But when two forms can come together in one suppositum, the matter is not remote, + but natural or contingent, as when I say: "Something white is musical." Now the Divine and human natures, although most widely + apart, nevertheless come together by the mystery of the Incarnation in one + suppositum, in which neither exists accidentally, but [both] essentially. Hence this proposition is neither in remote nor + in contingent, but in natural matter; and man is not predicated of God accidentally, but essentially, as being predicated + of its hypostasis---not, indeed, by reason of the form signified by this word "God," but by reason of the suppositum, which + is a hypostasis of human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The three Divine Persons agree in one Nature, and are distinguished in suppositum; and hence they are not predicated one + of another. But in the mystery of the Incarnation the natures, being distinct, are not predicated one of the other, in the + abstract. For the Divine Nature is not the human nature. But because they agree in suppositum, they are predicated of each + other in the concrete. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> "Soul" and "flesh" are taken in the abstract, even as Godhead and manhood; but in the concrete we say "animate" and "carnal" + or "corporeal," as, on the other hand, "God" and "man." Hence in both cases the abstract is not predicated of the abstract, + but only the concrete of the concrete. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This word "man" is predicated of God, because of the union in person, and this union implies a relation. Hence it does not + follow the rule of those words which are absolutely predicated of God from eternity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p15"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A1-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A2-p0.1">Whether this is true: "Man is God"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this is false: "Man is God." For God is an incommunicable name; hence ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.13.10" target="asv">Wis. 13:10</a>; 14:21) idolaters are rebuked for giving the name of God, which is incommunicable, to wood and stones. Hence with equal reason + does it seem unbecoming that this word "God" should be predicated of man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is predicated of the predicate may be predicated of the subject. But this is true: "God is the Father," + or "God is the Trinity." Therefore, if it is true that "Man is God," it seems that this also is true: "Man is the Father," + or "Man is the Trinity." But these are false. Therefore the first is false. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.80.10" target="asv">Ps. 80:10</a>): "There shall be no new God in thee." But man is something new; for Christ was not always man. Therefore this is false: + "Man is God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.5" target="asv">Rom. 9:5</a>): "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all things, God blessed for ever." Now Christ, according to the + flesh, is man. Therefore this is true: "Man is God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Granted the reality of both natures, i.e. Divine and human, and of the union in person and hypostasis, this is true and proper: + "Man is God," even as this: "God is man." For this word "man" may stand for any hypostasis of human nature; and thus it may + stand for the Person of the Son of God, Whom we say is a hypostasis of human nature. Now it is manifest that the word "God" + is truly and properly predicated of the Person of the Son of God, as was said in the + + <a id="TP_Q16_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html">FP, Q[39], A[4]</a>. Hence it remains that this is true and proper: "Man is God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Idolaters attributed the name of the Deity to stones and wood, considered in their own nature, because they thought there + was something divine in them. But we do not attribute the name of the Deity to the man in His human nature, but in the eternal + suppositum, which by union is a suppositum of human nature, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This word "Father" is predicated of this word "God," inasmuch as this word "God" stands for the Person of the Father. And + in this way it is not predicated of the Person of the Son, because the Person of the Son is not the Person of the Father. + And, consequently, it is not necessary that this word "Father" be predicated of this word "Man," of which the Word "God" is + predicated, inasmuch as "Man" stands for the Person of the Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the human nature in Christ is something new, yet the suppositum of the human nature is not new, but eternal. And + because this word "God" is predicated of man not on account of the human nature, but by reason of the suppositum, it does + not follow that we assert a new God. But this would follow, if we held that "Man" stands for a created suppositum: even as + must be said by those who assert that there are two supposita in Christ [*Cf. + <a id="TP_Q16_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A3.html"> Q[2], AA[3]</a>,6]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ can be called a lordly man?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p2"> [*The question is hardly apposite in English. St. Thomas explains why we can say in Latin, e.g. 'oratio dominica' (the Lord's + Prayer) or 'passio dominica' (Our Lord's Passion), but not speak of our Lord as 'homo dominicus' (a lordly man)]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ can be called a lordly man. For Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 36) that "we are to be counseled + to hope for the goods that were in the Lordly Man"; and he is speaking of Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ was a lordly + man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as lordship belongs to Christ by reason of His Divine Nature, so does manhood belong to the human nature. Now God + is said to be "humanized," as is plain from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 11), where he says that "being humanized manifests + the conjunction with man." Hence with like reason may it be said denominatively that this man is lordly. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as "lordly" is derived from "lord," so is Divine derived from "Deus" [God]. But Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iv) calls + Christ the "most Divine Jesus." Therefore with like reason may Christ be called a lordly man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Retract. i, 19): "I do not see that we may rightly call Jesus Christ a lordly man, since He is the Lord Himself." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (A[2], ad 3), when we say "the Man Christ Jesus," we signify the eternal suppositum, which is the Person + of the Son of God, because there is only one suppositum of both natures. Now "God" and "Lord" are predicated essentially of + the Son of God; and hence they ought not to be predicated denominatively, since this is derogatory to the truth of the union. + Hence, since we say "lordly" denominatively from lord, it cannot truly and properly be + said that this Man is lordly, but rather that He is Lord. But if, when we say "the Man Christ Jesus," we mean a created suppositum, + as those who assert two supposita in Christ, this man might be called lordly, inasmuch as he is assumed to a participation + of Divine honor, as the Nestorians said. And, even in this way, the human nature is not called "divine" by essence, but "deified"---not, + indeed, by its being converted into the Divine Nature, but by its conjunction with the Divine Nature in one + hypostasis, as is plain from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 11,17). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine retracts these and the like words (Retract. i, 19); hence, after the foregoing words (Retract. i, 19), he adds: + "Wherever I have said this," viz. that Christ Jesus is a lordly man, "I wish it unsaid, having afterwards seen that it ought + not to be said although it may be defended with some reason," i.e. because one might say that He was called a lordly man by + reason of the human nature, which this word "man" signifies, and not by reason of + the suppositum. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This one suppositum, which is of the human and Divine natures, was first of the Divine Nature, i.e. from eternity. Afterwards + in time it was made a suppositum of human nature by the Incarnation. And for this reason it is said to be "humanized"---not + that it assumed a man, but that it assumed human nature. But the converse of this is not true, viz. that a suppositum of human + nature assumed the Divine Nature; hence we may not say a "deified" or "lordly" + man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This word Divine is wont to be predicated even of things of which the word God is predicated essentially; thus we say that + "the Divine Essence is God," by reason of identity; and that "the Essence belongs to God," or is "Divine," on account of the + different way of signifying; and we speak of the "Divine Word," though the Word is God. So, too, we say "a Divine Person," + just as we say "the person of Plato," on account of its different mode of + signification. But "lordly" is not predicated of those of which "lord" is predicated; for we are not wont to call a man who + is a lord, lordly; but whatsoever belongs to a lord is called lordly, as the "lordly will," or the "lordly hand," or the "lordly + possession." And hence the man Christ, Who is our Lord, cannot be called lordly; yet His flesh can be called "lordly flesh" + and His passion the "lordly passion." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A4-p0.1">Whether what belongs to the human nature can be predicated of God?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of God. For contrary things cannot be said of the same. + Now, what belongs to human nature is contrary to what is proper to God, since God is uncreated, immutable, and eternal, and + it belongs to the human nature to be created temporal and mutable. Therefore what belongs to the human nature cannot be said + of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to attribute to God what is defective seems to be derogatory to the Divine honor, and to be a blasphemy. Now what + pertains to the human nature contains a kind of defect, as to suffer, to die, and the like. Hence it seems that what pertains + to the human nature can nowise be said of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to be assumed pertains to the human nature; yet it does not pertain to God. Therefore what belongs to the human + nature cannot be said of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4) that "God assumed the idioms," i.e. the properties, "of flesh, since God is said to + be passible, and the God of glory was crucified." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> On this question there was a difference of opinion between Nestorians and Catholics. The Nestorians wished to divide words + predicated of Christ, in this way, viz. that such as pertained to human nature should not be predicated of God, and that such + as pertained to the Divine Nature should not be predicated of the Man. Hence Nestorius said: "If anyone attempt to attribute + sufferings to the Word, let him be anathema" [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 29]. But + if there are any words applicable to both natures, of them they predicated what pertained to both natures, as "Christ" or + "Lord." Hence they granted that Christ was born of a Virgin, and that He was from eternity; but they did not say that God + was born of a virgin, or that the Man was from eternity. Catholics on the other hand maintained that words which are said + of Christ either in His Divine or in His human nature may be said either of God or of man. Hence Cyril says [*Council of Ephesus, + Part I, ch. 26]: "If anyone ascribes to two persons or substances," i.e. hypostases, "such words as are in the evangelical + and apostolic Scriptures, or have been said of Christ by the Saints, or by Himself of Himself, and believes that some are + to be applied to the Man, and apportions some to the Word alone---let him be anathema." And the reason of this is that, since + there is one hypostasis of both natures, the same hypostasis is signified by the name of either nature. Thus whether we say + "man" or "God," the hypostasis of Divine and human nature is signified. And hence, of the Man may be said what belongs to + the Divine Nature, as of a hypostasis of the Divine Nature; and of God may be said what belongs to the human nature, as of + a hypostasis of human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p7"> Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that in a proposition in which something is predicated of another, we must not merely + consider what the predicate is predicated of, but also the reason of its being predicated. Thus, although we do not distinguish + things predicated of Christ, yet we distinguish that by reason of which they are predicated, since those things that belong + to the Divine Nature are predicated of Christ in His Divine Nature, and those that belong to the human + nature are predicated of Christ in His human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. i, 11): "We must distinguish what is said + by Scripture in reference to the form of God, wherein He is equal to the Father, and what in reference to the form of a servant, + wherein He is less than the Father": and further on he says (De Trin. i, 13): "The prudent, careful, and devout reader will + discern the reason and point of view of what is said." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is impossible for contraries to be predicated of the same in the same respects, but nothing prevents their being predicated + of the same in different aspects. And thus contraries are predicated of Christ, not in the same, but in different natures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If the things pertaining to defect were attributed to God in His Divine Nature, it would be a blasphemy, since it would be + derogatory to His honor. But there is no kind of wrong done to God if they are attributed to Him in His assumed nature. Hence + in a discourse of the Council of Ephesus [*Part III, ch. 10] it is said: "God accounts nothing a wrong which is the occasion + of man's salvation. For no lowliness that He assumed for us injures that Nature + which can be subject to no injury, yet makes lower things Its own, to save our nature. Therefore, since these lowly and worthless + things do no harm to the Divine Nature, but bring about our salvation, how dost thou maintain that what was the cause of our + salvation was the occasion of harm to God?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To be assumed pertains to human nature, not in its suppositum, but in itself; and thus it does not belong to God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A5-p0.1">Whether what belongs to the human nature can be predicated of the Divine Nature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that what belongs to the human nature can be said of the Divine Nature. For what belongs to the human nature + is predicated of the Son of God, and of God. But God is His own Nature. Therefore, what belongs to the human nature may be + predicated of the Divine Nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the flesh pertains to human nature. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6), "we say, after the blessed Athanasius + and Cyril, that the Nature of the Word was incarnate." Therefore it would seem with equal reason that what belongs to the + human nature may be said of the Divine Nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what belongs to the Divine Nature belongs to Christ's human nature; such as to know future things and to possess + saving power. Therefore it would seem with equal reason that what belongs to the human may be said of the Divine Nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4): "When we mention the Godhead we do not predicate of it the idioms," i.e. the properties, + "of the humanity; for we do not say that the Godhead is passible or creatable." Now the Godhead is the Divine Nature. Therefore + what is proper to the human nature cannot be said of the Divine Nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> What belongs to one cannot be said of another, unless they are both the same; thus "risible" can be predicated only of man. + Now in the mystery of the Incarnation the Divine and human natures are not the same; but the hypostasis of the two natures + is the same. And hence what belongs to one nature cannot be predicated of the other if they are taken in the abstract. Now + concrete words stand for the hypostasis of the nature; and hence of concrete words we may + predicate indifferently what belongs to either nature---whether the word of which they are predicated refers to one nature, + as the word "Christ," by which is signified "both the Godhead anointing and the manhood anointed"; or to the Divine Nature + alone, as this word "God" or "the Son of God"; or to the manhood alone, as this word "Man" or "Jesus." Hence Pope Leo says + (Ep. ad Palaest. cxxiv): "It is of no consequence from what substance we name Christ; because since the unity of person remains + inseparably, one and the same is altogether Son of Man by His flesh, and altogether Son of God by the Godhead which He has + with the Father." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In God, Person and Nature are really the same; and by reason of this identity the Divine Nature is predicated of the Son + of God. Nevertheless, its mode of predication is different; and hence certain things are said of the Son of God which are + not said of the Divine Nature; thus we say that the Son of God is born, yet we do not say that the Divine Nature is born; + as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q16_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A5.html">FP, Q[39], A[5]</a>. So, too, in the mystery of + the Incarnation we say that the Son of God suffered, yet we do not say that the Divine Nature suffered. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Incarnation implies union with flesh, rather than any property of flesh. Now in Christ each nature is united to the other + in person; and by reason of this union the Divine Nature is said to be incarnate and the human nature deified, as stated above + ( + <a id="TP_Q16_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html">Q[2], A[1]</a>, ad 3). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> What belongs to the Divine Nature is predicated of the human nature---not, indeed, as it belongs essentially to the Divine + Nature, but as it is participated by the human nature. Hence, whatever cannot be participated by the human nature (as to be + uncreated and omnipotent), is nowise predicated of the human nature. But the Divine Nature received nothing by participation + from the human nature; and hence what belongs to the human nature can nowise be + predicated of the Divine Nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A6-p0.1">Whether this is true: "God was made man"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this is false: "God was made man." For since man signifies a substance, to be made man is to be made simply. + But this is false: "God was made simply." Therefore this is false: "God was made man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to be made man is to be changed. But God cannot be the subject of change, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.3.6" target="asv"> Malachi 3:6</a>: "I am the Lord, and I change not." Hence this is false: "God was made man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, man as predicated of Christ stands for the Person of the Son of God. But this is false: "God was made the Person + of the Son of God." Therefore this is false: "God was made man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>): "The Word was made flesh": and as Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epictetum), "when he said, 'The Word was made flesh,' it is as + if it were said that God was made man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A thing is said to be made that which begins to be predicated of it for the first time. Now to be man is truly predicated + of God, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q16_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, yet in such sort that it pertains to God to be man, not from eternity, but from the time of His assuming human nature. Hence, + this is true, "God was made man"; though it is understood differently by some: even as this, "God is man," as we said above + + <a id="TP_Q16_A6-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To be made man is to be made simply, in all those in whom human nature begins to be in a newly created suppositum. But God + is said to have been made man, inasmuch as the human nature began to be in an eternally pre-existing suppositum of the Divine + Nature. And hence for God to be made man does not mean that God was made simply. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above, to be made implies that something. is newly predicated of another. Hence, whenever anything is predicated + of another, and there is a change in that of which it is predicated, then to be made is to be changed; and this takes place + in whatever is predicated absolutely, for whiteness or greatness cannot newly affect anything, unless it be newly changed + to whiteness or greatness. But whatever is predicated relatively can be newly + predicated of anything without its change, as a man may be made to be on the right side without being changed and merely by + the change of him on whose left side he was. Hence in such cases, not all that is said to be made is changed, since it may + happen by the change of something else. And it is thus we say of God: "Lord, Thou art made [Douay: 'hast been'] our refuge" + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.89.1" target="asv">Ps. 89:1</a>). Now to be man belongs to God by reason of the union, which is a relation. And hence to be man + is newly predicated of God without any change in Him, by a change in the human nature, which is assumed to a Divine Person. + And hence, when it is said, "God was made man," we understand no change on the part of God, but only on the part of the human + nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Man stands not for the bare Person of the Son of God, but inasmuch as it subsists in human nature. Hence, although this is + false, "God was made the Person of the Son of God," yet this is true: "God was made man" by being united to human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A7-p0.1">Whether this is true: "Man was made God"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this is true: "Man was made God." For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.2" target="asv">Rom. 1:2,3</a>): "Which He had promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Who was made to Him of the seed + of David according to the flesh." Now Christ, as man, is of the seed of David according to the flesh. Therefore man was made + the Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 13) that "such was this assumption, which made God man, and man God." But by reason + of this assumption this is true: "God was made man." Therefore, in like manner, this is true: "Man was made God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. ad Chelid. ci): "God was humanized and man was deified, or whatever else one may like + to call it." Now God is said to be humanized by being made man. Therefore with equal reason man is said to be deified by being + made God; and thus it is true that "Man was made God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, when it is said that "God was made man," the subject of the making or uniting is not God, but human nature, which + the word "man" signifies. Now that seems to be the subject of the making, to which the making is attributed. Hence "Man was + made God" is truer than "God was made man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2): "We do not say that man was deified, but that God was humanized." Now to be made God + is the same as to be deified. Hence this is false: "Man was made God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> This proposition, Man was made God, may be understood in three ways. First, so that the participle "made" absolutely determines + either the subject or the predicate; and in this sense it is false, since neither the Man of Whom it is predicated was made, + nor is God made, as will be said ( + <a id="TP_Q16_A7-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html">AA[8]</a>,9). And in the same sense this is false: "God was made man." But it is not of this sense that we are now speaking. Secondly, + it may be so + understood that the word "made" determines the composition, with this meaning: "Man was made God, i.e. it was brought about + that Man is God." And in this sense both are true, viz. that "Man was made God" and that "God was made Man." But this is not + the proper sense of these phrases; unless, indeed, we are to understand that "man" has not a personal but a simple supposition. + For although "this man" was not made God, because this suppositum, viz. the Person of the Son of God, was eternally God, + yet man, speaking commonly, was not always God. Thirdly, properly understood, this participle "made" attaches making to man + with relation to God, as the term of the making. And in this sense, granted that the Person or hypostasis in Christ are the + same as the suppositum of God and Man, as was shown ( + <a id="TP_Q16_A7-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html">Q[2], AA[2]</a>,3), this proposition is false, because, when it is said, "Man was made God," "man" has a personal suppositum: because, to + be God is not verified of the Man in His + human nature, but in His suppositum. Now the suppositum of human nature, of Whom "to be God" is verified, is the same as the + hypostasis or Person of the Son of God, Who was always God. Hence it cannot be said that this Man began to be God, or is made + God, or that He was made God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p8"> But if there were a different hypostasis of God and man, so that "to be God" was predicated of the man, and, conversely, + by reason of a certain conjunction of supposita, or of personal dignity, or of affection or indwelling, as the Nestorians + said, then with equal reason might it be said that Man was made God, i.e. joined to God, and that God was made Man, i.e. joined + to man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In these words of the Apostle the relative "Who" which refers to the Person of the Son of God ought not to be considered + as affecting the predicate, as if someone already existing of the "seed of David according to the flesh" was made the Son + of God---and it is in this sense that the objection takes it. But it ought to be taken as affecting the subject, with this + meaning---that the "Son of God was made to Him ('namely to the honor of the Father,' as a + gloss expounds it), being of the seed of David according to the flesh," as if to say "the Son of God having flesh of the seed + of David to the honor of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This saying of Augustine is to be taken in the sense that by the assumption that took place in the Incarnation it was brought + about that Man is God and God is Man; and in this sense both sayings are true as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p11"> The same is to be said in reply to the third, since to be deified is the same as to be made God.</p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A term placed in the subject is taken materially, i.e. for the suppositum; placed in the predicate it is taken formally, + i.e. for the nature signified. Hence when it is said that "Man was made God," the being made is not attributed to the human + nature but to the suppositum of the human nature, Which is God from eternity, and hence it does not befit Him to be made God. + But when it is said that "God was made Man," the making is taken to be terminated in + the human nature. Hence, properly speaking, this is true: "God was made Man," and this is false: "Man was made God"; even + as if Socrates, who was already a man, were made white, and were pointed out, this would be true: "This man was made white + today," and this would be false; "This white thing was made man today." Nevertheless, if on the part of the subject there + is added some word signifying human nature in the abstract, it might be taken in this way for the subject of the making, e.g. + if it + were said that "human nature was made the Son of God's." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A7-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A9.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A8-p0.1">Whether this is true: "Christ is a creature"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this is true: "Christ is a creature." For Pope Leo says [*Cf. Append. Opp. August., Serm. xii de Nativ.]: + "A new and unheard of covenant: God Who is and was, is made a creature." Now we may predicate of Christ whatever the Son of + God became by the Incarnation. Therefore this is true; Christ is a creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the properties of both natures may be predicated of the common hypostasis of both natures, no matter by what word + they are signified, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q16_A8-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. But it is the property of human nature to be created, as it is the property of the Divine Nature to be Creator. Hence both + may be said of Christ, viz. that He is a creature and that he is uncreated and Creator. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the principal part of a man is the soul rather than the body. But Christ, by reason of the body which He took from + the Virgin, is said simply to be born of the Virgin. Therefore by reason of the soul which is created by God, it ought simply + to be said that He is a creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Trin. i): "Was Christ made by a word? Was Christ created by a command?" as if to say: "No!" Hence he adds: + "How can there be a creature in God? For God has a simple not a composite Nature." Therefore it must not be granted that "Christ + is a creature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Jerome [*Gloss, Ord. in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.2.16" target="asv"> Osee 2:16</a>] says, "words spoken amiss lead to heresy"; hence with us and heretics the very words ought not to be in common, lest we + seem to countenance their error. Now the Arian heretics said that Christ was a creature and less than the Father, not only + in His human nature, but even in His Divine Person. And hence we must not say absolutely that Christ is a "creature" or "less + than the Father"; but with a + qualification, viz. "in His human nature." But such things as could not be considered to belong to the Divine Person in Itself + may be predicated simply of Christ by reason of His human nature; thus we say simply that Christ suffered, died and was buried: + even as in corporeal and human beings, things of which we may doubt whether they belong to the whole or the part, if they + are observed to exist in a part, are not predicated of the whole simply, i.e. without qualification, for we do not say + that the Ethiopian is white but that he is white as regards his teeth; but we say without qualification that he is curly, + since this can only belong to him as regards his hair. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sometimes, for the sake of brevity, the holy doctors use the word "creature" of Christ, without any qualifying term; we should + however take as understood the qualification, "as man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All the properties of the human, just as of the Divine Nature, may be predicated equally of Christ. Hence Damascene says + (De Fide Orth. iii, 4) that "Christ Who God and Man, is called created and uncreated, passible and impassible." Nevertheless + things of which we may doubt to what nature they belong, are not to be predicated without a qualification. Hence he afterwards + adds (De Fide Orth. iv, 5) that "the one hypostasis," i.e. of Christ, "is + uncreated in its Godhead and created in its manhood": even so conversely, we may not say without qualification, "Christ is + incorporeal" or "impassible"; in order to avoid the error of Manes, who held that Christ had not a true body, nor truly suffered, + but we must say, with a qualification, that Christ was incorporeal and impassible "in His Godhead." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There can be no doubt how the birth from the Virgin applies to the Person of the Son of God, as there can be in the case + of creation; and hence there is no parity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A8-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A9.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A9" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A10.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A9-p0.1">Whether this Man, i.e. Christ, began to be?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this Man, i.e. Christ, began to be. For Augustine says (Tract. cv in Joan.) that "before the world was, + neither were we, nor the Mediator of God and men---the Man Jesus Christ." But what was not always, has begun to be. Therefore + this Man, i.e. Christ, began to be. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ began to be Man. But to be man is to be simply. Therefore this man began to be, simply. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "man" implies a suppositum of human nature. But Christ was not always a suppositum of human nature. Therefore this + Man began to be. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A9-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.8" target="asv">Heb. 13:8</a>): "Jesus Christ yesterday and today: and the same for ever." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> We must not say that "this Man"---pointing to Christ---"began to be," unless we add something. And this for a twofold reason. + First, for this proposition is simply false, in the judgment of the Catholic Faith, which affirms that in Christ there is + one suppositum and one hypostasis, as also one Person. For according to this, when we say "this Man," pointing to Christ, + the eternal suppositum is necessarily meant, with Whose eternity a beginning in time is + incompatible. Hence this is false: "This Man began to be." Nor does it matter that to begin to be refers to the human nature, + which is signified by this word "man"; because the term placed in the subject is not taken formally so as to signify the nature, + but is taken materially so as to signify the suppositum, as was said (A[1], ad 4). Secondly, because even if this proposition + were true, it ought not to be made use of without qualification; in order to avoid the heresy of Arius, who, since he + pretended that the Person of the Son of God is a creature, and less than the Father, so he maintained that He began to be, + saying "there was a time when He was not." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words quoted must be qualified, i.e. we must say that the Man Jesus Christ was not, before the world was, "in His humanity." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> With this word "begin" we cannot argue from the lower species to the higher. For it does not follow if "this began to be + white," that therefore "it began to be colored." And this because "to begin" implies being now and not heretofore: for it + does not follow if "this was not white hitherto" that "therefore it was not colored hitherto." Now, to be simply is higher + than to be man. Hence this does not follow: "Christ began to be Man---therefore He began + to be." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This word "Man," as it is taken for Christ, although it signifies the human nature, which began to be, nevertheless signifies + the eternal suppositum which did not begin to be. Hence, since it signifies the suppositum when placed in the subject, and + refers to the nature when placed in the predicate, therefore this is false: "The Man Christ began to be": but this is true: + "Christ began to be Man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A9-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A10.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A10" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A11.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A10-p0.1">Whether this is true: "Christ as Man is a creature"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this is false: "Christ as Man is a creature," or "began to be." For nothing in Christ is created except + the human nature. But this is false: "Christ as Man is the human nature." Therefore this is also false; Christ as Man is a + creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the predicate is predicated of the term placed in reduplication, rather than of the subject of the proposition; + as when I say: "A body as colored is visible," it follows that the colored is visible. But as stated ( + <a id="TP_Q16_A10-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html">AA[8]</a>,9) we must not absolutely grant that "the Man Christ is a creature"; nor consequently that "Christ as Man is a creature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whatever is predicated of a man as man is predicated of him "per se" and simply, for "per se" is the same as "inasmuch + as itself," as is said Metaph. v, text. 23. But this is false: "Christ as Man is per se and simply a creature." Hence this, + too, is false; "Christ as Man is a creature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Whatever is, is either Creator or creature. But this is false: "Christ as Man is Creator." Therefore this is true: "Christ + as Man is a creature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> When we say "Christ as Man" this word "man" may be added in the reduplication, either by reason of the suppositum or by reason + of the nature. If it be added by reason of the suppositum, since the suppositum of the human nature in Christ is eternal and + uncreated, this will be false: "Christ as Man is a creature." But if it be added by reason of the human nature, it is true, + since by reason of the human nature or in the human nature, it belongs to Him to be a + creature, as was said + <a id="TP_Q16_A10-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html">(A[8])</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p7"> It must however be borne in mind that the term covered by the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum, + since it is added as a predicate, which is taken formally, for it is the same to say "Christ as Man" and to say "Christ as + He is a Man." Hence this is to be granted rather than denied: "Christ as Man is a creature." But if something further be added + whereby [the term covered by the reduplication] is attracted to the suppositum, this proposition is to be + denied rather than granted, for instance were one to say: "Christ as 'this' Man is a creature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although Christ is not the human nature, He has human nature. Now the word "creature" is naturally predicated not only of + abstract, but also of concrete things; since we say that "manhood is a creature" and that "man is a creature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Man as placed in the subject refers to the suppositum---and as placed in the reduplication refers to the nature, as was stated + above. And because the nature is created and the suppositum uncreated, therefore, although it is not granted that "this man + is a creature," yet it is granted that "Christ as Man is a creature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It belongs to every man who is a suppositum of human nature alone to have his being only in human nature. Hence of every + such suppositum it follows that if it is a creature as man, it is a creature simply. But Christ is a suppositum not merely + of human nature, but also of the Divine Nature, in which He has an uncreated being. Hence it does not follow that, if He is + a creature as Man, He is a creature simply. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A10-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A11.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A11" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A12.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A11-p0.1">Whether this is true: "Christ as Man is God"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ, as Man, is God. For Christ is God by the grace of union. But Christ, as Man, has the grace of + union. Therefore Christ as Man is God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to forgive sins is proper to God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A11-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.43.25" target="asv">Is. 43:25</a>: "I am He that blot out thy iniquities for My own sake." But Christ as Man forgives sin, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A11-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.6" target="asv"> Mat. 9:6</a>: "But that you may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins," etc. Therefore Christ as Man is God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ is not Man in common, but is this particular Man. Now Christ, as this Man, is God, since by "this Man" we + signify the eternal suppositum which is God naturally. Therefore Christ as Man is God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Whatever belongs to Christ as Man belongs to every man. Now, if Christ as Man is God, it follows that every man is God---which + is clearly false. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> This term "man" when placed in the reduplication may be taken in two ways. First as referring to the nature; and in this + way it is not true that Christ as Man is God, because the human nature is distinct from the Divine by a difference of nature. + Secondly it may be taken as referring to the suppositum; and in this way, since the suppositum of the human nature in Christ + is the Person of the Son of God, to Whom it essentially belongs to be God, it is true that + Christ, as Man, is God. Nevertheless because the term placed in the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum, + as stated above + <a id="TP_Q16_A11-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A10.html">(A[10])</a>, hence this is to be denied rather than granted: "Christ as Man is God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is not with regard to the same, that a thing moves towards, and that it is, something; for to move belongs to a thing + because of its matter or subject---and to be in act belongs to it because of its form. So too it is not with regard to the + same, that it belongs to Christ to be ordained to be God by the grace of union, and to be God. For the first belongs to Him + in His human nature, and the second, in His Divine Nature. Hence this is true: "Christ + as Man has the grace of union"; yet not this: "Christ as Man is God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Son of Man has on earth the power of forgiving sins, not by virtue of the human nature, but by virtue of the Divine Nature, + in which Divine Nature resides the power of forgiving sins authoritatively; whereas in the human nature it resides instrumentally + and ministerially. Hence Chrysostom expounding this passage says [*Implicitly. Hom. xxx in Matth; cf. St. Thomas, Catena Aurea + on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A11-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.2.10" target="asv"> Mk. 2:10</a>]: "He said pointedly 'on earth to + forgive sins,' in order to show that by an indivisible union He united human nature to the power of the Godhead, since although + He was made Man, yet He remained the Word of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> When we say "this man," the demonstrative pronoun "this" attracts "man" to the suppositum; and hence "Christ as this Man, + is God, is a truer proposition than Christ as Man is God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A11-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A12.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q16_A12" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q16_A12-p0.1">Whether this is true: "Christ as Man is a hypostasis or person"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ as Man is a hypostasis or person. For what belongs to every man belongs to Christ as Man, since + He is like other men according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q16_A12-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv"> Phil. 2:7</a>: "Being made in the likeness of men." But every man is a person. Therefore Christ as Man is a person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ as Man is a substance of rational nature. But He is not a universal substance: therefore He is an individual + substance. Now a person is nothing else than an individual substance of rational nature; as Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.). + Therefore Christ as Man is a person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ as Man is a being of human nature, and a suppositum and a hypostasis of the same nature. But every hypostasis + and suppositum and being of human nature is a person. Therefore Christ as Man is a person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Christ as Man is not an eternal person. Therefore if Christ as Man is a person it would follow that in Christ there are two + persons---one temporal and the other eternal, which is erroneous, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q16_A12-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A6.html">Q[2], A[6]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q16_A12-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q4_A2.html"> Q[4], A[2]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said ( + <a id="TP_Q16_A12-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A10.html">AA[10]</a>,11), the term "Man" placed in the reduplication may refer either to the suppositum or to the nature. Hence when it is said: + "Christ as Man is a person," if it is taken as referring to the suppositum, it is clear that Christ as Man is a person, since + the suppositum of human nature is nothing else than the Person of the Son of God. But if it be taken as referring to the nature, + it may be understood in two ways. + First, we may so understand it as if it belonged to human nature to be in a person, and in this way it is true, for whatever + subsists in human nature is a person. Secondly it may be taken that in Christ a proper personality, caused by the principles + of the human nature, is due to the human nature; and in this way Christ as Man is not a person, since the human nature does + not exist of itself apart from the Divine Nature, and yet the notion of person requires this. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It belongs to every man to be a person, inasmuch as everything subsisting in human nature is a person. Now this is proper + to the Man Christ that the Person subsisting in His human nature is not caused by the principles of the human nature, but + is eternal. Hence in one way He is a person, as Man; and in another way He is not, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The "individual substance," which is included in the definition of a person, implies a complete substance subsisting of itself + and separate from all else; otherwise, a man's hand might be called a person, since it is an individual substance; nevertheless, + because it is an individual substance existing in something else, it cannot be called a person; nor, for the same reason, + can the human nature in Christ, although it may be called something + individual and singular. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As a person signifies something complete and self-subsisting in rational nature, so a hypostasis, suppositum, and being of + nature in the genus of substance, signify something that subsists of itself. Hence, as human nature is not of itself a person + apart from the Person of the Son of God, so likewise it is not of itself a hypostasis or suppositum or a being of nature. + Hence in the sense in which we deny that "Christ as Man is a person" we must deny + all the other propositions. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q16_A12-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q15_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q17" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q17-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S UNITY OF BEING (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q17-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q17-p2"> We must now consider what pertains to Christ's unity in common. For, in their proper place, we must consider what pertains + to unity and plurality in detail: thus we concluded ( + <a id="TP_Q17-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9.html">Q[9])</a> that there is not only one knowledge in Christ, and it will be concluded hereafter ( + <a id="TP_Q17-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q35_A2.html">Q[35], A[2]</a>) that there is not only one nativity in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17-p3"> Hence we must consider Christ's unity (1) of being; (2) of will; (3) of operation.</p> + <p id="TP_Q17-p4"> Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q17-p5"> (1) Whether Christ is one or two?</p> + <p id="TP_Q17-p6"> (2) Whether there is only one being in Christ?</p> + <div id="TP_Q17_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q17_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ is one or two?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ is not one, but two. For Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): "Because the form of God took the form + of a servant, both are God by reason of God Who assumed, yet both are Man by reason of the man assumed." Now "both" may only + be said when there are two. Therefore Christ is two. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, where there is one thing and another there are two. Now Christ is one thing and another; for Augustine says (Enchiridion + xxxv): "Being in the form of God . . . He took the form of a servant . . . being both in one; but He was one of these as Word, + and the other as man." Therefore Christ is two. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ is not only man; for, if He were a mere man, He would not be God. Therefore He is something else than man, + and thus in Christ there is one thing and another. Therefore Christ is two. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Christ is something that the Father is, and something that the Father is not. Therefore Christ is one thing and + another. Therefore Christ is two. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, as in the mystery of the Trinity there are three Persons in one Nature, so in the mystery of the Incarnation there + are two natures in one Person. But on account of the unity of the Nature, notwithstanding the distinction of Person, the Father + and Son are one, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q17_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.30" target="asv">Jn. 10:30</a>: "I and the Father are one." Therefore, notwithstanding the unity of Person, Christ is two on account of the duality of nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the Philosopher says (Phys. iii, text. 18) that "one" and "two" are predicated denominatively. Now Christ has a + duality of nature. Therefore Christ is two. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p8"> + <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, as accidental form makes a thing otherwise [alterum] so does substantial form make another thing [aliud] as Porphyry + says (Praedic.). Now in Christ there are two substantial natures, the human and the Divine. Therefore Christ is one thing + and another. Therefore Christ is two. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p9"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.): "Whatever is, inasmuch as it is, is one." But we confess that Christ is. Therefore Christ + is one. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Nature, considered in itself, as it is used in the abstract, cannot truly be predicated of the suppositum or person, except + in God, in Whom "what it is" and "whereby it is" do not differ, as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q17_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q29_A4.html">FP, Q[29], A[4]</a>, ad 1. But in Christ, since there are two natures, viz. the Divine and the human, one of them, viz. the Divine, may be predicated + of Him both in the abstract and in the concrete, for we say that the Son of God, Who + is signified by the word Christ, is the Divine Nature and is God. But the human nature cannot be predicated of Christ in the + abstract, but only in the concrete, i.e. as it is signified by the suppositum. For we cannot truly say that "Christ is human + nature," because human nature is not naturally predicated of its suppositum. But we say that Christ is a man, even as Christ + is God. Now God signifies one having the Godhead, and man signifies one having manhood. Yet one having manhood is + differently signified by the word "man" and by the word "Jesus" or "Peter." For this word "man" implies one having manhood + indistinctly, even as the word "God" implies indistinctly one having the Godhead; but the word "Peter" or "Jesus" implies + one having manhood distinctly, i.e. with its determinate individual properties, as "Son of God" implies one having the Godhead + under a determinate personal property. Now the dual number is placed in Christ with regard to the natures. Hence, if both + the + natures were predicated in the abstract of Christ, it would follow that Christ is two. But because the two natures are not + predicated of Christ, except as they are signified in the suppositum, it must be by reason of the suppositum that "one" or + "two" be predicated of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p11"> Now some placed two supposita in Christ, and one Person, which, in their opinion, would seem to be the suppositum completed + with its final completion. Hence, since they placed two supposita in Christ, they said that God is two, in the neuter. But + because they asserted one Person, they said that Christ is one, in the masculine, for the neuter gender signifies something + unformed and imperfect, whereas the masculine signifies something formed and perfect. on the other hand, the + Nestorians, who asserted two Persons in Christ, said that Christ is two not only in the neuter, but also in the masculine. + But since we maintain one person and one suppositum in Christ, as is clear from + <a id="TP_Q17_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html"> Q[2], AA[2]</a>,3, it follows that we say that Christ is one not merely in the masculine, but also in the neuter. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This saying of Augustine is not to be taken as if "both" referred to the predicate, so as to mean that Christ is both; but + it refers to the subject. And thus "both" does not stand for two supposita, but for two words signifying two natures in the + concrete. For I can say that "both, viz. God and Man, are God" on account of God Who assumes; and "both, viz. God and Man," + are Man on account of the man assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When it is said that "Christ is one thing and another," this saying is to be explained in this sense---"having this nature + and another." And it is in this way that Augustine explains it (Contra Felic. xi), where, after saying, "In the mediator of + God and man, the Son of God is one thing, and the Son of Man another," he adds: "I say another thing by reason of the difference + of substance, and not another thing by reason of the unity of person." Hence + Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. ad Chelid. ci): "If we must speak briefly, that of which the Saviour is, is one thing and another; + thus the invisible is not the same as the visible; and what is without time is not the same as what is in time. Yet they are + not one and another: far from it; for both these are one." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This is false, "Christ is only man"; because it does not exclude another suppositum, but another nature, since terms placed + in the predicate are taken formally. But if anything is added whereby it is drawn to the suppositum, it would be a true proposition---for + instance, "Christ is only that which is man." Nevertheless, it would not follow that He is "any other thing than man," because + "another thing," inasmuch as it refers to a diversity of + substance, properly refers to the suppositum. even as all relative things bearing a personal relation. But it does follow: + "Therefore He has another nature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> When it is said, "Christ is something that the Father is"; "something" signifies the Divine Nature, which is predicated even + in the abstract of the Father and Son. But when it is said: "Christ is something that is not the Father"; "something" signifies, + not the human nature as it is in the abstract, but as it is in the concrete; not, indeed, in a distinct, but in an indistinct + suppositum, i.e. inasmuch as it underlies the nature and not the + individuating properties. Hence it does not follow that Christ is one thing and another, or that He is two, since the suppositum + of the human nature in Christ, which is the Person of the Son of God, does not reckon numerically with the Divine Nature, + which is predicated of the Father and Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> In the mystery of the Divine Trinity the Divine Nature is predicated, even in the abstract of the three Persons; hence it + may be said simply that the three Persons are one. But in the mystery of the Incarnation both natures are not predicated in + the abstract of Christ; hence it cannot be said simply that Christ is two. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Two signifies what has duality, not in another, but in the same thing of which "two" is predicated. Now what is predicated + is said of the suppositum, which is implied by the word "Christ." Hence, although Christ has duality of nature, yet, because + He has not duality of suppositum, it cannot be said that Christ is two. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> Otherwise implies diversity of accident. Hence diversity of accident suffices for anything to be called "otherwise" simply. + But "another thing" implies diversity of substance. Now not merely the nature, but also the suppositum is said to be a substance, + as is said Metaph. v, text. 15. Hence diversity of nature does not suffice for anything to be called "another thing" simply, + unless there is diversity of suppositum. But diversity of nature makes + "another thing" relatively, i.e. in nature, if there is no diversity of suppositum. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p19"></p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A1-p20"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q17_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q17_A2-p0.1">Whether there is only one being in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there is not merely one being, but two. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 13) that whatever + follows the nature is doubled in Christ. But being follows the nature, for being is from the form. Hence in Christ there are + two beings. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the being of the Son of God is the Divine Nature itself, and is eternal: whereas the being of the Man Christ is + not the Divine Nature, but is a temporal being. Therefore there is not only one being in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the Trinity, although there are three Persons, yet on account of the unity of nature there is only one being. + But in Christ there are two natures, though there is one Person. Therefore in Christ there is not only one being. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in Christ the soul gives some being to the body, since it is its form. But it does not give the Divine being, since + this is uncreated. Therefore in Christ there is another being besides the Divine being; and thus in Christ there is not only + one being. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Everything is said to be a being, inasmuch as it is one, for one and being are convertible. Therefore, if there were two + beings in Christ, and not one only, Christ would be two, and not one. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Because in Christ there are two natures and one hypostasis, it follows that things belonging to the nature in Christ must + be two; and that those belonging to the hypostasis in Christ must be only one. Now being pertains both to the nature and to + the hypostasis; to the hypostasis as to that which has being---and to the nature as to that whereby it has being. For nature + is taken after the manner of a form, which is said to be a being because something is by + it; as by whiteness a thing is white, and by manhood a thing is man. Now it must be borne in mind that if there is a form + or nature which does not pertain to the personal being of the subsisting hypostasis, this being is not said to belong to the + person simply, but relatively; as to be white is the being of Socrates, not as he is Socrates, but inasmuch as he is white. + And there is no reason why this being should not be multiplied in one hypostasis or person; for the being whereby Socrates + is + white is distinct from the being whereby he is a musician. But the being which belongs to the very hypostasis or person in + itself cannot possibly be multiplied in one hypostasis or person, since it is impossible that there should not be one being + for one thing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p8"> If, therefore, the human nature accrued to the Son of God, not hypostatically or personally, but accidentally, as some maintained, + it would be necessary to assert two beings in Christ---one, inasmuch as He is God---the other, inasmuch as He is Man; even + as in Socrates we place one being inasmuch as he is white, and another inasmuch as he is a man, since "being white" does not + pertain to the personal being of Socrates. But being possessed of a head, being corporeal, being + animated---all these pertain to the one person of Socrates, and hence there arises from these only the one being of Socrates. + And if it so happened that after the person of Socrates was constituted there accrued to him hands or feet or eyes, as happened + to him who was born blind, no new being would be thereby added to Socrates, but only a relation to these, i.e. inasmuch as + he would be said to be, not only with reference to what he had previously, but also with reference to what accrued to him + afterwards. And thus, since the human nature is united to the Son of God, hypostatically or personally as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q17_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A5.html">Q[2], AA[5]</a>,6), and not accidentally, it follows that by the human nature there accrued to Him no new personal being, but only a new + relation of the pre-existing personal being to the human nature, in such a way that the Person is said to subsist not merely + in the Divine, but also in the human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Being is consequent upon nature, not as upon that which has being, but as upon that whereby a thing is: whereas it is consequent + upon person or hypostasis, as upon that which has being. Hence it has unity from the unity of hypostasis, rather than duality + from the duality of the nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The eternal being of the Son of God, which is the Divine Nature, becomes the being of man, inasmuch as the human nature is + assumed by the Son of God to unity of Person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As was said in the + <a id="TP_Q17_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q50_A2.html">FP, Q[50], A[2]</a>, ad 3; + <a id="TP_Q17_A2-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q75_A5.html">FP, Q[75], A[5]</a>, ad 4, since the Divine Person is the same as the Nature, there is no distinction in the Divine Persons between the being + of the Person and the being of the Nature, and, consequently, the three Persons have only one being. But they would have a + triple being if the being of the Person were distinct in them from the being of the Nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> In Christ the soul gives being to the body, inasmuch as it makes it actually animated, which is to give it the complement + of its nature and species. But if we consider the body perfected by the soul, without the hypostasis having both---this whole, + composed of soul and body, as signified by the word "humanity," does not signify "what is," but "whereby it is." Hence being + belongs to the subsisting person, inasmuch as it has a relation to such a nature, + and of this relation the soul is the cause, inasmuch as it perfects human nature by informing the body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q17_A2-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q16_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q18" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q18-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S UNITY OF WILL (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q18-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18-p2"> We must now consider unity as regards the will; and under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q18-p3"> (1) Whether the Divine will and the human are distinct in Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q18-p4"> (2) Whether in Christ's human nature the will of sensuality is distinct from the will of reason?</p> + <p id="TP_Q18-p5"> (3) Whether as regards the reason there were several wills in Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q18-p6"> (4) Whether there was free-will in Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q18-p7"> (5) Whether Christ's human will was always conformed to the Divine will in the thing willed?</p> + <p id="TP_Q18-p8"> (6) Whether there was any contrariety of wills in Christ?</p> + <div id="TP_Q18_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q18_A1-p0.1">Whether there are two wills in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there are not two wills, one Divine, the other human. For the will is the first mover and first + commander in whoever wills. But in Christ the first mover and commander was the Divine will, since in Christ everything human + was moved by the Divine will. Hence it seems that in Christ there was only one will, viz. the Divine. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, an instrument is not moved by its own will but by the will of its mover. Now the human nature of Christ was the + instrument of His Godhead. Hence the human nature of Christ was not moved by its own will, but by the Divine will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that alone is multiplied in Christ which belongs to the nature. But the will does not seem to pertain to nature: + for natural things are of necessity; whereas what is voluntary is not of necessity. Therefore there is but one will in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14) that "to will in this or that way belongs not to our nature but to our intellect," + i.e. our personal intellect. But every will is this or that will, since there is nothing in a genus which is not at the same + time in some one of its species. Therefore all will belongs to the person. But in Christ there was and is but one person. + Therefore in Christ there is only one will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.42" target="asv">Lk. 22:42</a>): "Father, if Thou wilt, remove this chalice from Me. But yet not My will but Thine be done." And Ambrose, quoting this to + the Emperor Gratian (De Fide ii, 7) says: "As He assumed my will, He assumed my sorrow;" and on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.42" target="asv"> Lk. 22:42 </a>he says: "His will, He refers to the Man---the Father's, to the Godhead. For the will of man is temporal, and the will of + the Godhead eternal." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Some placed only one will in Christ; but they seem to have had different motives for holding this. For Apollinaris did not + hold an intellectual soul in Christ, but maintained that the Word was in place of the soul, or even in place of the intellect. + Hence since "the will is in the reason," as the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 9), it followed that in Christ there was no + human will; and thus there was only one will in Him. So, too, Eutyches and all who held + one composite nature in Christ were forced to place one will in Him. Nestorius, too, who maintained that the union of God + and man was one of affection and will, held only one will in Christ. But later on, Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, Cyrus of + Alexandria, and Sergius of Constantinople and some of their followers, held that there is one will in Christ, although they + held that in Christ there are two natures united in a hypostasis; because they believed that Christ's human nature never moved + with its own motion, but only inasmuch as it was moved by the Godhead, as is plain from the synodical letter of Pope Agatho + [*Third Council of Constantinople, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.4" target="asv">Act. 4</a>]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p8"> And hence in the sixth Council held at Constantinople [* + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.18" target="asv">Act. 18</a>] it was decreed that it must be said that there are two wills in Christ, in the following passage: "In accordance with what + the Prophets of old taught us concerning Christ, and as He taught us Himself, and the Symbol of the Holy Fathers has handed + down to us, we confess two natural wills in Him and two natural operations." And this much it was necessary to say. For it + is manifest that the Son of God assumed a + perfect human nature, as was shown above (Q[5]; Q[9], A[1]). Now the will pertains to the perfection of human nature, being + one of its natural powers, even as the intellect, as was stated in the FP, QQ[79],80. Hence we must say that the Son of God + assumed a human will, together with human nature. Now by the assumption of human nature the Son of God suffered no diminution + of what pertains to His Divine Nature, to which it belongs to have a will, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q18_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q19_A1.html">FP, Q[19], + A[1] + </a>. Hence it must be said that there are two wills in Christ, i.e. one human, the other Divine. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Whatever was in the human nature of Christ was moved at the bidding of the Divine will; yet it does not follow that in Christ + there was no movement of the will proper to human nature, for the good wills of other saints are moved by God's will, "Who + worketh" in them "both to will and to accomplish," as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.13" target="asv"> Phil. 2:13.</a> For although the will cannot be inwardly moved by any creature, yet it can be moved inwardly by God, as was + said in the + <a id="TP_Q18_A1-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q105_A4.html">FP, Q[105], A[4]</a>. And thus, too, Christ by His human will followed the Divine will according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A1-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.39.9" target="asv"> Ps. 39:9</a>; "That I should do Thy will, O my God, I have desired it." Hence Augustine says (Contra Maxim. ii, 20): "Where the Son says + to the Father, 'Not what I will, but what Thou willest,' what do you gain by adding your own words and saying 'He shows that + His will was truly subject to His Father,' as if we denied that man's will ought to be + subject to God's will?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is proper to an instrument to be moved by the principal agent, yet diversely, according to the property of its nature. + For an inanimate instrument, as an axe or a saw, is moved by the craftsman with only a corporeal movement; but an instrument + animated by a sensitive soul is moved by the sensitive appetite, as a horse by its rider; and an instrument animated with + a rational soul is moved by its will, as by the command of his lord the servant is + moved to act, the servant being like an animate instrument, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2,4; Ethic. viii, 11). And + hence it was in this manner that the human nature of Christ was the instrument of the Godhead, and was moved by its own will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The power of the will is natural, and necessarily follows upon the nature; but the movement or act of this power---which + is also called will---is sometimes natural and necessary, e.g. with respect to beatitude; and sometimes springs from free-will + and is neither necessary nor natural, as is plain from what has been stated in the + <a id="TP_Q18_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q10_A1.html">FS, Q[10], AA[1]</a>,[2] [*Cf. + <a id="TP_Q18_A1-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q82_A2.html">FP, Q[82], A[2]</a>]. And yet even reason itself, + which is the principle of this movement, is natural. Hence besides the Divine will it is necessary to place in Christ a human + will, not merely as a natural power, or a natural movement, but even as a rational movement. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> When we say "to will in a certain way," we signify a determinate mode of willing. Now a determinate mode regards the thing + of which it is the mode. Hence since the will pertains to the nature, "to will in a certain way" belongs to the nature, not + indeed considered absolutely, but as it is in the hypostasis. Hence the human will of Christ had a determinate mode from the + fact of being in a Divine hypostasis, i.e. it was always moved in accordance with + the bidding of the Divine will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q18_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q18_A2-p0.1">Whether in Christ there was a will of sensuality besides the will of reason?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was no will of sensuality besides the will of reason. For the Philosopher says (De Anima + iii, text. 42) that "the will is in the reason, and in the sensitive appetite are the irascible and concupiscible parts." + Now sensuality signifies the sensitive appetite. Hence in Christ there was no will of sensuality. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12,13) the sensuality is signified by the serpent. But there was nothing serpent-like + in Christ; for He had the likeness of a venomous animal without the venom, as Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, + 32). Hence in Christ there was no will of sensuality. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, will is consequent upon nature, as was said + <a id="TP_Q18_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q18_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But in Christ there was only one nature besides the Divine. Hence in Christ there was only one human will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 7): "Mine is the will which He calls His own; because as Man He assumed my sorrow." From this we + are given to understand that sorrow pertains to the human will of Christ. Now sorrow pertains to the sensuality, as was said + in the + <a id="TP_Q18_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q23_A1.html">FS, Q[23], A[1]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q18_A2-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q25_A1.html">FS, Q[25], A[1]</a>. Therefore, seemingly, in Christ there is a will of sensuality besides the will of reason. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said ( + <a id="TP_Q18_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A1.html">Q[9], A[1]</a>), the Son of God assumed human nature together with everything pertaining to the perfection of human nature. Now in human + nature is included animal nature, as the genus in its species. Hence the Son of God must have assumed together with the human + nature whatever belongs to animal nature; one of which things is the sensitive appetite, which is called the sensuality. Consequently + it must be allowed that in + Christ there was a sensual appetite, or sensuality. But it must be borne in mind that sensuality or the sensual appetite, + inasmuch as it naturally obeys reason, is said to be "rational by participation," as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. + i, 13). And because "the will is in the reason," as stated above, it may equally be said that the sensuality is "a will by + participation." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument is based on the will, essentially so called, which is only in the intellectual part; but the will by participation + can be in the sensitive part, inasmuch as it obeys reason. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sensuality is signified by the serpent---not as regards the nature of the sensuality, which Christ assumed, but as regards + the corruption of the "fomes," which was not in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> "Where there is one thing on account of another, there seems to be only one" (Aristotle, Topic. iii); thus a surface which + is visible by color is one visible thing with the color. So, too, because the sensuality is called the will, only because + it partakes of the rational will, there is said to be but one human will in Christ, even as there is but one human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q18_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q18_A3-p0.1">Whether in Christ there were two wills as regards the reason?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there were two wills as regards the reason. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that there + is a double will in man, viz. the natural will which is called {thelesis}, and the rational will which is called {boulesis}. + Now Christ in His human nature had whatever belongs to the perfection of human nature. Hence both the foregoing wills were + in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the appetitive power is diversified in man by the difference of the apprehensive power, and hence according to the + difference of sense and intellect is the difference of sensitive and intellective appetite in man. But in the same way as + regards man's apprehension, we hold the difference of reason and intellect; both of which were in Christ. Therefore there + was a double will in Him, one intellectual and the other rational. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, some [*Hugh of St. Victor, De Quat. Volunt. Christ.] ascribe to Christ "a will of piety," which can only be on the + part of reason. Therefore in Christ on the part of reason there are several wills. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> In every order there is one first mover. But the will is the first mover in the genus of human acts. Therefore in one man + there is only one will, properly speaking, which is the will of reason. But Christ is one man. Therefore in Christ there is + only one human will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 3), the will is sometimes taken for the power, and sometimes for the act. Hence if the will is + taken for the act, it is necessary to place two wills, i.e. two species of acts of the will in Christ on the part of the reason. + For the will, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q18_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q8_A2.html">FS, Q[8], AA[2]</a>,3, regards both the end and the means; and is affected differently towards both. For towards the end it is borne simply and + absolutely, as + towards what is good in itself; but towards the means it is borne under a certain relation, as the goodness of the means depends + on something else. Hence the act of the will, inasmuch as it is drawn to anything desired of itself, as health, which act + is called by Damascene {thelesis}---i.e. simple will, and by the masters "will as nature," is different from the act of the + will as it is drawn to anything that is desired only in order to something else, as to take medicine; and this act of the + will Damascene calls {boulesis}---i.e. counseling will, and the masters, "will as reason." But this diversity of acts does + not diversify the power, since both acts regard the one common ratio of the object, which is goodness. Hence we must say that + if we are speaking of the power of the will, in Christ there is but one human will, essentially so called and not by participation; + but if we are speaking of the will as an act, we thus distinguish in Christ a will as nature, which is called + {thelesis}, and a will as reason, which is called {boulesis}. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These two wills do not diversify the power but only the act, as we have said. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The intellect and the reason are not distinct powers, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q18_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q79_A8.html">FP, Q[79], A[8]</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The "will of piety" would not seem to be distinct from the will considered as nature, inasmuch as it shrinks from another's + evil, absolutely considered. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q18_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q18_A4-p0.1">Whether there was free-will in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there was no free-will. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14) that {gnome}, i.e. opinion, + thinking or cogitation, and {proairesis}, i.e. choice, "cannot possibly be attributed to our Lord, if we wish to speak with + propriety." But in the things of faith especially we must speak with propriety. Therefore there was no choice in Christ and + consequently no free-will, of which choice is the act. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that choice is "a desire of something after taking counsel." Now counsel does + not appear to be in Christ, because we do not take counsel concerning such things as we are certain of. But Christ was certain + of everything. Hence there was no counsel and consequently no free-will in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, free-will is indifferent. But Christ's will was determined to good, since He could not sin; as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q18_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html">Q[15], AA[1]</a> ,2). Hence there was no free-will in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.7.15" target="asv">Is. 7:15</a>): "He shall eat butter and honey, that He may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good," which is an act of the free-will. + Therefore there was free-will in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above + <a id="TP_Q18_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q18_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, there was a twofold act of the will in Christ; one whereby He was drawn to anything willed in itself, which implies the + nature of an end; the other whereby His will was drawn to anything willed on account of its being ordained to another---which + pertains to the nature of means. Now, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) choice differs from will in this, that will + of itself regards the end, while choice + regards the means. And thus simple will is the same as the "will as nature"; but choice is the same as the "will as reason," + and is the proper act of free-will, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q18_A4-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q83_A3.html">FP, Q[83], A[3]</a>. Hence, since "will as reason" is placed in Christ, we must also place choice, and consequently free-will, whose act is choice, + as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q18_A4-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q83_A3.html">FP, Q[83], A[3]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q18_A4-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q13_A1.html">FS, Q[13], A[1]</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Damascene excludes choice from Christ, in so far as he considers that doubt is implied in the word choice. Nevertheless doubt + is not necessary to choice, since it belongs even to God Himself to choose, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.4" target="asv"> Eph. 1:4</a>: "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world," although in God there is no doubt. Yet doubt is accidental to choice + when it is in an ignorant nature. We may also say the same of whatever else is + mentioned in the passage quoted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Choice presupposes counsel; yet it follows counsel only as determined by judgment. For what we judge to be done, we choose, + after the inquiry of counsel, as is stated (Ethic. iii, 2,3). Hence if anything is judged necessary to be done, without any + preceding doubt or inquiry, this suffices for choice. Therefore it is plain that doubt or inquiry belong to choice not essentially, + but only when it is in an ignorant nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The will of Christ, though determined to good, is not determined to this or that good. Hence it pertains to Christ, even + as to the blessed, to choose with a free-will confirmed in good. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q18_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q18_A5-p0.1">Whether the human will of Christ was altogether conformed to the Divine will in the thing willed?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the human will in Christ did not will anything except what God willed. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.39.9" target="asv">Ps. 39:9</a>) in the person of Christ: "That I should do Thy will: O my God, I have desired it." Now he who desires to do another's will, + wills what the other wills. Hence it seems that Christ's human will willed nothing but what was willed by His Divine will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's soul had most perfect charity, which, indeed, surpasses the comprehension of all our knowledge, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.19" target="asv"> Eph. 3:19, </a> "the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge." Now charity makes men will what God wills; hence the Philosopher + says (Ethic. ix, 4) that one mark of friendship is "to will and choose the same." Therefore the human will in Christ willed + nothing else than was willed by His Divine will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ was a true comprehensor. But the Saints who are comprehensors in heaven will only what God wills, otherwise + they would not be happy, because they would not obtain whatever they will, for "blessed is he who has what he wills, and wills + nothing amiss," as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5). Hence in His human will Christ wills nothing else than does the Divine + will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Maxim. ii, 20): "When Christ says 'Not what I will, but what Thou wilt' He shows Himself to have willed + something else than did His Father; and this could only have been by His human heart, since He did not transfigure our weakness + into His Divine but into His human will." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said ( + <a id="TP_Q18_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q18_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3), in Christ according to His human nature there is a twofold will, viz. the will of sensuality, which is called will by + participation, and the rational will, whether considered after the manner of nature, or after the manner of reason. Now it + was said above (Q[13], A[3], ad 1; Q[14], A[1], ad 2) that by a certain dispensation the Son of God before His Passion "allowed + His flesh to do and suffer what belonged to + it." And in like manner He allowed all the powers of His soul to do what belonged to them. Now it is clear that the will of + sensuality naturally shrinks from sensible pains and bodily hurt. In like manner, the will as nature turns from what is against + nature and what is evil in itself, as death and the like; yet the will as reason may at time choose these things in relation + to an end, as in a mere man the sensuality and the will absolutely considered shrink from burning, which, nevertheless, + the will as reason may choose for the sake of health. Now it was the will of God that Christ should undergo pain, suffering, + and death, not that these of themselves were willed by God, but for the sake of man's salvation. Hence it is plain that in + His will of sensuality and in His rational will considered as nature, Christ could will what God did not; but in His will + as reason He always willed the same as God, which appears from what He says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.39" target="asv">Mat. 26:39</a>): "Not as I will, but + as Thou wilt." For He willed in His reason that the Divine will should be fulfilled although He said that He willed something + else by another will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By His rational will Christ willed the Divine will to be fulfilled; but not by His will of sensuality, the movement of which + does not extend to the will of God---nor by His will considered as nature which regards things absolutely considered and not + in relation to the Divine will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The conformity of the human will to the Divine regards the will of reason: according to which the wills even of friends agree, + inasmuch as reason considers something willed in its relation to the will of a friend. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ was at once comprehensor and wayfarer, inasmuch as He was enjoying God in His mind and had a passible body. Hence + things repugnant to His natural will and to His sensitive appetite could happen to Him in His passible flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q18_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q18_A6-p0.1">Whether there was contrariety of wills in Christ? </h4> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was contrariety of wills in Christ. For contrariety of wills regards contrariety of objects, as + contrariety of movements springs from contrariety of termini, as is plain from the Philosopher (Phys. v, text. 49, seq.). + Now Christ in His different wills wished contrary things. For in His Divine will He wished for death, from which He shrank + in His human will, hence Athanasius says [*De Incarnat. et Cont. Arianos, written against + Apollinarius]: "When Christ says 'Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be + done,' and again, 'The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak,' He denotes two wills---the human, which through the + weakness of the flesh shrank from the passion---and His Divine will eager for the passion." Hence there was contrariety of + wills in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.17" target="asv">Gal. 5:17</a>) that "the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh." Now when the spirit desires one thing, and + the flesh another, there is contrariety of wills. But this was in Christ; for by the will of charity which the Holy Spirit + was causing in His mind, He willed the passion, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A6-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.7" target="asv">Is. 53:7</a>: "He was offered because it was His own will," yet in His flesh He shrank from the passion. + Therefore there was contrariety of wills in Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.43" target="asv">Lk. 22:43</a>) that "being in an agony, He prayed the longer." Now agony seems to imply a certain struggle [*Greek, {agonia}] in a soul + drawn to contrary things. Hence it seems that there was contrariety of will in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> In the decisions of the Sixth Council [*Third Council of Constantinople, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q18_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.18" target="asv">Act. 18</a>] it is said: "We confess two natural wills, not in opposition, as evil-minded heretics assert, but following His human will, + and neither withstanding nor striving against, but rather being subject to, His Divine and omnipotent will." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Contrariety can exist only where there is opposition in the same and as regards the same. For if the diversity exists as + regards diverse things, and in diverse subjects, this would not suffice for the nature of contrariety, nor even for the nature + of contradiction, e.g. if a man were well formed or healthy as regards his hand, but not as regards his foot. Hence for there + to be contrariety of wills in anyone it is necessary, first, that the diversity of wills + should regard the same. For if the will of one regards the doing of something with reference to some universal reason, and + the will of another regards the not doing the same with reference to some particular reason, there is not complete contrariety + of will, e.g. when a judge wishes a brigand to be hanged for the good of the commonwealth, and one of the latter's kindred + wishes him not to be hanged on account of a private love, there is no contrariety of wills; unless, indeed, the desire of + the + private good went so far as to wish to hinder the public good for the private good---in that case the opposition of wills + would regard the same. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p7"> Secondly, for contrariety of wills it is necessary that it should be in the same will. For if a man wishes one thing with + his rational appetite, and wishes another thing with his sensitive appetite, there is no contrariety, unless the sensitive + appetite so far prevailed as to change or at least keep back the rational appetite; for in this case something of the contrary + movement of the sensitive appetite would reach the rational will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p8"> And hence it must be said that although the natural and the sensitive will in Christ wished what the Divine will did not + wish, yet there was no contrariety of wills in Him. First, because neither the natural will nor the will of sensuality rejected + the reason for which the Divine will and the will of the human reason in Christ wished the passion. For the absolute will + of Christ wished the salvation of the human race, although it did not pertain to it to will this for the sake of + something further; but the movement of sensuality could nowise extend so far. Secondly, because neither the Divine will nor + the will of reason in Christ was impeded or retarded by the natural will or the appetite of sensuality. So, too, on the other + hand, neither the Divine will nor the will of reason in Christ shrank from or retarded the movement of the natural human will + and the movement of the sensuality in Christ. For it pleased Christ, in His Divine will, and in His will of reason, that + His natural will and will of sensuality should be moved according to the order of their nature. Hence it is clear that in + Christ there was no opposition or contrariety of wills. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The fact of any will in Christ willing something else than did the Divine will, proceeded from the Divine will, by whose + permission the human nature in Christ was moved by its proper movements, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15,18,19). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In us the desires of the spirit are impeded or retarded by the desires of the flesh: this did not occur in Christ. Hence + in Christ there was no contrariety of flesh and spirit, as in us. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The agony in Christ was not in the rational soul, in as far as it implies a struggle in the will arising from a diversity + of motives, as when anyone, on his reason considering one, wishes one thing, and on its considering another, wishes the contrary. + For this springs from the weakness of the reason, which is unable to judge which is the best simply. Now this did not occur + in Christ, since by His reason He judged it best that the Divine will regarding + the salvation of the human race should be fulfilled by His passion. Nevertheless, there was an agony in Christ as regards + the sensitive part, inasmuch as it implied a dread of coming trial, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15; iii, 18,23). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q18_A6-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q17_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q19" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q19-p0.1">OF THE UNITY OF CHRIST'S OPERATION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q19-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q19-p2"> We must now consider the unity of Christ's operation; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q19-p3"> (1) Whether in Christ there was one or several operations of the Godhead and Manhood?</p> + <p id="TP_Q19-p4"> (2) Whether in Christ there were several operations of the human nature?</p> + <p id="TP_Q19-p5"> (3) Whether Christ by His human operation merited anything for Himself?</p> + <p id="TP_Q19-p6"> (4) Whether He merited anything for us by it?</p> + <div id="TP_Q19_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q19_A1-p0.1">Whether in Christ there is only one operation of the Godhead and Manhood?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there is but one operation of the Godhead and the Manhood. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii): + "The most loving operation of God is made manifest to us by the supersubstantial Word having taken flesh integrally and truly, + and having operated and suffered whatsoever befits His human and Divine operation." But he here mentions only one human and + Divine operation, which is written in Greek {theandrike}, i.e. God-manlike. Hence it seems + that there is but one composite operation in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there is but one operation of the principal and instrumental agent. Now the human nature in Christ was the instrument + of the Divine, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q19_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A1.html">Q[7], A[1]</a>, ad 3; + <a id="TP_Q19_A1-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html"> Q[8], A[1]</a>, ad 1; + <a id="TP_Q19_A1-p3.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q18_A1.html"> Q[18], A[1]</a>, ad 2). Hence the operations of the Divine and human natures in Christ are the same. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, since in Christ there are two natures in one hypostasis or person, whatever pertains to the hypostasis or person + is one and the same. But operation pertains to the hypostasis or person, for it is only a subsisting suppositum that operates; + hence, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1), acts belong to singulars. Hence in Christ there is only one operation + of the Godhead and the Manhood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, as being belongs to a subsisting hypostasis, so also does operation. But on account of the unity of hypostasis there + is only one operation of the Godhead and the ( + <a id="TP_Q19_A1-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q17_A2.html">Q[17], A[2]</a>). Hence, on account of the same unity, there is one operation in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, as being belongs to a sub-operated there is one operation. But the same thing was operated by the Godhead and the + Manhood, as the healing of the lepers or the raising of the dead. Hence it seems that in Christ there is but one operation + of the Godhead and the Manhood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 8): "How can the same operation spring from different powers? Cannot the lesser operate as the + greater? And can there be one operation where there are different substances?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q19_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q18_A1.html">Q[18], A[1]</a>), the aforesaid heretics who placed one will in Christ placed one operation in Christ. Now in order better to understand + their erroneous opinion, we must bear in mind that wherever there are several mutually ordained agents, the inferior is moved + by the superior, as in man the body is moved by the soul and the lower powers by the reason. And thus the actions and movements + of the inferior principle are + things operated rather than operations. Now what pertains to the highest principle is properly the operation; thus we say + of man that to walk, which belongs to the feet, and to touch, which belongs to the hand, are things operated by the man---one + of which is operated by the soul through the feet, the other through the hands. And because it is the same soul that operates + in both cases, there is only one indifferent operation, on the part of the thing operating, which is the first moving + principle; but difference is found on the part of what is operated. Now, as in a mere man the body is moved by the soul, and + the sensitive by the rational appetite, so in the Lord Jesus Christ the human nature is moved and ruled by the Divine. Hence + they said that there is one indifferent operation on the part of the Godhead operating, but divers things operated, inasmuch + as the Godhead of Christ did one thing by Itself, as to uphold all things by the word of His power---and another thing by + His human nature, as to walk in body. Hence the Sixth Council [*Third Council of Constantinople, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.10" target="asv">Act. 10</a>] quotes the words of Severus the heretic, who said: "What things were done and wrought by the one Christ, differ greatly; + for some are becoming to God, and some are human, as to walk bodily on the earth is indeed human, but to give hale steps to + sickly limbs, wholly unable to walk on the ground, is becoming to God. Yet one, i.e. the Incarnate Word, wrought one and the + other---neither was + this from one nature, and that from another; nor can we justly affirm that because there are distinct things operated there + are therefore two operating natures and forms." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p9"> But herein they were deceived, for what is moved by another has a twofold action---one which it has from its own form---the + other, which it has inasmuch as it is moved by another; thus the operation of an axe of itself is to cleave; but inasmuch + as it is moved by the craftsman, its operation is to make benches. Hence the operation which belongs to a thing by its form + is proper to it, nor does it belong to the mover, except in so far as he makes use of this kind of thing for his + work: thus to heat is the proper operation of fire, but not of a smith, except in so far as he makes use of fire for heating + iron. But the operation which belongs to the thing, as moved by another, is not distinct from the operation of the mover; + thus to make a bench is not the work of the axe independently of the workman. Hence, wheresoever the mover and the moved have + different forms or operative faculties, there must the operation of the mover and the proper operation of the moved be + distinct; although the moved shares in the operation of the mover, and the mover makes use of the operation of the moved, + and, consequently, each acts in communion with the other. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p10"> Therefore in Christ the human nature has its proper form and power whereby it acts; and so has the Divine. Hence the human + nature has its proper operation distinct from the Divine, and conversely. Nevertheless, the Divine Nature makes use of the + operation of the human nature, as of the operation of its instrument; and in the same way the human nature shares in the operation + of the Divine Nature, as an instrument shares in the operation of the principal agent. And this is what + Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Flavian. xxviii): "Both forms" (i.e. both the Divine and the human nature in Christ) "do what is proper + to each in union with the other, i.e. the Word operates what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carries out what belongs to + flesh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p11"> But if there were only one operation of the Godhead and manhood in Christ, it would be necessary to say either that the human + nature had not its proper form and power (for this could not possibly be said of the Divine), whence it would follow that + in Christ there was only the Divine operation; or it would be necessary to say that from the Divine and human power there + was made up one power. Now both of these are impossible. For by the first the human nature in Christ is supposed + to be imperfect; and by the second a confusion of the natures is supposed. Hence it is with reason that the Sixth Council + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.18" target="asv">Act. 18</a>) condemned this opinion, and decreed as follows: "We confess two natural, indivisible, unconvertible, unconfused, and inseparable + operations in the same Lord Jesus Christ our true God"; i.e. the Divine operation and the human operation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Dionysius places in Christ a theandric, i.e. a God-manlike or Divino-human, operation not by any confusion of the operations + or powers of both natures, but inasmuch as His Divine operation employs the human, and His human operation shares in the power + of the Divine. Hence, as he says in a certain epistle (Ad Caium iv), "what is of man He works beyond man; and this is shown + by the Virgin conceiving supernaturally and by the unstable waters bearing up + the weight of bodily feet." Now it is clear that to be begotten belongs to human nature, and likewise to walk; yet both were + in Christ supernaturally. So, too, He wrought Divine things humanly, as when He healed the leper with a touch. Hence in the + same epistle he adds: "He performed Divine works not as God does, and human works not as man does, but, God having been made + man, by a new operation of God and man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p13"> Now, that he understood two operations in Christ, one of the Divine and the other of the human nature, is clear from what + he says, Div. Nom. ii: "Whatever pertains to His human operation the Father and the Holy Ghost no-wise share in, except, as + one might say, by their most gracious and merciful will," i.e. inasmuch as the Father and the Holy Ghost in their mercy wished + Christ to do and to suffer human things. And he adds: "He is truly the unchangeable God, and God's Word by the + sublime and unspeakable operation of God, which, being made man for us, He wrought." Hence it is clear that the human operation, + in which the Father and the Holy Ghost do not share, except by Their merciful consent, is distinct from His operation, as + the Word of God, wherein the Father and the Holy Ghost share. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The instrument is said to act through being moved by the principal agent; and yet, besides this, it can have its proper operation + through its own form, as stated above of fire. And hence the action of the instrument as instrument is not distinct from the + action of the principal agent; yet it may have another operation, inasmuch as it is a thing. Hence the operation of Christ's + human nature, as the instrument of the Godhead, is not distinct from the + operation of the Godhead; for the salvation wherewith the manhood of Christ saves us and that wherewith His Godhead saves + us are not distinct; nevertheless, the human nature in Christ, inasmuch as it is a certain nature, has a proper operation + distinct from the Divine, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To operate belongs to a subsisting hypostasis; in accordance, however, with the form and nature from which the operation + receives its species. Hence from the diversity of forms or natures spring the divers species of operations, but from the unity + of hypostasis springs the numerical unity as regards the operation of the species: thus fire has two operations specifically + different, namely, to illuminate and to heat, from the difference of light and + heat, and yet the illumination of the fire that illuminates at one and the same time is numerically one. So, likewise, in + Christ there are necessarily two specifically different operations by reason of His two natures; nevertheless, each of the + operations at one and the same time is numerically one, as one walking and one healing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Being and operation belong to the person by reason of the nature; yet in a different manner. For being belongs to the very + constitution of the person, and in this respect it has the nature of a term; consequently, unity of person requires unity + of the complete and personal being. But operation is an effect of the person by reason of a form or nature. Hence plurality + of operations is not incompatible with personal unity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The proper work of the Divine operation is different from the proper work of the human operation. Thus to heal a leper is + a proper work of the Divine operation, but to touch him is the proper work of the human operation. Now both these operations + concur in one work, inasmuch as one nature acts in union with the other. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p18"></p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A1-p19"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q19_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q19_A2-p0.1">Whether in Christ there are several human operations?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that in Christ there are several human operations. For Christ as man communicates with plants by His nutritive + soul, with the brutes by His sensitive soul, and with the angels by His intellective soul, even as other men do. Now the operations + of a plant as plant and of an animal as animal are different. Therefore Christ as man has several operations. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, powers and habits are distinguished by their acts. Now in Christ's soul there were divers powers and habits; therefore + also divers operations. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, instruments ought to be proportioned to their operations. Now the human body has divers members of different form, + and consequently fitted to divers operations. Therefore in Christ there are divers operations in the human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15), "operation is consequent upon the nature." But in Christ there is only one human + nature. Therefore in Christ there is only one human operation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Since it is by his reason that man is what he is; that operation is called human simply, which proceeds from the reason through + the will, which is the rational appetite. Now if there is any operation in man which does not proceed from the reason and + the will, it is not simply a human operation, but belongs to man by reason of some part of human nature---sometimes by reason + of the nature of elementary bodies, as to be borne downwards---sometimes by reason of + the force of the vegetative soul, as to be nourished, and to grow---sometimes by reason of the sensitive part, as to see and + hear, to imagine and remember, to desire and to be angry. Now between these operations there is a difference. For the operations + of the sensitive soul are to some extent obedient to reason, and consequently they are somewhat rational and human inasmuch + as they obey reason, as is clear from the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13). But the operations that spring from the vegetative + soul, or from the nature of elemental bodies, are not subject to reason; consequently they are nowise rational; nor simply + human, but only as regards a part of human nature. Now it was said + <a id="TP_Q19_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q19_A1.html">(A[1])</a> that when a subordinate agent acts by its own form, the operations of the inferior and of the superior agent are distinct; + but when the inferior agent acts only as moved by the superior agent, then the operation of the superior and the inferior + agent is one. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p7"> And hence in every mere man the operations of the elemental body and of the vegetative soul are distinct from the will's + operation, which is properly human; so likewise the operations of the sensitive soul inasmuch as it is not moved by reason; + but inasmuch as it is moved by reason, the operations of the sensitive and the rational part are the same. Now there is but + one operation of the rational part if we consider the principle of the operation, which is the reason and the + will; but the operations are many if we consider their relationship to various objects. And there were some who called this + a diversity of things operated rather than of operations, judging the unity of the operation solely from the operative principle. + And it is in this respect that we are now considering the unity and plurality of operations in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p8"> Hence in every mere man there is but one operation, which is properly called human; but besides this there are in a mere + man certain other operations, which are not strictly human, as was said above. But in the Man Jesus Christ there was no motion + of the sensitive part which was not ordered by reason. Even the natural and bodily operations pertained in some respects to + His will, inasmuch as it was His will "that His flesh should do and suffer what belonged to it," as stated + above ( + <a id="TP_Q19_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q18_A5.html">Q[18], A[5]</a>). Much more, therefore, is there one operation in Christ, than in any other man whatsoever. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The operations of the sensitive and nutritive parts are not strictly human, as stated above; yet in Christ these operations + were more human than in others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Powers and habits are diversified by comparison with their objects. Hence in this way the diversity of operations corresponds + to the divers powers and habits, as likewise to the divers objects. Now we do not wish to exclude this diversity of operations + from Christ's humanity, nor that which springs from a diversity of time, but only that which regards the first active principle, + as was said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p11"> (St. Thomas gives no reply to OBJ[3]; some codices add: Hence may be gathered the reply to the third objection.)</p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q19_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q19_A3-p0.1">Whether the human action of Christ could be meritorious to Him?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the human action of Christ could not be meritorious to Him. For before His death Christ was a comprehensor + even as He is now. But comprehensors do not merit: because the charity of the comprehensor belongs to the reward of beatitude, + since fruition depends upon it. Hence it does not seem to be the principle of merit, since merit and reward are not the same. + Therefore Christ before His passion did not merit, even as He does not merit now. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one merits what is due to him. But because Christ is the Son of God by nature, the eternal inheritance is due + to Him, which other men merit by their works. And hence Christ Who, from the beginning, was the Word of God, could not merit + anything for Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whoever has the principle does not properly merit what flows from its possession. But Christ has the glory of the + soul, whence, in the natural course, flowed the glory of the body, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dios cxviii); though by a dispensation + it was brought about that in Christ the glory of the soul should not overflow to the body. Hence Christ did not merit the + glory of the body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the manifestation of Christ's excellence is a good, not of Christ Himself, but of those who know Him. Hence it is + promised as a reward to such as love Christ that He will be manifested to them, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.21" target="asv"> Jn. 14:21</a>: "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him." Therefore Christ + did not merit the manifestation of His greatness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv">Phil. 2:8,9</a>): "Becoming obedient unto death . . . For which cause God also hath exalted Him." Therefore by obeying He merited His exaltation + and thus He merited something for Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> To have any good thing of oneself is more excellent than to have it from another, for "what is of itself a cause is always + more excellent than what is a cause through another," as is said Phys. viii, 5. Now a thing is said to have, of itself, that + of which it is to some extent the cause. But of whatever good we possess the first cause by authority is God; and in this + way no creature has any good of itself, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:7</a>: "What + hast thou that thou hast not received?" Nevertheless, in a secondary manner anyone may be a cause, to himself, of having certain + good things, inasmuch as he cooperates with God in the matter, and thus whoever has anything by his own merit has it, in a + manner, of himself. Hence it is better to have a thing by merit than without merit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p8"> Now since all perfection and greatness must be attributed to Christ, consequently He must have by merit what others have + by merit; unless it be of such a nature that its want would detract from Christ's dignity and perfection more than would accrue + to Him by merit. Hence He merited neither grace nor knowledge nor the beatitude of His soul, nor the Godhead, because, since + merit regards only what is not yet possessed, it would be necessary that Christ should have been without + these at some time; and to be without them would have diminished Christ's dignity more than His merit would have increased + it. But the glory of the body, and the like, are less than the dignity of meriting, which pertains to the virtue of charity. + Hence we must say that Christ had, by merit, the glory of His body and whatever pertained to His outward excellence, as His + Ascension, veneration, and the rest. And thus it is clear that He could merit for Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Fruition, which is an act of charity, pertains to the glory of the soul, which Christ did not merit. Hence if He merited + by charity, it does not follow that the merit and the reward are the same. Nor did He merit by charity inasmuch as it was + the charity of a comprehensor, but inasmuch as it was that of a wayfarer. For He was at once a wayfarer and a comprehensor, + as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q19_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A10.html">Q[15], A[10]</a>). And therefore, since He is + no longer a wayfarer, He is not in the state of meriting. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Because by nature Christ is God and the Son of God, the Divine glory and the lordship of all things are due to Him, as to + the first and supreme Lord. Nevertheless a glory is due to Him as a beatified man; and this He has partly without merit, and + partly with merit, as is clear from what has been said. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is by Divine appointment that there is an overflow of glory from the soul to the body, in keeping with human merit; so + that as man merits by the act of the soul which he performs in the body, so he may be rewarded by the glory of the soul overflowing + to the body. And hence not only the glory of the soul, but also the glory of the body falls under merit, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.11" target="asv"> Rom. 8:11</a>: "He . . . shall quicken also our [Vulg.: 'your'] + mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in us [Vulg.: 'you']." And thus it could fall under Christ's merit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The manifestation of Christ's excellence is His good as regards the being which it has in the knowledge of others; although + in regard to the being which they have in themselves it chiefly belongs to the good of those who know Him. Yet even this is + referred to Christ inasmuch as they are His members. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A3-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q19_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q19_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ could merit for others?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ could not merit for others. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.18.4" target="asv">Ezech. 18:4</a>): "The soul that sinneth, the same shall die." Hence, for a like reason, the soul that meriteth, the same shall be recompensed. + Therefore it is not possible that Christ merited for others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, of the fulness of Christ's grace we all receive, as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv"> Jn. 1:16.</a> Now other men having Christ's grace cannot merit for others. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Ezek.14.20" target="asv">Ezech. 14:20</a>) that if "Noe and Daniel and Job be in the city [Vulg.: 'the midst thereof'] . . . they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; + but they shall only deliver their own souls by their justice." Hence Christ could not merit anything for us. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the "reward" that we merit is due "according to justice [Vulg.: 'debt'] and not according to grace," as is clear + from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.4" target="asv"> Rom. 4:4.</a> Therefore if Christ merited our salvation it follows that our salvation is not by God's grace but by justice, and that He + acts unjustly with those whom He does not save, since Christ's merit extends to all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.18" target="asv">Rom. 5:18</a>): "As by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of + life." But Adam's demerits reached to the condemnation of others. Much more, therefore, does the merit of Christ reach others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q19_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html">Q[8], AA[1]</a>,5), grace was in Christ not merely as in an individual, but also as in the Head of the whole Church, to Whom all are united, + as members to a head, who constitute one mystical person. And hence it is that Christ's merit extends to others inasmuch as + they are His members; even as in a man the action of the head reaches in a manner to all his members, since it perceives not + merely for itself alone, but for + all the members. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The sin of an individual harms himself alone; but the sin of Adam, who was appointed by God to be the principle of the whole + nature, is transmitted to others by carnal propagation. So, too, the merit of Christ, Who has been appointed by God to be + the head of all men in regard to grace, extends to all His members. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Others receive of Christ's fulness not indeed the fount of grace, but some particular grace. And hence it need not be that + men merit for others, as Christ did. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the sin of Adam reaches others only by carnal generation, so, too, the merit of Christ reaches others only by spiritual + regeneration, which takes place in baptism; wherein we are incorporated with Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q19_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.27" target="asv"> Gal. 3:27, </a> "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ"; and it is by grace that it is granted to man to be + incorporated with Christ. And thus man's salvation is from grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q19_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q18_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q20" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q20-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S SUBJECTION TO THE FATHER (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q20-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q20-p2"> We must now consider such things as belong to Christ in relation to the Father. Some of these things are predicated of Him + because of His relation to the Father, e.g. that He was subject to Him, that He prayed to Him, that He ministered, to Him + by priesthood. And some are predicated, or may be predicated, of Him because of the Father's relation to Him, e.g. that the + Father adopted Him and that He predestined Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20-p3"> Hence we must consider (1) Christ's subjection to the Father; (2) His prayer; (3) His priesthood; (4) Adoption---whether + it is becoming to Him; (5) His predestination. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20-p4"> Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q20-p5"> (1) Whether Christ is subject to the Father?</p> + <p id="TP_Q20-p6"> (2) Whether He is subject to Himself?</p> + <div id="TP_Q20_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q20_A1-p0.1">Whether we may say that Christ is subject to the Father?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that we may not say that Christ was subject to the Father. For everything subject to the Father is a creature, + since, as is said in De Eccles. Dogm. iv, "in the Trinity there is no dependence or subjection." But we cannot say simply + that Christ is a creature, as was stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q20_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html">Q[16], A[8]</a>). Therefore we cannot say simply that Christ is subject to God the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a thing is said to be subject to God when it is subservient to His dominion. But we cannot attribute subservience + to the human nature of Christ; for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 21): "We must bear in mind that we may not call it" + (i.e. Christ's human nature) "a servant; for the words 'subservience' and 'domination' are not names of the nature, but of + relations, as the words 'paternity' and 'filiation.'" Hence Christ in His human nature is not + subject to God the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.28" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:28</a>): "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also Himself shall be subject unto Him that put all things + under Him." But, as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.8" target="asv">Heb. 2:8</a>): "We see not as yet all things subject to Him." Hence He is not yet subject to the Father, Who has subjected all things + to Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.28" target="asv">Jn. 14:28</a>), "The Father is greater than I"; and Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): "It is not without reason that the Scripture mentions + both, that the Son is equal to the Father and the Father greater than the Son, for the first is said on account of the form + of God, and the second on account of the form of a servant, without any confusion." Now the less is subject to the greater. + Therefore in the form of a servant Christ + is subject to the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Whoever has a nature is competent to have what is proper to that nature. Now human nature from its beginning has a threefold + subjection to God. The first regards the degree of goodness, inasmuch as the Divine Nature is the very essence of goodness + as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) while a created nature has a participation of the Divine goodness, being subject, + so to say, to the rays of this goodness. Secondly, human nature is subject to God, as + regards God's power, inasmuch as human nature, even as every creature, is subject to the operation of the Divine ordinance. + Thirdly, human nature is especially subject to God through its proper act, inasmuch as by its own will it obeys His command. + This triple subjection to God Christ professes of Himself. The first ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.17" target="asv">Mat. 19:17</a>): "Why askest thou Me concerning good? One is good, God." And on this Jerome remarks: "He who had called Him a good master, + and had not confessed Him + to be God or the Son of God, learns that no man, however holy, is good in comparison with God." And hereby He gave us to understand + that He Himself, in His human nature, did not attain to the height of Divine goodness. And because "in such things as are + great, but not in bulk, to be great is the same as to be good," as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 8), for this reason the Father + is said to be greater than Christ in His human nature. The second subjection is attributed to Christ, inasmuch as all + that befell Christ is believed to have happened by Divine appointment; hence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that Christ "is + subject to the ordinance of God the Father." And this is the subjection of subservience, whereby "every creature serves God" + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Jdt.16.17" target="asv">Judith 16:17</a>), being subject to His ordinance, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Wis.16.24" target="asv"> Wis. 16:24</a>: "The creature serving Thee the Creator." And in this way the Son of God ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv">Phil. 2:7</a>) is said to have taken "the + form of a servant." The third subjection He attributes to Himself, saying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p6.5" href="./asv.html#John.8.29" target="asv">Jn. 8:29</a>): "I do always the things that please Him." And this is the subjection to the Father, of obedience unto death. Hence it is + written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p6.6" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv">Phil. 2:8</a>) that he became "obedient" to the Father "unto death." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As we are not to understand that Christ is a creature simply, but only in His human nature, whether this qualification be + added or not, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q20_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html">Q[16], A[8]</a>), so also we are to understand that Christ is subject to the Father not simply but in His human nature, even if this qualification + be not added; and yet it is better to add this qualification in order to avoid the error of Arius, who held the Son to be + less than + the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The relation of subservience and dominion is based upon action and passion, inasmuch as it belongs to a servant to be moved + by the will of his master. Now to act is not attributed to the nature as agent, but to the person, since "acts belong to supposita + and to singulars," according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1). Nevertheless action is attributed to the nature as to that + whereby the person or hypostasis acts. Hence, although the nature is not + properly said to rule or serve, yet every hypostasis or person may be properly said to be ruling or serving in this or that + nature. And in this way nothing prevents Christ being subject or servant to the Father in human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8): "Christ will give the kingdom to God and the Father, when He has brought the faithful, + over whom He now reigns by faith, to the vision," i.e. to see the essence common to the Father and the Son: and then He will + be totally subject to the Father not only in Himself, but also in His members by the full participation of the Godhead. And + then all things will be fully subject to Him by the final accomplishment of His will + concerning them; although even now all things are subject to Him as regards His power, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.18" target="asv"> Mat. 28:18</a>: "All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q20_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q20_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ is subject to Himself?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ is not subject to Himself. For Cyril says in a synodal letter which the Council of Ephesus (Part + I, ch. xxvi) received: "Christ is neither servant nor master of Himself. It is foolish, or rather impious, to think or say + this." And Damascene says the same (De Fide Orth. iii, 21): "The one Being, Christ, cannot be the servant or master of Himself." + Now Christ is said to be the servant of the Father inasmuch as He is subject to Him. + Hence Christ is not subject to Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, servant has reference to master. Now nothing has a relation to itself, hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii) that nothing + is like or equal to itself. Hence Christ cannot be said to be the servant of Himself, and consequently to be subject to Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "as the rational soul and flesh are one man; so God and man are one Christ," as Athanasius says (Symb. Fid.). Now + man is not said to be subject to himself or servant to himself or greater than himself because his body is subject to his + soul. Therefore, Christ is not said to be subject to Himself because His Manhood is subject to His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): "Truth shows in this way" (i.e. whereby the Father is greater than Christ in human nature) + "that the Son is less than Himself." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p6"> Further, as he argues (De Trin. i, 7), the form of a servant was so taken by the Son of God that the form of God was not + lost. But because of the form of God, which is common to the Father and the Son, the Father is greater than the Son in human + nature. Therefore the Son is greater than Himself in human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p7"> Further, Christ in His human nature is the servant of God the Father, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q20_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.17" target="asv"> Jn. 20:17</a>: "I ascend to My Father and to your Father to My God and your God." Now whoever is the servant of the Father is the servant + of the Son; otherwise not everything that belongs to the Father would belong to the Son. Therefore Christ is His own servant + and is subject to Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said above (A[1], ad 2), to be master or servant is attributed to a person or hypostasis according to a nature. Hence + when it is said that Christ is the master or servant of Himself, or that the Word of God is the Master of the Man Christ, + this may be understood in two ways. First, so that this is understood to be said by reason of another hypostasis or person, + as if there was the person of the Word of God ruling and the person of the man serving; and + this is the heresy of Nestorius. Hence in the condemnation of Nestorius it is said in the Council of Ephesus (Part III, ch. + i, anath. 6): "If anyone say that the Word begotten of God the Father is the God or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess + the same to be at once God and man as the Word made flesh, according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema." And in this + sense it is denied by Cyril and Damascene (OBJ[1]); and in the same sense must it be denied that Christ is less than Himself + or subject to Himself. Secondly, it may be understood of the diversity of natures in the one person or hypostasis. And thus + we may say that in one of them, in which He agrees with the Father, He presides and rules together with the Father; and in + the other nature, in which He agrees with us, He is subject and serves, and in this sense Augustine says that "the Son is + less than Himself." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p9"> Yet it must be borne in mind that since this name "Christ" is the name of a Person, even as the name "Son," those things + can be predicated essentially and absolutely of Christ which belong to Him by reason of the Person, Which is eternal; and + especially those relations which seem more properly to pertain to the Person or the hypostasis. But whatever pertains to Him + in His human nature is rather to be attributed to Him with a qualification; so that we say that Christ is simply + greatest, Lord, Ruler, whereas to be subject or servant or less is to be attributed to Him with the qualification, in His + human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Cyril and Damascene deny that Christ is the head of Himself inasmuch as this implies a plurality of supposita, which is required + in order that anyone may be the master of another. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Simply speaking it is necessary that the master and the servant should be distinct; yet a certain notion of mastership and + subservience may be preserved inasmuch as the same one is master of Himself in different respects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> On account of the divers parts of man, one of which is superior and the other inferior, the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 11) + that there is justice between a man and himself inasmuch as the irascible and concupiscible powers obey reason. Hence this + way a man may be said to be subject and subservient to Himself as regards His different parts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p13"> To the other arguments, the reply is clear from what has been said. For Augustine asserts that the Son is less than, or subject + to, Himself in His human nature, and not by a diversity of supposita. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q20_A2-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q19_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q21" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q21-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S PRAYER (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q21-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q21-p2"> We must now consider Christ's prayer; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q21-p3"> (1) Whether it is becoming that Christ should pray?</p> + <p id="TP_Q21-p4"> (2) Whether it pertains to Him in respect of His sensuality?</p> + <p id="TP_Q21-p5"> (3) Whether it is becoming to Him to pray for Himself or only for others?</p> + <p id="TP_Q21-p6"> (4) Whether every prayer of His was heard?</p> + <div id="TP_Q21_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q21_A1-p0.1">Whether it is becoming of Christ to pray?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unbecoming that Christ should pray. For, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24), "prayer is the asking for + becoming things from God." But since Christ could do all things, it does not seem becoming to Him to ask anything from anyone. + Therefore it does not seem fitting that Christ should pray. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we need not ask in prayer for what we know for certain will happen; thus, we do not pray that the sun may rise tomorrow. + Nor is it fitting that anyone should ask in prayer for what he knows will not happen. But Christ in all things knew what would + happen. Therefore it was not fitting that He should ask anything in prayer. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24) that "prayer is the raising up of the mind to God." Now Christ's mind needed + no uplifting to God, since His mind was always united to God, not only by the union of the hypostasis, but by the fruition + of beatitude. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should pray. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.12" target="asv">Lk. 6:12</a>): "And it came to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain, and He passed the whole night in the prayer of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was said in the + <a id="TP_Q21_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q83_A1.html">SS, Q[83], AA[1]</a>,2, prayer is the unfolding of our will to God, that He may fulfill it. If, therefore, there had been but one will in Christ, + viz. the Divine, it would nowise belong to Him to pray, since the Divine will of itself is effective of whatever He wishes + by it, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.134.6" target="asv"> Ps. 134:6</a>: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done." But because the Divine and the human wills are distinct + in Christ, and the human will of itself is not efficacious enough to do what it wishes, except by Divine power, hence to pray + belongs to Christ as man and as having a human will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ as God and not as man was able to carry out all He wished, since as man He was not omnipotent, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q21_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q13_A1.html">Q[13], A[1]</a> ). Nevertheless being both God and man, He wished to offer prayers to the Father, not as though He were incompetent, but + for our instruction. First, that He might show Himself to be from the Father; hence He says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.11.42" target="asv">Jn. 11:42</a>): "Because of the people who stand about I have said + it" (i.e. the words of the prayer) "that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me." Hence Hilary says (De Trin. x): "He did + not need prayer. It was for us He prayed, lest the Son should be unknown." Secondly, to give us an example of prayer; hence + Ambrose says (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.12" target="asv"> Lk. 6:12</a>): "Be not deceived, nor think that the Son of God prays as a weakling, in order to beseech what He cannot effect. For the + Author of power, the Master of obedience persuades us to the precepts of virtue by + His example." Hence Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "Our Lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in silence, + if need be, but He wished to show Himself a suppliant of the Father, in such sort as to bear in mind that He was our Teacher." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Amongst the other things which He knew would happen, He knew that some would be brought about by His prayer; and for these + He not unbecomingly besought God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To rise is nothing more than to move towards what is above. Now movement is taken in two ways, as is said De Anima iii, 7; + first, strictly, according as it implies the passing from potentiality to act, inasmuch as it is the act of something imperfect, + and thus to rise pertains to what is potentially and not actually above. Now in this sense, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. + iii, 24), "the human mind of Christ did not need to rise to God, since it was + ever united to God both by personal being and by the blessed vision." Secondly, movement signifies the act of something perfect, + i.e. something existing in act, as to understand and to feel are called movements; and in this sense the mind of Christ was + always raised up to God, since He was always contemplating Him as existing above Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q21_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q21_A2-p0.1">Whether it pertains to Christ to pray according to His sensuality?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it pertains to Christ to pray according to His sensuality. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.83.3" target="asv">Ps. 83:3</a>) in the person of Christ: "My heart and My flesh have rejoiced in the Living God." Now sensuality is called the appetite + of the flesh. Hence Christ's sensuality could ascend to the Living God by rejoicing; and with equal reason by praying. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, prayer would seem to pertain to that which desires what is besought. Now Christ besought something that His sensuality + desired when He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.39" target="asv">Mat. 26:39</a>): "Let this chalice pass from Me." Therefore Christ's sensuality prayed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is a greater thing to be united to God in person than to mount to Him in prayer. But the sensuality was assumed + by God to the unity of Person, even as every other part of human nature. Much more, therefore, could it mount to God by prayer. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv">Phil. 2:7</a>) that the Son of God in the nature that He assumed was "made in the likeness of men." But the rest of men do not pray with + their sensuality. Therefore, neither did Christ pray according to His sensuality. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> To pray according to sensuality may be understood in two ways. First as if prayer itself were an act of the sensuality; and + in this sense Christ did not pray with His sensuality, since His sensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as + in us. Now in us the sensuality cannot pray for two reasons; first because the movement of the sensuality cannot transcend + sensible things, and, consequently, it cannot mount to God, which is required for prayer; + secondly, because prayer implies a certain ordering inasmuch as we desire something to be fulfilled by God; and this is the + work of reason alone. Hence prayer is an act of the reason, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q21_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q83_A1.html">SS, Q[83], A[1]</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p7"> Secondly, we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our prayer lays before God what is in our appetite of sensuality; + and in this sense Christ prayed with His sensuality inasmuch as His prayer expressed the desire of His sensuality, as if it + were the advocate of the sensuality---and this, that He might teach us three things. First, to show that He had taken a true + human nature, with all its natural affections: secondly, to show that a man may wish with his natural + desire what God does not wish: thirdly, to show that man should subject his own will to the Divine will. Hence Augustine says + in the Enchiridion (Serm. 1 in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.32" target="asv">Ps. 32</a>): "Christ acting as a man, shows the proper will of a man when He says 'Let this chalice pass from Me'; for this was the + human will desiring something proper to itself and, so to say, private. But because He wishes man to be righteous and to be + directed to God, He adds: 'Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt,' as if to say, + 'See thyself in Me, for thou canst desire something proper to thee, even though God wishes something else.'" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The flesh rejoices in the Living God, not by the act of the flesh mounting to God, but by the outpouring of the heart into + the flesh, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite follows the movement of the rational appetite. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the sensuality wished what the reason besought, it did not belong to the sensuality to seek this by praying, but + to the reason, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The union in person is according to the personal being, which pertains to every part of the human nature; but the uplifting + of prayer is by an act which pertains only to the reason, as stated above. Hence there is no parity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q21_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q21_A3-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that Christ should pray for Himself?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should pray for Himself. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Although His word + of beseeching did not benefit Himself, yet He spoke for the profit of our faith." Hence it seems that Christ prayed not for + Himself but for us. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one prays save for what He wishes, because, as was said + <a id="TP_Q21_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q21_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, prayer is an unfolding of our will to God that He may fulfil it. Now Christ wished to suffer what He suffered. For Augustine + says (Contra Faust. xxvi): "A man, though unwilling, is often angry; though unwilling, is sad; though unwilling, sleeps; though + unwilling, hungers and thirsts. But He" (i.e. Christ) "did all these things, because He wished." Therefore it + was not fitting that He should pray for Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Cyprian says (De Orat. Dom.): "The Doctor of Peace and Master of Unity did not wish prayers to be offered individually + and privately, lest when we prayed we should pray for ourselves alone." Now Christ did what He taught, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.1" target="asv"> Acts 1:1</a>: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Therefore Christ never prayed for Himself alone. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord Himself said while praying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.17.1" target="asv">Jn. 17:1</a>): "Glorify Thy Son." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ prayed for Himself in two ways. First, by expressing the desire of His sensuality, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q21_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q21_A2.html">(A[2])</a>; or also of His simple will, considered as a nature; as when He prayed that the chalice of His Passion might pass from Him + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.39" target="asv">Mat. 26:39</a>). Secondly, by expressing the desire of His deliberate will, which is considered as reason; as when He prayed for the glory + of His Resurrection ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#John.17.1" target="asv">Jn. + 17:1 + </a>). And this is reasonable. For as we have said above (A[1], ad 1) Christ wished to pray to His Father in order to give us + an example of praying; and also to show that His Father is the author both of His eternal procession in the Divine Nature, + and of all the good that He possesses in the human nature. Now just as in His human nature He had already received certain + gifts from His Father. so there were other gifts which He had not yet received, but which He expected to receive. + And therefore, as He gave thanks to the Father for gifts already received in His human nature, by acknowledging Him as the + author thereof, as we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A3-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.27" target="asv">Mat. 26:27</a>; + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A3-p6.5" href="./asv.html#John.11.41" target="asv">Jn. 11:41</a>): so also, in recognition of His Father, He besought Him in prayer for those gifts still due to Him in His human nature, + such as the glory of His body, and the like. And in this He gave us an example, that we should give thanks for benefits received, + and ask in prayer for those we have not as yet. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Hilary is speaking of vocal prayer, which was not necessary to Him for His own sake, but only for ours. Whence he says pointedly + that "His word of beseeching did not benefit Himself." For if "the Lord hears the desire of the poor," as is said in the + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.9.38" target="asv"> Ps. 9:38, </a> much more the mere will of Christ has the force of a prayer with the Father: wherefore He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.11.42" target="asv">Jn. 11:42</a>): "I know that Thou hearest Me always, but + because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ wished indeed to suffer what He suffered, at that particular time: nevertheless He wished to obtain, after His passion, + the glory of His body, which as yet He had not. This glory He expected to receive from His Father as the author thereof, and + therefore it was fitting that He should pray to Him for it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This very glory which Christ, while praying, besought for Himself, pertained to the salvation of others according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.25" target="asv"> Rom. 4:25</a>: "He rose again for our justification." Consequently the prayer which He offered for Himself was also in a manner offered + for others. So also anyone that asks a boon of God that he may use it for the good of others, prays not only for himself, + but also for others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q21_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q21_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ's prayer was always heard?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's prayer was not always heard. For He besought that the chalice of His passion might be taken from + Him, as we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.39" target="asv">Mat. 26:39</a>): and yet it was not taken from Him. Therefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, He prayed that the sin of those who crucified Him might be forgiven, as is related ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.34" target="asv">Lk. 23:34</a>). Yet not all were pardoned this sin, since the Jews were punished on account thereof. Therefore it seems that not every + prayer of His was heard. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, our Lord prayed for them "who would believe in Him through the word" of the apostles, that they "might all be one + in Him," and that they might attain to being with Him ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.17.20" target="asv">Jn. 17:20</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.17.21" target="asv">21</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p4.3" href="./asv.html#John.17.24" target="asv">24</a>). But not all attain to this. Therefore not every prayer of His was heard. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.21.3" target="asv">Ps. 21:3</a>) in the person of Christ: "I shall cry by day, and Thou wilt not hear." Not every prayer of His, therefore, was heard. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.7" target="asv">Heb. 5:7</a>): "With a strong cry and tears offering up prayers . . . He was heard for His reverence." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q21_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q21_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, prayer is a certain manifestation of the human will. Wherefore, then is the request of one who prays granted, when his will + is fulfilled. Now absolutely speaking the will of man is the will of reason; for we will absolutely that which we will in + accordance with reason's deliberation. Whereas what we will in accordance with the movement of sensuality, or even of the + simple will, which is considered as nature is + willed not absolutely but conditionally [secundum quid]---that is, provided no obstacle be discovered by reason's deliberation. + Wherefore such a will should rather be called a "velleity" than an absolute will; because one would will [vellet] if there + were no obstacle. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p8"> But according to the will of reason, Christ willed nothing but what He knew God to will. Wherefore every absolute will of + Christ, even human, was fulfilled, because it was in conformity with God; and consequently His every prayer was fulfilled. + For in this respect also is it that other men's prayers are fulfilled, in that their will is in conformity with God, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.27" target="asv"> Rom. 8:27</a>: "And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth," that is, approves of, "what the + Spirit desireth," that is, what the Spirit makes the saints to desire: "because He asketh for the saints according to God," + that is, in conformity with the Divine will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This prayer for the passing of the chalice is variously explained by the Saints. For Hilary (Super + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.31" target="asv">Matth. 31</a>) says: "When He asks that this may pass from Him, He does not pray that it may pass by Him, but that others may share in + that which passes on from Him to them; So that the sense is: As I am partaking of the chalice of the passion, so may others + drink of it, with unfailing hope, with unflinching anguish, without fear of death." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p10"> Or according to Jerome (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q21_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.39" target="asv"> Mat. 26:39</a>): "He says pointedly, 'This chalice,' that is of the Jewish people, who cannot allege ignorance as an excuse for putting + Me to death, since they have the Law and the Prophets, who foretold concerning Me." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p11"> Or, according to Dionysius of Alexandria (De Martyr. ad Origen 7): "When He says 'Remove this chalice from Me,' He does not + mean, 'Let it not come to Me'; for if it come not, it cannot be removed. But, as that which passes is neither untouched nor + yet permanent, so the Saviour beseeches, that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p12"> Lastly, Ambrose, Origen and Chrysostom say that He prayed thus "as man," being reluctant to die according to His natural + will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p13"> Thus, therefore, whether we understand, according to Hilary, that He thus prayed that other martyrs might be imitators of + His Passion, or that He prayed that the fear of drinking His chalice might not trouble Him, or that death might not withhold + Him, His prayer was entirely fulfilled. But if we understand that He prayed that He might not drink the chalice of His passion + and death; or that He might not drink it at the hands of the Jews; what He besought was not indeed fulfilled, + because His reason which formed the petition did not desire its fulfilment, but for our instruction, it was His will to make + known to us His natural will, and the movement of His sensuality, which was His as man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Our Lord did not pray for all those who crucified Him, as neither did He for all those who would believe in Him; but for + those only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p15"> Wherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest.</p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> When He says: "I shall cry and Thou wilt not hear," we must take this as referring to the desire of sensuality, which shunned + death. But He is heard as to the desire of His reason, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p17"></p> + <p id="TP_Q21_A4-p18"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q20_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q22" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q22-p0.1">OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q22-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22-p2"> We have now to consider the Priesthood of Christ; and under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q22-p3"> (1) Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?</p> + <p id="TP_Q22-p4"> (2) Of the victim offered by this priest;</p> + <p id="TP_Q22-p5"> (3) Of the effect of this priesthood;</p> + <p id="TP_Q22-p6"> (4) Whether the effect of His priesthood pertains to Himself, or only to others?</p> + <p id="TP_Q22-p7"> (5) Of the eternal duration of His priesthood;</p> + <p id="TP_Q22-p8"> (6) Whether He should be called "a priest according to the order of Melchisedech"?</p> + <div id="TP_Q22_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q22_A1-p0.1">Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting that Christ should be a priest. For a priest is less than an angel; whence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Zech.3.1" target="asv">Zech. 3:1</a>): "The Lord showed me the high-priest standing before the angel of the Lord." But Christ is greater than the angels, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.4" target="asv"> Heb. 1:4</a>: "Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name than they." Therefore it is unfitting + that Christ should be a + priest. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, things which were in the Old Testament were figures of Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.17" target="asv"> Col. 2:17</a>: "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's." But Christ was not descended from the priests of the Old + Law, for the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.14" target="asv">Heb. 7:14</a>): "It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, in which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests." Therefore it + is not fitting that Christ should be a + priest. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the Old Law, which is a figure of Christ, the lawgivers and the priests were distinct: wherefore the Lord said + to Moses the lawgiver ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.28.1" target="asv">Ex. 28:1</a>): "Take unto thee Aaron, thy brother . . . that he [Vulg.: 'they'] may minister to Me in the priest's office." But Christ + is the giver of the New Law, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.33" target="asv"> Jer. 31:33</a>: "I will give My law in their bowels." Therefore it is unfitting that Christ should be a + priest. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.4.14" target="asv">Heb. 4:14</a>): "We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] therefore a great high-priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The office proper to a priest is to be a mediator between God and the people: to wit, inasmuch as He bestows Divine things + on the people, wherefore "sacerdos" [priest] means a giver of sacred things [sacra dans], according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.2.7" target="asv"> Malachi 2:7</a>: "They shall seek the law at his," i.e. the priest's, "mouth"; and again, forasmuch as he offers up the people's prayers + to God, and, in a manner, makes satisfaction to God for their sins; wherefore the + Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.1" target="asv">Heb. 5:1</a>): "Every high-priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts + and sacrifices for sins." Now this is most befitting to Christ. For through Him are gifts bestowed on men, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#iiPet.1.4" target="asv">2 Pet. 1:4</a>: "By Whom" (i.e. Christ) "He hath given us most great and precious promises, that by these you may be made partakers of the + Divine Nature." Moreover, He reconciled the human race + to God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Col.1.19" target="asv"> Col. 1:19,20</a>: "In Him" (i.e. Christ) "it hath well pleased (the Father) that all fulness should dwell, and through Him to reconcile all + things unto Himself." Therefore it is most fitting that Christ should be a priest. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Hierarchical power appertains to the angels, inasmuch as they also are between God and man, as Dionysius explains (Coel. + Hier. ix), so that the priest himself, as being between God and man, is called an angel, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.2.7" target="asv"> Malachi 2:7</a>: "He is the angel of the Lord of hosts." Now Christ was greater than the angels, not only in His Godhead, but also in His + humanity, as having the fulness of grace and glory. Wherefore also He had the + hierarchical or priestly power in a higher degree than the angels, so that even the angels were ministers of His priesthood, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.11" target="asv"> Mat. 4:11</a>: "Angels came and ministered unto Him." But, in regard to His passibility, He "was made a little lower than the angels," + as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.9" target="asv">Heb. 2:9</a>): and thus He was conformed to those wayfarers who are ordained to the priesthood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26): "What is like in every particular must be, of course, identical, and not a copy." + Since, therefore, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, He did not wish to be born of the + stock of the figurative priests, that it might be made clear that His priesthood is not quite the same as theirs, but differs + therefrom as truth from figure. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q22_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A7.html">Q[7], A[7]</a>, ad 1), other men have certain graces distributed among them: but Christ, as being the Head of all, has the perfection of + all graces. Wherefore, as to others, one is a lawgiver, another is a priest, another is a king; but all these concur in Christ, + as the fount of all grace. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.33.22" target="asv">Is. 33:22</a>): "The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our law-giver, the Lord is our King: + He will" come and "save us." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q22_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q22_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ was Himself both priest and victim?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ Himself was not both priest and victim. For it is the duty of the priest to slay the victim. But + Christ did not kill Himself. Therefore He was not both priest and victim. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the priesthood of Christ has a greater similarity to the Jewish priesthood, instituted by God, than to the priesthood + of the Gentiles, by which the demons were worshiped. Now in the old Law man was never offered up in sacrifice: whereas this + was very much to be reprehended in the sacrifices of the Gentiles, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.105.38" target="asv"> Ps. 105:38</a>: "They shed innocent blood; the blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to + the idols of Chanaan." Therefore in Christ's priesthood the Man Christ should not have been the victim. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every victim, through being offered to God, is consecrated to God. But the humanity of Christ was from the beginning + consecrated and united to God. Therefore it cannot be said fittingly that Christ as man was a victim. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv">Eph. 5:2</a>): "Christ hath loved us, and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a victim [Douay: 'sacrifice'] to God for an odor + of sweetness." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 5): "Every visible sacrifice is a sacrament, that is a sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice." + Now the invisible sacrifice is that by which a man offers his spirit to God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.50.19" target="asv"> Ps. 50:19</a>: "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit." Wherefore, whatever is offered to God in order to raise man's spirit to Him, + may be called a sacrifice. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p7"> Now man is required to offer sacrifice for three reasons. First, for the remission of sin, by which he is turned away from + God. Hence the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.1" target="asv">Heb. 5:1</a>) that it appertains to the priest "to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." Secondly, that man may be preserved in a state + of grace, by ever adhering to God, wherein his peace and salvation consist. Wherefore under the old Law the sacrifice of peace-offerings + was offered up for the salvation of the + offerers, as is prescribed in the third chapter of Leviticus. Thirdly, in order that the spirit of man be perfectly united + to God: which will be most perfectly realized in glory. Hence, under the Old Law, the holocaust was offered, so called because + the victim was wholly burnt, as we read in the first chapter of Leviticus. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p8"> Now these effects were conferred on us by the humanity of Christ. For, in the first place, our sins were blotted out, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.25" target="asv"> Rom. 4:25</a>: "Who was delivered up for our sins." Secondly, through Him we received the grace of salvation, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.9" target="asv"> Heb. 5:9</a>: "He became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal salvation." Thirdly, through Him we have acquired the perfection of + glory, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A2-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.19" target="asv"> Heb. 10:19</a>: "We have + [Vulg.: 'Having'] a confidence in the entering into the Holies" (i.e. the heavenly glory) "through His Blood." Therefore Christ + Himself, as man, was not only priest, but also a perfect victim, being at the same time victim for sin, victim for a peace-offering, + and a holocaust. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ did not slay Himself, but of His own free-will He exposed Himself to death, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.7" target="asv"> Is. 53:7</a>: "He was offered because it was His own will." Thus He is said to have offered Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The slaying of the Man Christ may be referred to a twofold will. First, to the will of those who slew Him: and in this respect + He was not a victim: for the slayers of Christ are not accounted as offering a sacrifice to God, but as guilty of a great + crime: a similitude of which was borne by the wicked sacrifices of the Gentiles, in which they offered up men to idols. Secondly, + the slaying of Christ may be considered in reference to the will of the + Sufferer, Who freely offered Himself to suffering. In this respect He is a victim, and in this He differs from the sacrifices + of the Gentiles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p11"> (The reply to the third objection is wanting in the original manuscripts, but it may be gathered from the above.--Ed.)</p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p12"> [*Some editions, however, give the following reply:</p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The fact that Christ's manhood was holy from its beginning does not prevent that same manhood, when it was offered to God + in the Passion, being sanctified in a new way---namely, as a victim actually offered then. For it acquired then the actual + holiness of a victim, from the charity which it had from the beginning, and from the grace of union sanctifying it absolutely.] + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A2-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q22_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q22_A3-p0.1">Whether the effect of Christ's priesthood is the expiation of sins?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the effect of Christ's priesthood is not the expiation of sins. For it belongs to God alone to blot out + sins, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.43.25" target="asv"> Is. 43:25</a>: "I am He that blot out thy iniquities for My own sake." But Christ is priest, not as God, but as man. Therefore the priesthood + of Christ does not expiate sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.1" target="asv">Heb. 10:1-3</a>) that the victims of the Old Testament could not "make" (the comers thereunto) "perfect: for then they would have ceased + to be offered; because the worshipers once cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer; but in them there is made + a commemoration of sins every year." But in like manner under the priesthood of Christ a commemoration of sins is made in + the words: "Forgive us our trespasses" + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.12" target="asv">Mat. 6:12</a>). Moreover, the Sacrifice is offered continuously in the Church; wherefore again we say: "Give us this day our daily bread." + Therefore sins are not expiated by the priesthood of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the sin-offerings of the Old Law, a he-goat was mostly offered for the sin of a prince, a she-goat for the sin + of some private individual, a calf for the sin of a priest, as we gather from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.4.3" target="asv"> Lev. 4:3,23,28.</a> But Christ is compared to none of these, but to the lamb, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.11.19" target="asv"> Jer. 11:19</a>: "I was as a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim." Therefore it seems that His priesthood does not expiate sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.14" target="asv">Heb. 9:14</a>): "The blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead + works, to serve the living God." But dead works denote sins. Therefore the priesthood of Christ has the power to cleanse from + sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Two things are required for the perfect cleansing from sins, corresponding to the two things comprised in sin---namely, the + stain of sin and the debt of punishment. The stain of sin is, indeed, blotted out by grace, by which the sinner's heart is + turned to God: whereas the debt of punishment is entirely removed by the satisfaction that man offers to God. Now the priesthood + of Christ produces both these effects. For by its virtue grace is given to us, by + which our hearts are turned to God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.24" target="asv"> Rom. 3:24,25</a>: "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, + through faith in His blood." Moreover, He satisfied for us fully, inasmuch as "He hath borne our infirmities and carried our + sorrows" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.4" target="asv">Is. 53:4</a>). Wherefore it is clear that the priesthood of Christ has full power to expiate sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although Christ was a priest, not as God, but as man, yet one and the same was both priest and God. Wherefore in the Council + of Ephesus [*Part III, ch. i, anath. 10] we read: "If anyone say that the very Word of God did not become our High-Priest + and Apostle, when He became flesh and a man like us, but altogether another one, the man born of a woman, let him be anathema." + Hence in so far as His human nature operated by virtue of the Divine, that + sacrifice was most efficacious for the blotting out of sins. For this reason Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 14): "So that, since + four things are to be observed in every sacrifice---to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, for whom + it is offered; the same one true Mediator reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, was one with Him to Whom it was + offered, united in Himself those for whom He offered it, at the same time offered it Himself, and was Himself that which He + offered." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sins are commemorated in the New Law, not on account of the inefficacy of the priesthood of Christ, as though sins were not + sufficiently expiated by Him: but in regard to those who either are not willing to be participators in His sacrifice, such + as unbelievers, for whose sins we pray that they be converted; or who, after taking part in this sacrifice, fall away from + it by whatsoever kind of sin. The Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Church + is not distinct from that which Christ Himself offered, but is a commemoration thereof. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. + De. x, 20): "Christ Himself both is the priest who offers it and the victim: the sacred token of which He wished to be the + daily Sacrifice of the Church." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Origen says (Sup. Joan. i, 29), though various animals were offered up under the Old Law, yet the daily sacrifice, which + was offered up morning and evening, was a lamb, as appears from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Num.38.3" target="asv"> Num. 38:3,4.</a> By which it was signified that the offering up of the true lamb, i.e. Christ, was the culminating sacrifice of all. Hence + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.29" target="asv">Jn. 1:29</a>) it is said: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who taketh away the sins + [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q22_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q22_A4-p0.1">Whether the effect of the priesthood of Christ pertained not only to others, but also to Himself?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the effect of the priesthood of Christ pertained not only to others, but also to Himself. For it belongs + to the priest's office to pray for the people, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiMacc.1.23" target="asv">2 Macc. 1:23</a>: "The priests made prayer while the sacrifice was consuming." Now Christ prayed not only for others, but also for Himself, + as we have said above ( + <a id="TP_Q22_A4-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q21_A3.html">Q[21], A[3]</a>), and as expressly stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A4-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.7" target="asv">Heb. 5:7</a>): "In + the days of His flesh, with a strong cry and tears He offered [Vulg.: 'offering'] up prayers and supplications to Him that + was able to save Him from death." Therefore the priesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in His passion Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice. But by His passion He merited, not only for others, but also + for Himself, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q22_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q19_A3.html">Q[19], AA[3]</a>,4). Therefore the priesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ. But the priest of the Old Law offered sacrifice + not only for others, but also for himself: for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.16.17" target="asv">Lev. 16:17</a>) that "the high-priest goeth into the sanctuary to pray for himself and his house, and for the whole congregation of Israel." + Therefore the priesthood of Christ also had an effect not merely in others, but also in Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> We read in the acts of the Council of Ephesus [*Part III, ch. i, anath. 10]: "If anyone say that Christ offered sacrifice + for Himself, and not rather for us alone (for He Who knew not sin needed no sacrifice), let him be anathema." But the priest's + office consists principally in offering sacrifice. Therefore the priesthood of Christ had no effect in Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q22_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q22_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, a priest is set between God and man. Now he needs someone between himself and God, who of himself cannot approach to God; + and such a one is subject to the priesthood by sharing in the effect thereof. But this cannot be said of Christ; for the Apostle + says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.25" target="asv">Heb. 7:25</a>): "Coming of Himself to God, always living to make intercession for us [Vulg.: 'He is able to save for ever them that come + to + God by Him; always living,' etc.]." And therefore it is not fitting for Christ to be the recipient of the effect of His priesthood, + but rather to communicate it to others. For the influence of the first agent in every genus is such that it receives nothing + in that genus: thus the sun gives but does not receive light; fire gives but does not receive heat. Now Christ is the fountain-head + of the entire priesthood: for the priest of the Old Law was a figure of Him; while the priest of the New Law + works in His person, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#iiCor.2.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 2:10</a>: "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." Therefore + it is not fitting that Christ should receive the effect of His priesthood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although prayer is befitting to priests, it is not their proper office, for it is befitting to everyone to pray both for + himself and for others, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.5.16" target="asv"> James 5:16</a>: "Pray for one another that you may be saved." And so we may say that the prayer by which Christ prayed for Himself was not + an action of His priesthood. But this answer seems to be precluded by the Apostle, who, after saying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.6" target="asv">Heb. 5:6</a>), "Thou + art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech," adds, "Who in the days of His flesh offering up payers," etc., + as quoted above (OBJ[1] ): so that it seems that the prayer which Christ offered pertained to His priesthood. We must therefore + say that other priests partake in the effect of their priesthood, not as priests, but as sinners, as we shall state farther + on (ad 3). But Christ had, simply speaking, no sin; though He had the "likeness of sin in the flesh [Vulg.,: 'sinful + flesh']," as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A4-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.3" target="asv"> Rom. 8:3.</a> And, consequently, we must not say simply that He partook of the effect of His priesthood but with this qualification---in + regard to the passibility of the flesh. Wherefore he adds pointedly, "that was able to save Him from death." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Two things may be considered in the offering of a sacrifice by any priest---namely, the sacrifice itself which is offered, + and the devotion of the offerer. Now the proper effect of priesthood is that which results from the sacrifice itself. But + Christ obtained a result from His passion, not as by virtue of the sacrifice, which is offered by way of satisfaction, but + by the very devotion with which out of charity He humbly endured the passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A figure cannot equal the reality, wherefore the figural priest of the Old Law could not attain to such perfection as not + to need a sacrifice of satisfaction. But Christ did not stand in need of this. Consequently, there is no comparison between + the two; and this is what the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.28" target="asv">Heb. 7:28</a>): "The Law maketh men priests, who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the Law, the Son Who is perfected + for + evermore." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q22_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q22_A5-p0.1">Whether the priesthood of Christ endures for ever?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the priesthood of Christ does not endure for ever. For as stated above (A[4], ad 1,3) those alone need + the effect of the priesthood who have the weakness of sin, which can be expiated by the priest's sacrifice. But this will + not be for ever. For in the Saints there will be no weakness, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.60.21" target="asv"> Is. 60:21</a>: "Thy people shall be all just": while no expiation will be possible for the weakness of sin, since "there is no + redemption in hell" (Office of the Dead, Resp. vii). Therefore the priesthood of Christ endures not for ever. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the priesthood of Christ was made manifest most of all in His passion and death, when "by His own blood He entered + into the Holies" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.12" target="asv">Heb. 9:12</a>). But the passion and death of Christ will not endure for ever, as stated + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.9" target="asv"> Rom. 6:9</a>: "Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more." Therefore the priesthood of Christ will not endure for ever. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ is a priest, not as God, but as man. But at one time Christ was not man, namely during the three days He + lay dead. Therefore the priesthood of Christ endures not for ever. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.109.4" target="asv">Ps. 109:4</a>): "Thou art a priest for ever." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In the priestly office, we may consider two things: first, the offering of the sacrifice; secondly, the consummation of the + sacrifice, consisting in this, that those for whom the sacrifice is offered, obtain the end of the sacrifice. Now the end + of the sacrifice which Christ offered consisted not in temporal but in eternal good, which we obtain through His death, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.11" target="asv"> Heb. 9:11</a>: "Christ is [Vulg.: 'being come'] a high-priest of + the good things to come"; for which reason the priesthood of Christ is said to be eternal. Now this consummation of Christ's + sacrifice was foreshadowed in this, that the high-priest of the Old Law, once a year, entered into the Holy of Holies with + the blood of a he-goat and a calf, as laid down, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.16.11" target="asv"> Lev. 16:11, </a> and yet he offered up the he-goat and calf not within the Holy of Holies, but without. In like manner Christ entered into + the Holy of Holies---that is, into heaven---and + prepared the way for us, that we might enter by the virtue of His blood, which He shed for us on earth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Saints who will be in heaven will not need any further expiation by the priesthood of Christ, but having expiated, they + will need consummation through Christ Himself, on Whom their glory depends, as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.23" target="asv">Apoc. 21:23</a>): "The glory of God hath enlightened it"---that is, the city of the Saints---"and the Lamb is the lamp thereof." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although Christ's passion and death are not to be repeated, yet the virtue of that Victim endures for ever, for, as it is + written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.14" target="asv">Heb. 10:14</a>), "by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p9"> Wherefore the reply to the third objection is clear.</p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p10"> As to the unity of this sacrifice, it was foreshadowed in the Law in that, once a year, the high-priest of the Law entered + into the Holies, with a solemn oblation of blood, as set down, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.16.11" target="asv"> Lev. 16:11.</a> But the figure fell short of the reality in this, that the victim had not an everlasting virtue, for which reason those sacrifices + were renewed every year. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A5-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q22_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q22_A6-p0.1">Whether the priesthood of Christ was according to the order of Melchisedech?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's priesthood was not according to the order of Melchisedech. For Christ is the fountain-head of + the entire priesthood, as being the principal priest. Now that which is principal is not . secondary in regard to others, + but others are secondary in its regard. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest according to the order of Melchisedech. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was more akin to Christ's priesthood than was the priesthood that existed before the + Law. But the nearer the sacraments were to Christ, the more clearly they signified Him; as is clear from what we have said + in the + <a id="TP_Q22_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q2_A7.html">SS, Q[2], A[7]</a>. Therefore the priesthood of Christ should be denominated after the priesthood of the Law, rather than after the order of + Melchisedech, which was before the Law. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.2" target="asv">Heb. 7:2,3</a>): "That is 'king of peace,' without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor ending + of life": which can be referred only to the Son of God. Therefore Christ should not be called a priest according to the order + of Melchisedech, as of some one else, but according to His own order. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.109.4" target="asv">Ps. 109:4</a>): "Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[4], ad 3) the priesthood of the Law was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, not as adequately representing + the reality, but as falling far short thereof: both because the priesthood of the Law did not wash away sins, and because + it was not eternal, as the priesthood of Christ. Now the excellence of Christ's over the Levitical priesthood was foreshadowed + in the priesthood of Melchisedech, who received tithes from Abraham, in whose loins + the priesthood of the Law was tithed. Consequently the priesthood of Christ is said to be "according to the order of Melchisedech," + on account of the excellence of the true priesthood over the figural priesthood of the Law. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ is said to be according to the order of Melchisedech not as though the latter were a more excellent priest, but because + he foreshadowed the excellence of Christ's over the Levitical priesthood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Two things may be considered in Christ's priesthood: namely, the offering made by Christ, and (our) partaking thereof. As + to the actual offering, the priesthood of Christ was more distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of the Law, by reason + of the shedding of blood, than by the priesthood of Melchisedech in which there was no blood-shedding. But if we consider + the participation of this sacrifice and the effect thereof, wherein the excellence of + Christ's priesthood over the priesthood of the Law principally consists, then the former was more distinctly foreshadowed + by the priesthood of Melchisedech, who offered bread and wine, signifying, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) ecclesiastical + unity, which is established by our taking part in the sacrifice of Christ [*Cf. + <a id="TP_Q22_A6-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q79_A1.html"> Q[79], A[1]</a>]. Wherefore also in the New Law the true sacrifice of Christ is presented to the faithful under the form of bread and wine. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Melchisedech is described as "without father, without mother, without genealogy," and as "having neither beginning of days + nor ending of life," not as though he had not these things, but because these details in his regard are not supplied by Holy + Scripture. And this it is that, as the Apostle says in the same passage, he is "likened unto the Son of God," Who had no earthly + father, no heavenly mother, and no genealogy, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q22_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.8" target="asv"> Is. + 53:8 + </a>: "Who shall declare His generation?" and Who in His Godhead has neither beginning nor end of days. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q22_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q21_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q23" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q23-p0.1">OF ADOPTION AS BEFITTING TO CHRIST (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q23-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q23-p2"> We must now come to consider whether adoption befits Christ: and under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q23-p3"> (1) Whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons?</p> + <p id="TP_Q23-p4"> (2) Whether this is fitting to God the Father alone?</p> + <p id="TP_Q23-p5"> (3) Whether it is proper to man to be adopted to the sonship of God?</p> + <p id="TP_Q23-p6"> (4) Whether Christ can be called the adopted Son?</p> + <div id="TP_Q23_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q23_A1-p0.1">Whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not fitting that God should adopt sons. For, as jurists say, no one adopts anyone but a stranger + as his son. But no one is a stranger in relation to God, Who is the Creator of all. Therefore it seems unfitting that God + should adopt. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, adoption seems to have been introduced in default of natural sonship. But in God there is natural sonship, as set + down in the + <a id="TP_Q23_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q27_A2.html">FP, Q[27], A[2]</a>. Therefore it is unfitting that God should adopt. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the purpose of adopting anyone is that he may succeed, as heir, the person who adopts him. But it does not seem + possible for anyone to succeed God as heir, for He can never die. Therefore it is unfitting that God should adopt. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.5" target="asv">Eph. 1:5</a>) that "He hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children of God." But the predestination of God is not ineffectual. + Therefore God does adopt some as His sons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A man adopts someone as his son forasmuch as out of goodness he admits him as heir to his estate. Now God is infinitely good: + for which reason He admits His creatures to a participation of good things; especially rational creatures, who forasmuch as + they are made to the image of God, are capable of Divine beatitude. And this consists in the enjoyment of God, by which also + God Himself is happy and rich in Himself---that is, in the enjoyment of Himself. Now a + man's inheritance is that which makes him rich. Wherefore, inasmuch as God, of His goodness, admits men to the inheritance + of beatitude, He is said to adopt them. Moreover Divine exceeds human adoption, forasmuch as God, by bestowing His grace, + makes man whom He adopts worthy to receive the heavenly inheritance; whereas man does not make him worthy whom he adopts; + but rather in adopting him he chooses one who is already worthy. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Considered in his nature man is not a stranger in respect to God, as to the natural gifts bestowed on him: but he is as to + the gifts of grace and glory; in regard to which he is adopted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Man works in order to supply his wants: not so God, Who works in order to communicate to others the abundance of His perfection. + Wherefore, as by the work of creation the Divine goodness is communicated to all creatures in a certain likeness, so by the + work of adoption the likeness of natural sonship is communicated to men, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv">Rom. 8:29</a>: "Whom He foreknew . . . to be made conformable to the image of His Son." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Spiritual goods can be possessed by many at the same time; not so material goods. Wherefore none can receive a material inheritance + except the successor of a deceased person: whereas all receive the spiritual inheritance at the same time in its entirety + without detriment to the ever-living Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p10"> Yet it might be said that God ceases to be, according as He is in us by faith, so as to begin to be in us by vision, as a + gloss says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.17" target="asv"> Rom. 8:17</a>: "If sons, heirs also." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A1-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q23_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q23_A2-p0.1">Whether it is fitting that the whole Trinity should adopt?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting that the whole Trinity should adopt. For adoption is said of God in likeness to human custom. But + among men those only adopt who can beget: and in God this can be applied only to the Father. Therefore in God the Father alone + can adopt. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by adoption men become the brethren of Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv"> Rom. 8:29</a>: "That He might be the first-born among many brethren." Now brethren are the sons of the same father; wherefore our Lord + says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#John.20.17" target="asv">Jn. 20:17</a>): "I ascend to My Father and to your Father." Therefore Christ's Father alone has adopted sons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv">Gal. 4:4</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.5" target="asv">5</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.6" target="asv">6</a>): "God sent His Son . . . that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons of God, God hath sent the + Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: 'Abba' [Father]." Therefore it belongs to Him to adopt, Who has the Son and the + Holy Ghost. But this belongs to the Father alone. Therefore it befits the Father alone to adopt. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It belongs to Him to adopt us as sons, Whom we can call Father; whence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.15" target="asv">Rom. 8:15</a>): "You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: 'Abba' [Father]." But when we say to God, "Our Father," + we address the whole Trinity: as is the case with the other names which are said of God in respect of creatures, as stated + in the + <a id="TP_Q23_A2-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q33_A3.html">FP, Q[33], A[3]</a>, OBJ[1]; cf. + <a id="TP_Q23_A2-p5.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q45_A6.html">FP, Q[45], + A[6] + </a>. Therefore to adopt is befitting to the whole Trinity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There is this difference between an adopted son of God and the natural Son of God, that the latter is "begotten not made"; + whereas the former is made, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.12" target="asv"> Jn. 1:12</a>: "He gave them power to be made the sons of God." Yet sometimes the adopted son is said to be begotten, by reason of the + spiritual regeneration which is by grace, not by nature; wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.18" target="asv">James 1:18</a>): "Of His own will hath He + begotten us by the word of truth." Now although, in God, to beget belongs to the Person of the Father, yet to produce any + effect in creatures is common to the whole Trinity, by reason of the oneness of their Nature: since, where there is one nature, + there must needs be one power and one operation: whence our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#John.5.19" target="asv">Jn. 5:19</a>): "What things soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner." Therefore it belongs to the whole Trinity + to adopt men as sons of + God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> All human individuals are not of one individual nature, so that there need be one operation and one effect of them all, as + is the case in God. Consequently in this respect no comparison is possible. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By adoption we are made the brethren of Christ, as having with Him the same Father: Who, nevertheless, is His Father in one + way, and ours in another. Whence pointedly our Lord says, separately, "My Father," and "Your Father" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.17" target="asv">Jn. 20:17</a>). For He is Christ's Father by natural generation; and this is proper to Him: whereas He is our Father by a voluntary operation, + which is common to Him and to the Son and Holy Ghost: so that Christ + is not the Son of the whole Trinity, as we are. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 2), adoptive sonship is a certain likeness of the eternal Sonship: just as all that takes place + in time is a certain likeness of what has been from eternity. Now man is likened to the splendor of the Eternal Son by reason + of the light of grace which is attributed to the Holy Ghost. Therefore adoption, though common to the whole Trinity, is appropriated + to the Father as its author; to the Son, as its exemplar; to the Holy + Ghost, as imprinting on us the likeness of this exemplar. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q23_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q23_A3-p0.1">Whether it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not proper to the rational nature to be adopted. For God is not said to be the Father of the rational + creature, save by adoption. But God is called the Father even of the irrational creature, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Job.38.28" target="asv"> Job 38:28</a>: "Who is father of the rain? Or who begot the drops of dew?" Therefore it is not proper to the rational creature to be adopted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by reason of adoption some are called sons of God. But to be sons of God seems to be properly attributed by the + Scriptures to the angels; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Job.1.6" target="asv"> Job 1:6</a>: "On a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord." Therefore it is not proper to the rational creature + to be adopted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whatever is proper to a nature, belongs to all that have that nature: just as risibility belongs to all men. But + to be adopted does not belong to every rational nature. Therefore it is not proper to human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Adopted sons are the "heirs of God," as is stated + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.17" target="asv">Rom. 8:17</a>. But such an inheritance belongs to none but the rational nature. Therefore it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[2], ad 3), the sonship of adoption is a certain likeness of natural sonship. Now the Son of God proceeds + naturally from the Father as the Intellectual Word, in oneness of nature with the Father. To this Word, therefore, something + may be likened in three ways. First, on the part of the form but not on the part of its intelligibility: thus the form of + a house already built is like the mental word of the builder in its specific form, but not + in intelligibility, because the material form of a house is not intelligible, as it was in the mind of the builder. In this + way every creature is like the Eternal Word; since it was made through the Word. Secondly, the creature is likened to the + Word, not only as to its form, but also as to its intelligibility: thus the knowledge which is begotten in the disciple's + mind is likened to the word in the mind of the master. In this way the rational creature, even in its nature, is likened to + the + Word of God. Thirdly, a creature is likened to the Eternal Word, as to the oneness of the Word with the Father, which is by + reason of grace and charity: wherefore our Lord prays ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.17.21" target="asv">Jn. 17:21,22</a>): "That they may be one in Us . . . as We also are one." And this likeness perfects the adoption: for to those who are thus + like Him the eternal inheritance is due. It is therefore clear that to be adopted belongs to the rational creature alone: + not indeed to all, but only to those who have charity; which + is "poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.5" target="asv">Rom. 5:5</a>); for which reason ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.15" target="asv">Rom. 8:15</a>) the Holy Ghost is called "the Spirit of adoption of sons." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God is called the Father of the irrational creature, not properly speaking, by reason of adoption, but by reason of creation; + according to the first-mentioned participation of likeness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Angels are called sons of God by adoptive sonship, not that it belongs to them first; but because they were the first to + receive the adoption of sons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Adoption is a property resulting not from nature, but from grace, of which the rational nature is capable. Therefore it need + not belong to every rational nature: but every rational creature must needs be capable of adoption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q23_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q23_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ as man is the adopted Son of God?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ as man is the adopted Son of God. For Hilary says (De Trin. ii) speaking of Christ: "The dignity + of power is not forfeited when carnal humanity [*Some editions read 'humilitas'---'the humility or lowliness of the flesh'] + is adopted." Therefore Christ as man is the adopted Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv) that "by the same grace that Man is Christ, as from the birth of faith every + man is a Christian." But other men are Christians by the grace of adoption. Therefore this Man is Christ by adoption: and + consequently He would seem to be an adopted son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ, as man, is a servant. But it is of greater dignity to be an adopted son than to be a servant. Therefore + much more is Christ, as man, an adopted Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Incarn. viii): "We do not call an adopted son a natural son: the natural son is a true son." But Christ + is the true and natural Son of God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.5.20" target="asv">1 Jn. 5:20</a>: "That we may . . . be in His true Son, Jesus Christ." Therefore Christ, as Man, is not an adopted Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Sonship belongs properly to the hypostasis or person, not to the nature; whence in the + <a id="TP_Q23_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A3.html">FP, Q[32], A[3]</a> we have stated that Filiation is a personal property. Now in Christ there is no other than the uncreated person or hypostasis, + to Whom it belongs by nature to be the Son. But it has been said above (A[1], ad 2), that the sonship of adoption is a participated + likeness of natural sonship: nor can a thing be said to participate in what + it has essentially. Therefore Christ, Who is the natural Son of God, can nowise be called an adopted Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p7"> But according to those who suppose two persons or two hypostases or two supposita in Christ, no reason prevents Christ being + called the adopted Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As sonship does not properly belong to the nature, so neither does adoption. Consequently, when it is said that "carnal humanity + is adopted," the expression is metaphorical: and adoption is used to signify the union of human nature to the Person of the + Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This comparison of Augustine is to be referred to the principle because, to wit, just as it is granted to any man without + meriting it to be a Christian, so did it happen that this man without meriting it was Christ. But there is a difference on + the part of the term: because by the grace of union Christ is the natural Son; whereas another man by habitual grace is an + adopted son. Yet habitual grace in Christ does not make one who was not a son to be an + adopted son, but is a certain effect of Filiation in the soul of Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q23_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14</a>: "We saw His glory . . . as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father; full of grace and truth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To be a creature, as also to be subservient or subject to God, regards not only the person, but also the nature: but this + cannot be said of sonship. Wherefore the comparison does not hold. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q23_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q22_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q24" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q24-p0.1">OF THE PREDESTINATION OF CHRIST (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q24-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q24-p2"> We shall now consider the predestination of Christ. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q24-p3"> (1) Whether Christ was predestinated?</p> + <p id="TP_Q24-p4"> (2) Whether He was predestinated as man?</p> + <p id="TP_Q24-p5"> (3) Whether His predestination is the exemplar of ours?</p> + <p id="TP_Q24-p6"> (4) Whether it is the cause of our predestination?</p> + <div id="TP_Q24_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q24_A1-p0.1">Whether it is befitting that Christ should be predestinated?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting that Christ should be predestinated. For the term of anyone's predestination seems to be the adoption + of sons, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.5" target="asv"> Eph. 1:5</a>: "Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children." But it is not befitting to Christ to be an adopted Son, as stated + above ( + <a id="TP_Q24_A1-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q23_A4.html">Q[23], A[4]</a>). Therefore it is not fitting that Christ be predestinated. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we may consider two things in Christ: His human nature and His person. But it cannot be said that Christ is predestinated + by reason of His human nature; for this proposition is false---"The human nature is Son of God." In like manner neither by + reason of the person; for this person is the Son of God, not by grace, but by nature: whereas predestination regards what + is of grace, as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q24_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q23_A2.html">FP, Q[23], AA[2]</a>,5. Therefore + Christ was not predestinated to be the Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as that which has been made was not always, so also that which was predestinated; since predestination implies + a certain antecedence. But, because Christ was always God and the Son of God, it cannot be said that that Man was "made the + Son of God." Therefore, for a like reason, we ought not to say that Christ was "predestinated the Son of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says, speaking of Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.4" target="asv">Rom. 1:4</a>): "Who was predestinated the Son of God in power." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As is clear from what has been said in the + <a id="TP_Q24_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q23_A1.html">FP, Q[23], AA[1]</a>,2, predestination, in its proper sense, is a certain Divine preordination from eternity of those things which are to be done + in time by the grace of God. Now, that man is God, and that God is man, is something done in time by God through the grace + of union. Nor can it be said that God has not from eternity pre-ordained to do this in time: since it would follow that something + would come anew into the Divine Mind. And we must needs admit that the union itself of natures in the Person of Christ falls + under the eternal predestination of God. For this reason do we say that Christ was predestinated. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Apostle there speaks of that predestination by which we are predestinated to be adopted sons. And just as Christ in a + singular manner above all others is the natural Son of God, so in a singular manner is He predestinated. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As a gloss [*From St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. xv] says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.4" target="asv"> Rom. 1:4, </a> some understood that predestination to refer to the nature and not to the Person---that is to say, that on human nature was + bestowed the grace of being united to the Son of God in unity of Person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p9"> But in that case the phrase of the Apostle would be improper, for two reasons. First, for a general reason: for we do not + speak of a person's nature, but of his person, as being predestinated: because to be predestinated is to be directed towards + salvation, which belongs to a suppositum acting for the end of beatitude. Secondly, for a special reason. Because to be Son + of God is not befitting to human nature; for this proposition is false: "The human nature is the Son of God": + unless one were to force from it such an exposition as: "Who was predestinated the Son of God in power"---that is, "It was + predestinated that the Human nature should be united to the Son of God in the Person." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p10"> Hence we must attribute predestination to the Person of Christ: not, indeed, in Himself or as subsisting in the Divine Nature, + but as subsisting in the human nature. Wherefore the Apostle, after saying, "Who was made to Him of the seed of David according + to the flesh," added, "Who was predestinated the Son of God in power": so as to give us to understand that in respect of His + being of the seed of David according to the flesh, He was predestinated the Son of God in power. For + although it is natural to that Person, considered in Himself, to be the Son of God in power, yet this is not natural to Him, + considered in the human nature, in respect of which this befits Him according to the grace of union. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Origen commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.4" target="asv"> Rom. 1:4 </a>says that the true reading of this passage of the Apostle is: "Who was destined to be the Son of God in power"; so that no + antecedence is implied. And so there would be no difficulty. Others refer the antecedence implied in the participle "predestinated," + not to the fact of being the Son of God, but to the manifestation thereof, according to the customary way of speaking in Holy + Scripture, by which + things are said to take place when they are made known; so that the sense would be---"Christ was predestinated to be made + known as the Son of God." But this is an improper signification of predestination. For a person is properly said to be predestinated + by reason of his being directed to the end of beatitude: but the beatitude of Christ does not depend on our knowledge thereof. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p12"> It is therefore better to say that the antecedence implied in the participle "predestinated" is to be referred to the Person + not in Himself, but by reason of the human nature: since, although that Person was the Son of God from eternity, it was not + always true that one subsisting in human nature was the Son of God. Hence Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): "Jesus + was predestinated, so that He Who according to the flesh was to be the son of David, should be nevertheless Son + of God in power." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p13"> Moreover, it must be observed that, although the participle "predestinated," just as this participle "made," implies antecedence, + yet there is a difference. For "to be made" belongs to the thing in itself: whereas "to be predestinated" belongs to someone + as being in the apprehension of one who pre-ordains. Now that which is the subject of a form or nature in reality, can be + apprehended either as under that form or absolutely. And since it cannot be said absolutely of the Person + of Christ that He began to be the Son of God, yet this is becoming to Him as understood or apprehended to exist in human nature, + because at one time it began to be true that one existing in human nature was the Son of God; therefore this proposition---"Christ + was predestinated the Son of God"---is truer than this---"Christ was made the Son of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A1-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q24_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q24_A2-p0.1">Whether this proposition is false: "Christ as man was predestinated to be the Son of God"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this proposition is false: "Christ as man was predestinated to be the Son of God." For at some time a + man is that which he was predestinated to be: since God's predestination does not fail. If, therefore, Christ as man was predestinated + the Son of God, it seems to follow that as man He is the Son of God. But the latter is false. Therefore the former is false. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is befitting to Christ as man is befitting to any man; since He belongs to the same species as other men. If, + therefore, Christ, as man, was predestinated the Son of God, it will follow that this is befitting to any other man. But the + latter is false. Therefore the former is false. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that is predestinated from eternity which is to take place at some time. But this proposition, "The Son of God was + made man," is truer than this, "Man was made the Son of God." Therefore this proposition, "Christ, as the Son of God, was + predestinated to be man," is truer than this, "Christ as Man was predestinated to be the Son of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (De Praedest. Sanct. xv) says: "Forasmuch as God the Son was made Man, we say that the Lord of Glory was predestinated." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Two things may be considered in predestination. One on the part of eternal predestination itself: and in this respect it + implies a certain antecedence in regard to that which comes under predestination. Secondly, predestination may be considered + as regards its temporal effect, which is some gratuitous gift of God. Therefore from both points of view we must say that + predestination is ascribed to Christ by reason of His human nature alone: for human nature was + not always united to the Word; and by grace bestowed an it was it united in Person to the Son of God. Consequently, by reason + of human nature alone can predestination be attributed to Christ. Wherefore Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): "This + human nature of ours was predestinated to be raised to so great, so lofty, so exalted a position, that it would be impossible + to raise it higher." Now that is said to belong to anyone as man which belongs to him by reason of human nature. + Consequently, we must say that "Christ, as Man, was predestinated the Son of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When we say, "Christ, as Man, was predestinated the Son of God," this qualification, "as Man," can be referred in two ways + to the action signified by the participle. First, as regards what comes under predestination materially, and thus it is false. + For the sense would be that it was predestinated that Christ, as Man, should be the Son of God. And in this sense the objection + takes it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p8"> Secondly, it may be referred to the very nature of the action itself: that is, forasmuch as predestination implies antecedence + and gratuitous effect. And thus predestination belongs to Christ by reason of His human nature, as stated above. And in this + sense He is said to be predestinated as Man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Something may be befitting to a man by reason of human nature, in two ways. First, so that human nature be the cause thereof: + thus risibility is befitting to Socrates by reason of human nature, being caused by its principles. In this manner predestination + is not befitting either to Christ or to any other man, by reason of human nature. This is the sense of the objection. Secondly, + a thing may be befitting to someone by reason of human nature, because + human nature is susceptible of it. And in this sense we say that Christ was predestinated by reason of human nature; because + predestination refers to the exaltation of human nature in Him, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Praedest. Sanct. xv): "The Word of God assumed Man to Himself in such a singular and ineffable manner + that at the same time He may be truly and correctly called the Son of Man, because He assumed Men to Himself; and the Son + of God, because it was the Only-begotten of God Who assumed human nature." Consequently, since this assumption comes under + predestination by reason of its being gratuitous, we can say both that the Son of God was + predestinated to be man, and that the Son of Man was predestinated to be the Son of God. But because grace was not bestowed + on the Son of God that He might be man, but rather on human nature, that it might be united to the Son of God; it is more + proper to say that "Christ, as Man, was predestinated to be the Son of God," than that, "Christ, as Son of God, was predestinated + to be Man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q24_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q24_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ's predestination is the exemplar of ours?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's predestination is not the exemplar of ours. For the exemplar exists before the exemplate. But + nothing exists before the eternal. Since, therefore, our predestination is eternal, it seems that Christ's predestination + is not the exemplar of ours. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the exemplar leads us to knowledge of the exemplate. But there was no need for God to be led from something else + to knowledge of our predestination; since it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv">Rom. 8:29</a>): "Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated." Therefore Christ's predestination is not the exemplar of ours. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the exemplar is conformed to the exemplate. But Christ's predestination seems to be of a different nature from ours: + because we are predestinated to the sonship of adoption, whereas Christ was predestinated "Son of God in power," as is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.4" target="asv">Rom. 1:4</a>). Therefore His predestination is not the exemplar of ours. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): "The Saviour Himself, the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus is the most + splendid light of predestination and grace." Now He is called the light of predestination and grace, inasmuch as our predestination + is made manifest by His predestination and grace; and this seems to pertain to the nature of an exemplar. Therefore Christ's + predestination is the exemplar of ours. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Predestination may be considered in two ways. First, on the part of the act of predestination: and thus Christ's predestination + cannot be said to be the exemplar of ours: for in the same way and by the same eternal act God predestinated us and Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p7"> Secondly, predestination may be considered on the part of that to which anyone is predestinated, and this is the term and + effect of predestination. In this sense Christ's predestination is the exemplar of ours, and this in two ways. First, in respect + of the good to which we are predestinated: for He was predestinated to be the natural Son of God, whereas we are predestinated + to the adoption of sons, which is a participated likeness of natural sonship. Whence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv">Rom. + 8:29 + </a>): "Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son." Secondly, in respect of the manner + of obtaining this good---that is, by grace. This is most manifest in Christ; because human nature in Him, without any antecedent + merits, was united to the Son of God: and of the fulness of His grace we all have received, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv">Jn. 1:16</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument considers the aforesaid act of the predestinator. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p9"> The same is to be said of the second objection.</p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The exemplate need not be conformed to the exemplar in all respects: it is sufficient that it imitate it in some. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q24_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q24_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ's predestination is the cause of ours?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's predestination is not the cause of ours. For that which is eternal has no cause. But our predestination + is eternal. Therefore Christ's predestination is not the cause of ours. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which depends on the simple will of God has no other cause but God's will. Now, our predestination depends + on the simple will of God, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.11" target="asv">Eph. 1:11</a>): "Being predestinated according to the purpose of Him, Who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will." Therefore + Christ's predestination is not the cause of ours. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the cause be taken away, the effect is also taken away. But if we take away Christ's predestination, ours is + not taken away; since even if the Son of God were not incarnate, our salvation might yet have been achieved in a different + manner, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 10). Therefore Christ's predestination is. not the cause of ours. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q24_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.5" target="asv">Eph. 1:5</a>): "(Who) hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> if we consider predestination on the part of the very act of predestinating, then Christ's predestination is not the cause + of ours; because by one and the same act God predestinated both Christ and us. But if we consider predestination on the part + of its term, thus Christ's predestination is the cause of ours: for God, by predestinating from eternity, so decreed our salvation, + that it should be achieved through Jesus Christ. For eternal predestination covers + not only that which is to be accomplished in time, but also the mode and order in which it is to be accomplished in time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p7"> Replies OBJ 1 and 2: These arguments consider predestination on the part of the act of predestinating.</p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If Christ were not to have been incarnate, God would have decreed men's salvation by other means. But since He decreed the + Incarnation of Christ, He decreed at the same time that He should be the cause of our salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p9"></p> + <p id="TP_Q24_A4-p10"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q23_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q25" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q25-p0.1">OF THE ADORATION OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q25-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25-p2"> We have now to consider things pertaining to Christ in reference to us; and first, the adoration of Christ, by which we adore + Him; secondly, we must consider how He is our Mediator with God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25-p3"> Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q25-p4"> (1) Whether Christ's Godhead and humanity are to be adored with one and the same adoration?</p> + <p id="TP_Q25-p5"> (2) Whether His flesh is to be adored with the adoration of "latria"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q25-p6"> (3) Whether the adoration of "latria" is to be given to the image of Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q25-p7"> (4) Whether "latria" is to be given to the Cross of Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q25-p8"> (5) Whether to His Mother?</p> + <p id="TP_Q25-p9"> (6) Concerning the adoration of the relics of Saints.</p> + <div id="TP_Q25_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q25_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ's humanity and Godhead are to be adored with the same adoration?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's humanity and Godhead are not to be adored with the same adoration. For Christ's Godhead is to + be adored, as being common to Father and Son; wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.23" target="asv">Jn. 5:23</a>): "That all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father." But Christ's humanity is not common to Him and the Father. Therefore + Christ's humanity and Godhead are not to be adored with the same adoration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, honor is properly "the reward of virtue," as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3). But virtue merits its reward by + action. Since, therefore, in Christ the action of the Divine Nature is distinct from that of the human nature, as stated above + ( + <a id="TP_Q25_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q19_A1.html">Q[19], A[1]</a>), it seems that Christ's humanity is to be adored with a different adoration from that which is given to His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the soul of Christ were not united to the Word, it would have been worthy of veneration on account of the excellence + of its wisdom and grace. But by being united to the Word it lost nothing of its worthiness. Therefore His human nature should + receive a certain veneration proper thereto, besides the veneration which is given to His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> We read in the chapters of the Fifth Council [*Second Council of Constantinople, coll. viii, can. 9]: "If anyone say that + Christ is adored in two natures, so as to introduce two distinct adorations, and does not adore God the Word made flesh with + the one and the same adoration as His flesh, as the Church has handed down from the beginning; let such a one be anathema." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> We may consider two things in a person to whom honor is given: the person himself, and the cause of his being honored. Now + properly speaking honor is given to a subsistent thing in its entirety: for we do not speak of honoring a man's hand, but + the man himself. And if at any time it happen that we speak of honoring a man's hand or foot, it is not by reason of these + members being honored of themselves: but by reason of the whole being honored in them. In this + way a man may be honored even in something external; for instance in his vesture, his image, or his messenger. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p7"> The cause of honor is that by reason of which the person honored has a certain excellence. for honor is reverence given to + something on account of its excellence, as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q25_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q103_A1.html">SS, Q[103], A[1]</a>. If therefore in one man there are several causes of honor, for instance, rank, knowledge, and virtue, the honor given to + him will be one in respect of the person honored, but several in respect of the causes of honor: for it is the man that is + honored, both + on account of knowledge and by reason of his virtue. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p8"> Since, therefore, in Christ there is but one Person of the Divine and human natures, and one hypostasis, and one suppositum, + He is given one adoration and one honor on the part of the Person adored: but on the part of the cause for which He is honored, + we can say that there are several adorations, for instance that He receives one honor on account of His uncreated knowledge, + and another on account of His created knowledge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p9"> But if it be said that there are several persons or hypostases in Christ, it would follow that there would be, absolutely + speaking, several adorations. And this is what is condemned in the Councils. For it is written in the chapters of Cyril [*Council + of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: "If anyone dare to say that the man assumed should be adored besides the Divine Word, as though + these were distinct persons; and does not rather honor the Emmanuel with one single adoration, inasmuch as + the Word was made flesh; let him be anathema." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In the Trinity there are three Who are honored, but only one cause of honor. In the mystery of the Incarnation it is the + reverse: and therefore only one honor is given to the Trinity and only one to Christ, but in a different way. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Operation is not the object but the motive of honor. And therefore there being two operations in Christ proves, not two adorations, + but two causes of adoration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> If the soul of Christ were not united to the Word of God, it would be the principal thing in that Man. Wherefore honor would + be due to it principally, since man is that which is principal in him [*Cf. Ethic. ix, 8]. But since Christ's soul is united + to a Person of greater dignity, to that Person is honor principally due to Whom Christ's soul is united. Nor is the dignity + of Christ's soul hereby diminished, but rather increased, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q25_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A2.html">Q[2], A[2]</a>, ad 2). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q25_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q25_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ's humanity should be adored with the adoration of "latria"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's soul should not be adored with the adoration of "latria." For on the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.98.5" target="asv"> Ps. 98:5, </a> "Adore His foot-stool for it is holy," a gloss says: "The flesh assumed by the Word of God is rightly adored by us: for no + one partakes spiritually of His flesh unless he first adore it; but not indeed with the adoration called 'latria,' which is + due to the Creator alone." Now the flesh is part of the humanity. Therefore + Christ's humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of "latria." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the worship of "latria" is not to be given to any creature: since for this reason were the Gentiles reproved, that + they "worshiped and served the creature," as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.25" target="asv">Rom. 1:25</a>). But Christ's humanity is a creature. Therefore it should not be adored with the adoration of "latria." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the adoration of "latria" is due to God in recognition of His supreme dominion, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.13" target="asv"> Dt. 6:13</a>: "Thou shalt adore [Vulg.: 'fear'; cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.10" target="asv"> Mat. 4:10</a>] the Lord thy God, and shalt serve Him only." But Christ as man is less than the Father. Therefore His humanity is not to + be adored with the adoration of "latria." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): "On account of the incarnation of the Divine Word, we adore the flesh of Christ not + for its own sake, but because the Word of God is united thereto in person." And on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.98.5" target="asv"> Ps. 98:5, </a> "Adore His foot-stool," a gloss says: "He who adores the body of Christ, regards not the earth, but rather Him whose foot-stool + it is, in Whose honor he adores the foot-stool." But the incarnate Word is adored with the + adoration of "latria." Therefore also His body or His humanity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q25_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q25_A1.html">(A[1])</a> adoration is due to the subsisting hypostasis: yet the reason for honoring may be something non-subsistent, on account of + which the person, in whom it is, is honored. And so the adoration of Christ's humanity may be understood in two ways. First, + so that the humanity is the thing adored: and thus to adore the flesh of Christ is nothing else than to adore the incarnate + Word of God: just as to adore a King's robe + is nothing else than to adore a robed King. And in this sense the adoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration of "latria." + Secondly, the adoration of Christ's humanity may be taken as given by reason of its being perfected with every gift of grace. + And so in this sense the adoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration not of "latria" but of "dulia." So that one and the + same Person of Christ is adored with "latria" on account of His Divinity, and with "dulia" on account of His perfect + humanity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p7"> Nor is this unfitting. For the honor of "latria" is due to God the Father Himself on account of His Godhead; and the honor + of "dulia" on account of the dominion by which He rules over creatures. Wherefore on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.7.1" target="asv"> Ps. 7:1, </a> "O Lord my God, in Thee have I hoped," a gloss says: "Lord of all by power, to Whom 'dulia' is due: God of all by creation, + to Whom 'latria' is due." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> That gloss is not to be understood as though the flesh of Christ were adored separately from its Godhead: for this could + happen only, if there were one hypostasis of God, and another of man. But since, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): + "If by a subtle distinction you divide what is seen from what is understood, it cannot be adored because it is a creature"---that + is, with adoration of "latria." And then thus understood as distinct from the Word + of God, it should be adored with the adoration of "dulia"; not any kind of "dulia," such as is given to other creatures, but + with a certain higher adoration, which is called "hyperdulia." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p9"> Hence appear the answers to the second and third objections. Because the adoration of "latria" is not given to Christ's humanity + in respect of itself; but in respect of the Godhead to which it is united, by reason of which Christ is not less than the + Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q25_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q25_A3-p0.1">Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of "latria"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's image should not be adored with the adoration of "latria." For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.4" target="asv">Ex. 20:4</a>): "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything." But no adoration should be given against + the commandment of God. Therefore Christ's image should not be adored with the adoration of "latria." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we should have nothing in common with the works of the Gentiles, as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.11" target="asv">Eph. 5:11</a>). But the Gentiles are reproached principally for that "they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness + of the image of a corruptible man," as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.23" target="asv">Rom. 1:23</a>). Therefore Christ's image is not to be adored with the adoration of "latria." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to Christ the adoration of "latria" is due by reason of His Godhead, not of His humanity. But the adoration of "latria" + is not due to the image of His Godhead, which is imprinted on the rational soul. Much less, therefore, is it due to the material + image which represents the humanity of Christ Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it seems that nothing should be done in the Divine worship that is not instituted by God; wherefore the Apostle + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.11.23" target="asv">1 Cor. 11:23</a>) when about to lay down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Church, says: "I have received of the Lord that which also I + delivered unto you." But Scripture does not lay down anything concerning the adoration of images. Therefore Christ's image + is not to be adored with the adoration of "latria." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 16) quotes Basil as saying: "The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype," i.e. the + exemplar. But the exemplar itself---namely, Christ---is to be adored with the adoration of "latria"; therefore also His image. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As the Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. i), there is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image: one indeed towards + the image itself as a certain thing; another, towards the image in so far as it is the image of something else. And between + these movements there is this difference; that the former, by which one is moved towards an image as a certain thing, is different + from the movement towards the thing: whereas the latter movement, which is + towards the image as an image, is one and the same as that which is towards the thing. Thus therefore we must say that no + reverence is shown to Christ's image, as a thing---for instance, carved or painted wood: because reverence is not due save + to a rational creature. It follow therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only as it is an image. Consequently + the same reverence should be shown to Christ's image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the + adoration of "latria," it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of "latria." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This commandment does not forbid the making of any graven thing or likeness, but the making thereof for the purpose of adoration, + wherefore it is added: "Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them." And because, as stated above, the movement towards the + image is the same as the movement towards the thing, adoration thereof is forbidden in the same way as adoration of the thing + whose image it is. Wherefore in the passage quoted we are to understand the + prohibition to adore those images which the Gentiles made for the purpose of venerating their own gods, i.e. the demons, and + so it is premised: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me." But no corporeal image could be raised to the true God Himself, + since He is incorporeal; because, as Damascene observes (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "It is the highest absurdity and impiety to + fashion a figure of what is Divine." But because in the New Testament God was made man, He can be adored in His corporeal + image. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Apostle forbids us to have anything in common with the "unfruitful works" of the Gentiles, but not with their useful + works. Now the adoration of images must be numbered among the unfruitful works in two respects. First, because some of the + Gentiles used to adore the images themselves, as things, believing that there was something Divine therein, on account of + the answers which the demons used to give in them, and on account of other such like + wonderful effects. Secondly on account of the things of which they were images; for they set up images to certain creatures, + to whom in these images they gave the veneration of "latria." Whereas we give the adoration of "latria" to the image of Christ, + Who is true God, not for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose image it is, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Reverence is due to the rational creature for its own sake. Consequently, if the adoration of "latria" were shown to the + rational creature in which this image is, there might be an occasion of error---namely, lest the movement of adoration might + stop short at the man, as a thing, and not be carried on to God, Whose image he is. This cannot happen in the case of a graven + or painted image in insensible material. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did + not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful + as time went on. Wherefore the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iiThess.2.14" target="asv">2 Thess. 2:14</a>): "Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word"---that is by word of mouth---"or by our + epistle"---that is by word put into writing. Among these traditions is the worship of Christ's image. Wherefore it is said + that Blessed Luke painted the image of Christ, which is in Rome. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A3-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q25_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q25_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ's cross should be worshipped with the adoration of "latria"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's cross should not be worshiped with the adoration of "latria." For no dutiful son honors that + which dishonors his father, as the scourge with which he was scourged, or the gibbet on which he was hanged; rather does he + abhor it. Now Christ underwent the most shameful death on the cross; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.2.20" target="asv"> Wis. 2:20</a>: "Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death." Therefore we should not venerate the cross but rather we + should abhor it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's humanity is worshiped with the adoration of "latria," inasmuch as it is united to the Son of God in Person. + But this cannot be said of the cross. Therefore Christ's cross should not be worshiped with the adoration of "latria." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Christ's cross was the instrument of His passion and death, so were also many other things, for instance, the + nails, the crown, the lance; yet to these we do not show the worship of "latria." It seems, therefore, that Christ's cross + should not be worshiped with the adoration of "latria." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> We show the worship of "latria" to that in which we place our hope of salvation. But we place our hope in Christ's cross, + for the Church sings: + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p6"> "Dear Cross, best hope o'er all beside,</p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p7"> That cheers the solemn passion-tide:</p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p8"> Give to the just increase of grace,</p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p9"> Give to each contrite sinner peace."</p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p10"> [*Hymn Vexilla Regis: translation of Father Aylward, O.P.]</p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p11">Therefore Christ's cross should be worshiped with the adoration of "latria."</p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p12"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q25_A4-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q25_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, honor or reverence is due to a rational creature only; while to an insensible creature, no honor or reverence is due save + by reason of a rational nature. And this in two ways. First, inasmuch as it represents a rational nature: secondly, inasmuch + as it is united to it in any way whatsoever. In the first way men are wont to venerate the king's image; in the second way, + his robe. And both are venerated by men + with the same veneration as they show to the king. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p13"> If, therefore, we speak of the cross itself on which Christ was crucified, it is to be venerated by us in both ways---namely, + in one way in so far as it represents to us the figure of Christ extended thereon; in the other way, from its contact with + the limbs of Christ, and from its being saturated with His blood. Wherefore in each way it is worshiped with the same adoration + as Christ, viz. the adoration of "latria." And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it, + as to the Crucified Himself. But if we speak of the effigy of Christ's cross in any other material whatever---for instance, + in stone or wood, silver or gold---thus we venerate the cross merely as Christ's image, which we worship with the adoration + of "latria," as stated above + <a id="TP_Q25_A4-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q25_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> If in Christ's cross we consider the point of view and intention of those who did not believe in Him, it will appear as His + shame: but if we consider its effect, which is our salvation, it will appear as endowed with Divine power, by which it triumphed + over the enemy, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A4-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.14" target="asv"> Col. 2:14,15</a>: "He hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross, and despoiling the principalities and powers, He hath + exposed them + confidently, in open show, triumphing over them in Himself." Wherefore the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A4-p14.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.18" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:18</a>): "The Word of the cross to them indeed that perish is foolishness; but to them that are saved---that is, to us---it is the + power of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although Christ's cross was not united to the Word of God in Person, yet it was united to Him in some other way, viz. by + representation and contact. And for this sole reason reverence is shown to it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By reason of the contact of Christ's limbs we worship not only the cross, but all that belongs to Christ. Wherefore Damascene + says (De Fide Orth. iv, 11): "The precious wood, as having been sanctified by the contact of His holy body and blood, should + be meetly worshiped; as also His nails, His lance, and His sacred dwelling-places, such as the manger, the cave and so forth." + Yet these very things do not represent Christ's image as the cross does, + which is called "the Sign of the Son of Man" that "will appear in heaven," as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A4-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.30" target="asv">Mat. 24:30</a>). Wherefore the angel said to the women ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A4-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.6" target="asv">Mk. 16:6</a>): "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, Who was crucified": he said not "pierced," but "crucified." For this reason we worship the + image of Christ's cross in any material, but not the image of the nails or of any such thing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p17"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A4-p18"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q25_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q25_A5-p0.1">Whether the Mother of God should be worshipped with the adoration of "latria"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Mother of God is to be worshiped with the adoration of "latria." For it seems that the same honor + is due to the king's mother as to the king: whence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q25_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 2:19</a>) that "a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on His right hand." Moreover, Augustine [*Sermon on the Assumption, + work of an anonymous author] says: "It is right that the throne of God, the resting-place of the Lord of Heaven, the + abode of Christ, should be there where He is Himself." But Christ is worshiped with the adoration of "latria." Therefore His + Mother also should be. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): "The honor of the Mother reflects on the Son." But the Son is worshiped with + the adoration of "latria." Therefore the Mother also. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's Mother is more akin to Him than the cross. But the cross is worshiped with the adoration of "latria." Therefore + also His Mother is to be worshiped with the same adoration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Mother of God is a mere creature. Therefore the worship of "latria" is not due to her. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Since "latria" is due to God alone, it is not due to a creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For though + insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being + venerated for its own sake. Consequently the worship of "latria" is not due to any mere rational creature for its own sake. + Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is a mere rational creature, the worship of "latria" + is not due to her, but only that of "dulia": but in a higher degree than to other creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother + of God. For this reason we say that not any kind of "dulia" is due to her, but "hyperdulia." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The honor due to the king's mother is not equal to the honor which is due to the king: but is somewhat like it, by reason + of a certain excellence on her part. This is what is meant by the authorities quoted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The honor given to the Mother reflects on her Son, because the Mother is to be honored for her Son's sake. But not in the + same way as honor given to an image reflects on its exemplar: because the image itself, considered as a thing, is not to be + venerated in any way at all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The cross, considered in itself, is not an object of veneration, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q25_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q25_A4.html">AA[4]</a>,5). But the Blessed Virgin is in herself an object of veneration. Hence there is no comparison. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q25_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q25_A6-p0.1">Whether any kind of worship is due to the relics of the saints?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to be worshiped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the occasion + of error. But to worship the relics of the dead seems to savor of the error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men. Therefore + the relics of the saints are not to be honored. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible. But the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd + to venerate them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a living body: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it. + Therefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not be worshiped. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): "We believe that the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed martyrs, + as being the members of Christ, should be worshiped in all sincerity": and further on: "If anyone holds a contrary opinion, + he is not accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and Vigilantius." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): "If a father's coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more cherished + by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in no way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much + more intimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong to man's very nature." It is clear from this that + he who has a certain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after his + death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external things, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest + that we should show honor to the saints of God, as being members of Christ, the children and friends of God, and our intercessors. + Wherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in a fitting manner: principally their bodies, which were + temples, and organs of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are destined to be likened to the body + of Christ by the glory of the Resurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors such relics by working miracles at their presence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words are quoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as follows: + "We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext of religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap + of dust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen." To him Jerome replies (Ep. ad Ripar. cix): "We do not adore, I will + not say the relics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the + angels"---that is to say, with the worship of "latria." "But we honor the martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honor to + Him Whose martyrs [*The original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i.e. the Greek {martys} is 'a witness'] they are: we honor + the servants, that the honor shown to them may reflect on their Master." Consequently, by honoring the martyrs' relics we + do not fall into the error of the Gentiles, who gave the worship of "latria" to dead men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> We worship that insensible body, not for its own sake, but for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and now + enjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The dead body of a saint is not identical with that which the saint had during life, on account of the difference of form, + viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which is destined to be reunited to its form. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q25_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q24_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q26" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q26-p0.1">OF CHRIST AS CALLED THE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MAN (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q26-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q26-p2"> We have now to consider how Christ is called the Mediator of God and man, and under this head there are two points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q26-p3"> (1) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?</p> + <p id="TP_Q26-p4"> (2) Whether this belongs to Him by reason of His human nature?</p> + <div id="TP_Q26_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q26_A1-p0.1">Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man. For a priest and a prophet seem to be mediators + between God and man, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q26_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.5.5" target="asv"> Dt. 5:5</a>: "I was the mediator and stood between God [Vulg.: 'the Lord'] and you at that time." But it is not proper to Christ to be + a priest and a prophet. Neither, therefore, is it proper to Him to be Mediator. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which is fitting to angels, both good and bad, cannot be said to be proper to Christ. But to be between God + and man is fitting to the good angels, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). It is also fitting to the bad angels---that is, the + demons: for they have something in common with God---namely, "immortality"; and something they have in common with men---namely, + "passibility of soul" and consequently unhappiness; as appears from what Augustine says + (De Civ. Dei ix, 13,15). Therefore it is not proper to Christ to be a Mediator of God and man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it belongs to the office of Mediator to beseech one of those, between whom he mediates, for the other. But the Holy + Ghost, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q26_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.26" target="asv">Rom. 8:26</a>), "asketh" God "for us with unspeakable groanings." Therefore the Holy Ghost is a Mediator between God and man. Therefore + this is not proper to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q26_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.5" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:5</a>): "There is . . . one Mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Properly speaking, the office of a mediator is to join together and unite those between whom he mediates: for extremes are + united in the mean [medio]. Now to unite men to God perfectively belongs to Christ, through Whom men are reconciled to God, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q26_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.19" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:19</a>: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." And, consequently, Christ alone is the perfect Mediator of God and + men, inasmuch as, by His death, He reconciled the human race to God. + Hence the Apostle, after saying, "Mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus," added: "Who gave Himself a redemption for + all." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p7"> However, nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators, in some respect, between God and man, forasmuch as they + cooperate in uniting men to God, dispositively or ministerially. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The prophets and priests of the Old Law were called mediators between God and man, dispositively and ministerially: inasmuch + as they foretold and foreshadowed the true and perfect Mediator of God and men. As to the priests of the New Law, they may + be called mediators of God and men, inasmuch as they are the ministers of the true Mediator by administering, in His stead, + the saving sacraments to men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The good angels, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 13), cannot rightly be called mediators between God and men. "For since, + in common with God, they have both beatitude and immortality, and none of these things in common with unhappy and mortal man, + how much rather are they not aloof from men and akin to God, than established between them?" Dionysius, however, says that + they do occupy a middle place, because, in the order of nature, they are + established below God and above man. Moreover, they fulfill the office of mediator, not indeed principally and + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p10"> perfectively, but ministerially and dispositively: whence ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q26_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.11" target="asv">Mat. 4:11</a>) it is said that "angels came and ministered unto Him"---namely, Christ. As to the demons, it is true that they have immortality + in common with God, and unhappiness in common with men. "Hence for this purpose does the immortal and unhappy demon intervene, + in order that he may hinder men from passing to a happy immortality," and may allure them to an unhappy immortality. Whence + he is like "an + evil mediator, who separates friends" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xv]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p11"> But Christ had beatitude in common with God, mortality in common with men. Hence "for this purpose did He intervene, that + having fulfilled the span of His mortality, He might from dead men make immortal---which He showed in Himself by rising again; + and that He might confer beatitude on those who were deprived of it---for which reason He never forsook us." Wherefore He + is "the good Mediator, Who reconciles enemies" (De Civ. Dei xv). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Since the Holy Ghost is in everything equal to God, He cannot be said to be between, or a Mediator of, God and men: but Christ + alone, Who, though equal to the Father in His Godhead, yet is less than the Father in His human nature, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q26_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q20_A1.html">Q[20], A[1]</a>). Hence on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q26_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.20" target="asv"> Gal. 3:20, </a> "Christ is a Mediator [Vulg.: 'Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one']," the gloss says: "Not the Father nor the Holy + Ghost." The Holy Ghost, however, is said "to ask for us," because He makes us ask. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q26_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q26_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ, is the Mediator of God and men?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ is not, as man, the Mediator of God and men. For Augustine says (Contra Felic. x): "One is the + Person of Christ: lest there be not one Christ, not one substance; lest, the office of Mediator being denied, He be called + the Son either of God alone, or merely the Son of a man." But He is the Son of God and man, not as man, but as at the same + time God and man. Therefore neither should we say that, as man alone, He is Mediator of God and + man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as Christ, as God, has a common nature with the Father and the Holy Ghost; so, as man, He has a common nature + with men. But for the reason that, as God, He has the same nature as the Father and the Holy Ghost, He cannot be called Mediator, + as God: for on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q26_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.5" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:5, </a> "Mediator of God and man," a gloss says: "As the Word, He is not a Mediator, because He is equal to God, and God 'with God,' + and at the same time one God." + Therefore neither, as man, can He be called Mediator, on account of His having the same nature as men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ is called Mediator, inasmuch as He reconciled us to God: and this He did by taking away sin, which separated + us from God. But to take away sin belongs to Christ, not as man, but as God. Therefore Christ is our Mediator, not as man, + but as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 15): "Not because He is the Word, is Christ Mediator, since He Who is supremely immortal + and supremely happy is far from us unhappy mortals; but He is Mediator, as man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> We may consider two things in a mediator: first, that he is a mean; secondly, that he unites others. Now it is of the nature + of a mean to be distant from each extreme: while it unites by communicating to one that which belongs to the other. Now neither + of these can be applied to Christ as God, but only as man. For, as God, He does not differ from the Father and the Holy Ghost + in nature and power of dominion: nor have the Father and the Holy Ghost anything + that the Son has not, so that He be able to communicate to others something belonging to the Father or the Holy Ghost, as + though it were belonging to others than Himself. But both can be applied to Him as man. Because, as man, He is distant both + from God, by nature, and from man by dignity of both grace and glory. Again, it belongs to Him, as man, to unite men to God, + by communicating to men both precepts and gifts, and by offering satisfaction and prayers to God for men. And therefore He + is + most truly called Mediator, as man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> If we take the Divine Nature from Christ, we consequently take from Him the singular fulness of grace, which belongs to Him + as the Only-begotten of the Father, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q26_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>). From which fulness it resulted that He was established over all men, and approached nearer to God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ, as God, is in all things equal to the Father. But even in the human nature He is above all men. Therefore, as man, + He can be Mediator, but not as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although it belongs to Christ as God to take away sin authoritatively, yet it belongs to Him, as man, to satisfy for the + sin of the human race. And in this sense He is called the Mediator of God and men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p10">ST. THOMAS AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (EDITORIAL NOTE)</p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p11"> The privilege of the Virgin-Mother of God and the supreme prerogative of her Son may be seen from the following diagram:</p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p12">THE LAW AND THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL SIN UNDER THE LAW . . . . . all descendants from Adam . . . . . spring from Adam materially + and seminally . . . . . the body lies (not under the guilty, but) under the effects of original sin . . . . . the stricken + body dispositively causes the soul to contract the guilt of original sin . . . . . all contract both debt and stain . . . + . . all need a Redeemer to destroy the stain contracted PARTIALLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; PRIVILEGE OF IMMACULATE + CONCEPTION . . . . . the Blessed Virgin . . . . . springs from Adam materially and seminally . . . . . the body lies (not + under the guilt, but) under the effects of original sin . . . . . the stricken body would have dispositively caused the soul + to contract the guilt of original sin . . . . . the soul at the moment of union with the body was prevented by the infusion + of grace from contracting sin . . . . . Mary contracted the debt, but not the stain . . . . . Mary needed a Redeemer to prevent + her from contracting the stain WHOLLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION . . . . . Our Blessed Lord . . . . . springs + from Adam materially, not seminally ( + <a id="TP_Q26_A2-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q31_A1.html">Q[31], A[1]</a>) . . . . . His body lay under neither guilt nor effects of original sin . . . . . the body being entirely free, could not + transmit the stain to His soul . . . . . no preventive grace needed . . . . . Jesus Christ contracted neither debt nor stain + . . . . . Jesus Christ is not redeemed, but the + Redeemer + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p13"> It will thus be seen how accurately St. Thomas speaks of the "flesh" or body of our Blessed Lady. For it should be remembered + that, according to St. Thomas, the human body is animated in succession by (1) a vegetative, (2) a sensitive, and (3) a rational + soul. Hence his assertion that "the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin" ( + <a id="TP_Q26_A2-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A3.html">Q[14], A[3]</a>, ad 1) means that the body of the Blessed Virgin, being descended from Adam both materially and + seminally, contracted the bodily defects which are conveyed by seminal generation, and are the results of the privation of + original justice ( + <a id="TP_Q26_A2-p13.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q69_A4.html">Q[69], A[4]</a>, ad 3). Before animation, therefore the body of the Blessed Virgin would not be infected with the guilt of original sin, + because privation of grace can only be in that which is the subject of grace, viz. the rational soul. Nevertheless, before + animation the body of the Blessed Virgin, being seminally descended from + Adam, was such that it would have been the means of transmitting the taint of original sin to the rational soul at the very + first instant of animation, unless the grace of the Redeemer intervened and sanctified her soul "in that self-same instant," + thus redeeming her and preventing her from contracting the guilt of original sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p14"> Why, then, does St. Thomas say that because the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation, therefore she could be + sanctified only after animation? + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p15"> Such a conclusion would hold if it were a question of the order of Nature: "a thing must be before it is such [prius est + esse quam esse tale]"; and therefore the soul must be, before it is sanctified. But if St. Thomas held for a posteriority + of time, no matter how short, we ask how it was that he did not perceive the fallacy of the argument, since it might be neither + before nor after, but in the very instant of, animation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p16"> The question is answered thus: St. Thomas as a Doctor of the Church and in matters which were not then "de fide," is a witness + to the expression of the faith of his time. Hence his line of argument coincides with, because it follows, that of St. Bernard, + Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure. It was not likely that St. Thomas would differ from + the great masters of his time, who failed to understand that the grace of redemption might at the same + time be one of preservation and prevention. Nor is it likely that St. Thomas had any reliable information about the movement* + in progress at that time towards a belief in the Immaculate Conception. [*Principally in England, where, owing to the influence + of St. Anselm (1109), the doctrine was maintained by Eadmer (1137). Nicolas of St. Albans (1175), Osbert of Clare (1170), + Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (1253), William of Ware (1300), who was the master of Duns Scotus (1308)]. No doubt + he knew something of it, but the names of its promoters would have weighed little with him as against those of Bernard, Albert, + Peter, Alexander, and Bonaventure. And it must not be forgotten that among those who upheld the doctrine of the Immaculate + Conception, not a few ascribed the privilege as being absolute and not one of preservation and Redemption. Hence it is that + St. Thomas insists on two things: (1) that the Mother of God was redeemed, and (2) that the grace of her sanctification was + a grace of preservation. And, be it remarked in conclusion, these two points, so much insisted on by St. Thomas, are at the + very basis of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p17"></p> + <p id="TP_Q26_A2-p18"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q25_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q27" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q27-p0.1">OF THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q27-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p2"> After the foregoing treatise of the union of God and man and the consequences thereof, it remains for us to consider what + things the Incarnate Son of God did or suffered in the human nature united to Him. This consideration will be fourfold. For + we shall consider: (1) Those things that relate to His coming into the world; (2) Those things that relate to the course of + His life in this world; (3) His departure from this world; (4) Those things that concern His exaltation after this + life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p3"> The first of these offers four points of consideration: (1) The Conception of Christ; (2) His Birth; (3) His Circumcision; + (4) His Baptism. Concerning His Conception there are some points to be considered: (1) As to the Mother who conceived Him; + (2) as to the mode of His Conception; (3) as to the perfection of the offspring conceived. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p4"> On the part of the Mother four points offer themselves to our consideration: (1) Her sanctification. (2) her virginity; (3) + her espousals; (4) her annunciation, or preparation for conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p5"> Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p6"> (1) Whether the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, was sanctified before her birth from the womb?</p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p7"> (2) Whether she was sanctified before animation?</p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p8"> (3) Whether in virtue of this sanctification the fomes of sin was entirely taken away from her?</p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p9"> (4) Whether the result of this sanctification was that she never sinned?</p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p10"> (5) Whether in virtue of this sanctification she received the fulness of grace?</p> + <p id="TP_Q27-p11"> (6) Whether it was proper to her to be thus sanctified?</p> + <div id="TP_Q27_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q27_A1-p0.1">Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb. For the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.46" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:46</a>): "That was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual." But by sanctifying + grace man is born spiritually into a son of God according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.13" target="asv"> Jn. 1:13</a>: "(who) are born of God." But birth from the womb is a natural birth. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was + not sanctified before her birth from the womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): "The sanctification, by which we become temples of God, is only of those who are + born again." But no one is born again, who was not born previously. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before + her birth from the womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whoever is sanctified by grace is cleansed from sin, both original and actual. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin + was sanctified before her birth from the womb, it follows that she was then cleansed from original sin. Now nothing but original + sin could hinder her from entering the heavenly kingdom. If therefore she had died then, it seems that she would have entered + the gates of heaven. But this was not possible before the Passion of Christ, according + to the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.19" target="asv">Heb. 10:19</a>): "We have [Vulg.: 'having'] therefore a confidence in the entering into the Holies by His blood." It seems therefore that + the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, original sin is contracted through the origin, just as actual sin is contracted through an act. But as long as one + is in the act of sinning, one cannot be cleansed from actual sin. Therefore neither could the Blessed Virgin be cleansed from + original sin as long as she was in the act of origin, by existence in her mother's womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady's Nativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are + holy. Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was holy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified + in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, + argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably + argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, + who brought forth "the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth," received greater privileges of grace than all + others: hence we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.28" target="asv">Lk. 1:28</a>) that the angel addressed her in the words: "Hail full of grace!" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p8"> Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of privilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, + to Jeremias, to whom it was said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.1.5" target="asv">Jer. 1:5</a>): "Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee"; and again, to John the Baptist, of whom it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.15" target="asv">Lk. 1:15</a>): "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb." It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed + Virgin to + have been sanctified before her birth from the womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Even in the Blessed Virgin, first was that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual: for she was first conceived + in the flesh, and afterwards sanctified in the spirit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Augustine speaks according to the common law, by reason of which no one is regenerated by the sacraments, save those who + are previously born. But God did not so limit His power to the law of the sacraments, but that He can bestow His grace, by + special privilege, on some before they are born from the womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not freed from the + guilt to which the whole nature is subject, so as to enter into Paradise otherwise than through the Sacrifice of Christ; the + same also is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Original sin is transmitted through the origin, inasmuch as through the origin the human nature is transmitted, and original + sin, properly speaking, affects the nature. And this takes place when the off-spring conceived is animated. Wherefore nothing + hinders the offspring conceived from being sanctified after animation: for after this it remains in the mother's womb not + for the purpose of receiving human nature, but for a certain perfecting of that + which it has already received. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q27_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q27_A2-p0.1">Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation. Because, as we have stated + <a id="TP_Q27_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q27_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, more grace was bestowed on the Virgin Mother of God than on any saint. Now it seems to have been granted to some, to be + sanctified before animation. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.1.5" target="asv">Jer. 1:5</a>): "Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee": and the soul is not infused before the formation of the + body. + Likewise Ambrose says of John the Baptist (Comment. in Luc. i, 15): "As yet the spirit of life was not in him and already + he possessed the Spirit of grace." Much more therefore could the Blessed Virgin be sanctified before animation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as Anselm says (De Concep. Virg. xviii), "it was fitting that this Virgin should shine with such a purity that under + God none greater can be imagined": wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Song.4.7" target="asv">Canticles 4:7</a>): "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee." But the purity of the Blessed Virgin would have been greater, + if she had never been stained by the contagion of original sin. Therefore it was granted to her to be sanctified + before her flesh was animated. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as it has been stated above, no feast is celebrated except of some saint. But some keep the feast of the Conception + of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore it seems that in her very Conception she was holy; and hence that she was sanctified before + animation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.16" target="asv">Rom. 11:16</a>): "If the root be holy, so are the branches." Now the root of the children is their parents. Therefore the Blessed Virgin + could be sanctified even in her parents, before animation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The things of the Old Testament were figures of the New, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:11</a>: "All things happened to them in figure." Now the sanctification of the tabernacle, of which it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.45.5" target="asv">Ps. 45:5</a>): "The most High hath sanctified His own tabernacle," seems to signify the sanctification of the Mother of God, who is called + "God's Tabernacle," according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.18.6" target="asv"> Ps. 18:6</a>: "He hath set His tabernacle in the sun." But of + the tabernacle it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Exod.40.31" target="asv">Ex. 40:31,32</a>): "After all things were perfected, the cloud covered the tabernacle of the testimony, and the glory of the Lord filled it." + Therefore also the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified until after all in her was perfected, viz. her body and soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, + because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is + a "perfect cleansing," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which + is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the + Blessed Virgin was not sanctified. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p8"> Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, + the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before + animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation + which is by Christ, of whom it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.21" target="asv">Mat. 1:21</a>): "He shall save His people from their sins." But + this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.4.10" target="asv">1 Tim. 4:10</a>). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Lord says that He "knew" Jeremias before he was formed in the womb, by knowledge, that is to say, of predestination: + but He says that He "sanctified" him, not before formation, but before he "came forth out of the womb," etc. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p10"> As to what Ambrose says, viz. that in John the Baptist there was not the spirit of life when there was already the Spirit + of grace, by spirit of life we are not to understand the life-giving soul, but the air which we breathe out [respiratus]. + Or it may be said that in him as yet there was not the spirit of life, that is the soul, as to its manifest and complete operations. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of + Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, + needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin + in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.35" target="asv"> + Lk. 1:35 + </a>: "The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original + sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Job.3.9" target="asv">Job 3:9</a>) where it is written of the night of original sin: "Let it expect light," i.e. Christ, "and not see it"---(because "no defiled + thing cometh into her," as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A2-p11.3" href="./asv.html#Wis.7.25" target="asv">Wis. 7:25</a>), "nor the rising of the dawning of the day," that is of + the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain + churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast + does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the + feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on + the day of her conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Sanctification is twofold. one is that of the whole nature: inasmuch as the whole human nature is freed from all corruption + of sin and punishment. This will take place at the resurrection. The other is personal sanctification. This is not transmitted + to the children begotten of the flesh: because it does not regard the flesh but the mind. Consequently, though the parents + of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless she + contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for + Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A2-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q27_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q27_A3-p0.1">Whether the Blessed Virgin was cleansed from the infection of the fomes?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not cleansed from the infection of the fomes. For just as the fomes, consisting + in the rebellion of the lower powers against the reason, is a punishment of original sin; so also are death and other corporeal + penalties. Therefore the fomes was not entirely removed from her. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.12.9" target="asv">2 Cor. 12:9</a>): "Power is made perfect in infirmity," which refers to the weakness of the fomes, by reason of which he (the Apostle) felt + the "sting of the flesh." But it was not fitting that anything should be taken away from the Blessed Virgin, pertaining to + the perfection of virtue. Therefore it was unfitting that the fomes should be entirely taken away from her. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that "the Holy Ghost came upon" the Blessed Virgin, "purifying her," before she + conceived the Son of God. But this can only be understood of purification from the fomes: for she committed no sin, as Augustine + says (De Nat. et Grat. xxvi). Therefore by the sanctification in the womb she was not absolutely cleansed from the fomes. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Song.4.7" target="asv">Canticles 4:7</a>): "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee!" But the fomes implies a blemish, at any rate in the flesh. + Therefore the fomes was not in the Blessed Virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> on this point there are various opinions. For some have held that the fomes was entirely taken away in that sanctification + whereby the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb. Others say that it remained as far as it causes a difficulty in doing + good, but was taken away as far as it causes a proneness to evil. Others again, that it was taken away as to the personal + corruption, by which it makes us quick to do evil and slow to do good: but that it remained + as to the corruption of nature, inasmuch as it is the cause of transmitting original sin to the offspring. Lastly, others + say that, in her first sanctification, the fomes remained essentially, but was fettered; and that, when she conceived the + Son of God, it was entirely taken away. In order to understand the question at issue, it must be observed that the fomes is + nothing but a certain inordinate, but habitual, concupiscence of the sensitive appetite. for actual concupiscence is a sinful + motion. Now sensual concupiscence is said to be inordinate, in so far as it rebels against reason; and this it does by inclining + to evil, or hindering from good. Consequently it is essential to the fomes to incline to evil, or hinder from good. Wherefore + to say that the fomes was in the Blessed Virgin without an inclination to evil, is to combine two contradictory statements. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p7"> In like manner it seems to imply a contradiction to say that the fomes remained as to the corruption of nature, but not as + to the personal corruption. For, according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup. i.), it is lust that transmits original sin to + the offspring. Now lust implies inordinate concupiscence, not entirely subject to reason: and therefore, if the fomes were + entirely taken away as to personal corruption, it could not remain as to the corruption of nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p8"> It remains, therefore, for us to say, either that the fomes was entirely taken away from her by her first sanctification + or that it was fettered. Now that the fomes was entirely taken away, might be understood in this way, that, by the abundance + of grace bestowed on the Blessed Virgin, such a disposition of the soul's powers was granted to her, that the lower powers + were never moved without the command of her reason: just as we have stated to have been the case with Christ ( + <a id="TP_Q27_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A2.html">Q[15], A[2]</a>), who certainly did not have the fomes of sin; as also was the case with Adam, before he sinned, by reason of original justice: + so that, in this respect, the grace of sanctification in the Virgin had the force of original justice. And although this appears + to be part of the dignity of the Virgin Mother, yet it is somewhat derogatory to the dignity of Christ, without whose power + no one had been freed from the first sentence of condemnation. And though, through + faith in Christ, some were freed from that condemnation, according to the spirit, before Christ's Incarnation, yet it does + not seem fitting that any one should be freed from that condemnation, according to the flesh, except after His Incarnation, + for it was then that immunity from condemnation was first to appear. Consequently, just as before the immortality of the flesh + of Christ rising again, none obtained immortality of the flesh, so it seems unfitting to say that before Christ appeared in + sinless flesh, His Virgin Mother's or anyone else's flesh should be without the fomes, which is called "the law of the flesh" + or "of the members" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.23" target="asv">Rom. 7:23</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A3-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.25" target="asv">25</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p9"> Therefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification in the womb, the Virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence, + but that it remained fettered: not indeed by an act of her reason, as in holy men, since she had not the use of reason from + the very first moment of her existence in her mother's womb, for this was the singular privilege of Christ: but by reason + of the abundant grace bestowed on her in her sanctification, and still more perfectly by Divine Providence + preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner, from any inordinate movement. Afterwards, however, at the conception + of Christ's flesh, in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire freedom + from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother. This indeed is signified ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.43.2" target="asv">Ezech. 43:2</a>): "Behold the glory of the God of Israel came in by the way of the east," i.e. by the Blessed Virgin, "and the earth," i.e. + her flesh, + "shone with His," i.e. Christ's, "majesty." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Death and such like penalties do not of themselves incline us to sin. Wherefore though Christ assumed them, He did not assume + the fomes. Consequently in order that the Blessed Virgin might be conformed to her Son, from "whose fulness" her grace was + derived, the fomes was at first fettered and afterwards taken away: while she was not freed from death and other such penalties. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The "infirmity" of the flesh, that pertains to the fomes, is indeed to holy men an occasional cause of perfect virtue: but + not the "sine qua non" of perfection: and it is quite enough to ascribe to the Blessed Virgin perfect virtue and abundant + grace: nor is there any need to attribute to her every occasional cause of perfection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Holy Ghost effected a twofold purification in the Blessed Virgin. The first was, as it were, preparatory to Christ's + conception: which did not cleanse her from the stain of sin or fomes, but rather gave her mind a unity of purpose and disengaged + it from a multiplicity of things (Cf. Dionysius, Div. Nom. iv), since even the angels are said to be purified, in whom there + is no stain, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi). The second purification + effected in her by the Holy Ghost was by means of the conception of Christ which was the operation of the Holy Ghost. And + in respect of this, it may be said that He purified her entirely from the fomes. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A3-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q27_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q27_A4-p0.1">Whether by being sanctified in the womb the Blessed Virgin was preserved from all actual sin?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that by being sanctified in the womb the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from all actual sin. For, as we have + already stated + <a id="TP_Q27_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q27_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, after her first sanctification the fomes remained in the Virgin. Now the motion of the fomes, even if it precede the act + of the reason, is a venial sin, albeit extremely slight, as Augustine says in his work De Trinitate [*Cf. Sent. ii, D, 24]. + Therefore there was some venial sin in the + Blessed Virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test. lxxiii on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.35" target="asv"> Lk. 2:35</a>: "Thy own soul a sword shall pierce") says that the Blessed Virgin "was troubled with wondering doubt at the death of our + Lord." But doubt in matters of faith is a sin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from all actual sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Chrysostom (Hom. xlv in Matth.) expounding the text: "Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking + thee," says: "It is clear that they did this from mere vain glory." Again, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.2.3" target="asv"> Jn. 2:3</a>: "They have no wine," the same Chrysostom says that "she wished to do them a favor, and raise herself in their esteem, by + means of her Son: and perchance she succumbed to human frailty, just as did His brethren when they said: 'Manifest + Thyself to the world.'" And a little further on he says: "For as yet she did not believe in Him as she ought." Now it is quite + clear that all this was sinful. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from all sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxxvi): "In the matter of sin, it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning + the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor due to Christ. For since she conceived and brought forth Him who most certainly + was guilty of no sin, we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling + it, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.6" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:6</a>: "(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament." Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore + there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the + angel ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.30" target="asv">Lk. 1:30,31</a>): "Thou hast found + grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive," etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever + sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Prov.17.6" target="asv"> Prov. 17:6</a>: "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected + on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p6.4" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.15" target="asv"> + 2 Cor. 6:15 + </a>): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the "Divine + Wisdom" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p6.5" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24</a>) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p6.6" href="./asv.html#Wis.1.4" target="asv">Wis. 1:4</a>): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p7"> We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what + is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Song.4.7" target="asv">Cant 4:7</a>) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," etc. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> After her sanctification the fomes remained in the Blessed Virgin, but fettered; lest she should be surprised by some sudden + inordinate act, antecedent to the act of reason. And although the grace of her sanctification contributed to this effect, + yet it did not suffice; for otherwise the result of her sanctification would have been to render impossible in her any sensual + movement not preceded by an act of reason, and thus she would. not have had the + fomes, which is contrary to what we have said above + <a id="TP_Q27_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q27_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. We must therefore say that the above mentioned fettering (of the fomes) was perfected by divine providence not permitting + any inordinate motion to result from the fomes. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Origen (Hom. xvii in Luc.) and certain other doctors expound these words of Simeon as referring to the sorrow which she suffered + at the time of our Lord's Passion. Ambrose (in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv"> Luc. 2:35</a>) says that the sword signifies "Mary's prudence which took note of the heavenly mystery. For the word of God is living and + effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A4-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.4.12" target="asv">Heb. 4:12</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p10"> Others again take the sword to signify doubt. But this is to be understood of the doubt, not of unbelief, but of wonder and + discussion. Thus Basil says (Ep. ad Optim.) that "the Blessed Virgin while standing by the cross, and observing every detail, + after the message of Gabriel, and the ineffable knowledge of the Divine Conception, after that wondrous manifestation of miracles, + was troubled in mind": that is to say, on the one side seeing Him suffer such humiliation, and on the + other considering His marvelous works. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In those words Chrysostom goes too far. They may, however, be explained as meaning that our Lord corrected in her, not the + inordinate motion of vain glory in regard to herself, but that which might be in the thoughts of others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A4-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q27_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q27_A5-p0.1">Whether, by her sanctification in the womb, the Blessed Virgin received the fulness of grace?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that, by her sanctification in the womb, the Blessed Virgin did not receive the fulness or perfection of grace. + For this seems to be Christ's privilege, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14</a>: "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] as the Only-Begotten [Vulg.: 'as it were of the Only-Begotten'] full of grace and truth." + But what is proper to Christ ought not to be ascribed to some one else. Therefore the Blessed Virgin did not receive the fulness + of grace at the time of her sanctification. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing remains to be added to that which is full and perfect: for "the perfect is that which lacks nothing," as + is said Phys. iii. But the Blessed Virgin received additional grace afterwards when she conceived Christ; for to her was it + said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.35" target="asv">Lk. 1:35</a>): "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee: and again, when she was assumed into glory." Therefore it seems that she did not + receive the fulness of grace at the time of her first + sanctification. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "God does nothing useless," as is said De Coelo et Mundo i. But it would have been useless for her to have certain + graces, for she would never have put them to use: since we do not read that she taught which is the act of wisdom; or that + she worked miracles, which is the act of one of the gratuitous graces. Therefore she had not the fulness of grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The angel said to her: "Hail, full of grace" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.28" target="asv">Lk. 1:28</a>); which words Jerome expounds as follows, in a sermon on the Assumption (cf. Ep. ad Paul. et Eustoch.): "Full indeed of grace: + for to others it is given in portions; whereas on Mary the fulness of grace was showered all at once." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In every genus, the nearer a thing is to the principle, the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principle, + whence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that angels, being nearer to God, have a greater share than men, in the effects of + the Divine goodness. Now Christ is the principle of grace, authoritatively as to His Godhead, instrumentally as to His humanity: + whence ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.17" target="asv">Jn. 1:17</a>) it is written: "Grace and truth came by Jesus + Christ." But the Blessed Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in His humanity: because He received His human nature from her. + Therefore it was due to her to receive a greater fulness of grace than others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God gives to each one according to the purpose for which He has chosen him. And since Christ as man was predestinated and + chosen to be "predestinated the Son of God in power . . . of sanctification" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.4" target="asv">Rom. 1:4</a>), it was proper to Him to have such a fulness of grace that it overflowed from Him into all, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv"> Jn. 1:16</a>: "Of His fulness we have all received." Whereas the Blessed Virgin Mary received such a fulness of grace that + she was nearest of all to the Author of grace; so that she received within her Him Who is full of all grace; and by bringing + Him forth, she, in a manner, dispensed grace to all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In natural things at first there is perfection of disposition, for instance when matter is perfectly disposed for the form. + Secondly, there is the perfection of the form; and this is the more excellent, for the heat that proceeds from the form of + fire is more perfect than that which disposed to the form of fire. Thirdly, there is the perfection of the end: for instance + when fire has its qualities in the most perfect degree, having mounted to its own + place. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p9"> In like manner there was a threefold perfection of grace in the Blessed Virgin. The first was a kind of disposition, by which + she was made worthy to be the mother of Christ: and this was the perfection of her sanctification. The second perfection of + grace in the Blessed Virgin was through the presence of the Son of God Incarnate in her womb. The third perfection of the + end is that which she has in glory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p10"> That the second perfection excels the first, and the third the second, appears (1) from the point of view of deliverance + from evil. For at first in her sanctification she was delivered from original sin: afterwards, in the conception of the Son + of God, she was entirely cleansed from the fomes: lastly, in her glorification she was also delivered from all affliction + whatever. It appears (2) from the point of view of ordering to good. For at first in her sanctification she received + grace inclining her to good: in the conception of the Son of God she received consummate grace confirming her in good; and + in her glorification her grace was further consummated so as to perfect her in the enjoyment of all good. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There is no doubt that the Blessed Virgin received in a high degree both the gift of wisdom and the grace of miracles and + even of prophecy, just as Christ had them. But she did not so receive them, as to put them and such like graces to every use, + as did Christ: but accordingly as it befitted her condition of life. For she had the use of wisdom in contemplation, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.19" target="asv"> Lk. 2:19</a>: "But Mary kept all these words, pondering them + in her heart." But she had not the use of wisdom as to teaching: since this befitted not the female sex, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p11.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.12" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:12</a>: "But I suffer not a woman to teach." The use of miracles did not become her while she lived: because at that time the Teaching + of Christ was to be confirmed by miracles, and therefore it was befitting that Christ alone, and His disciples who were the + bearers of His doctrine, should work miracles. Hence of John the Baptist it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p11.3" href="./asv.html#John.10.41" target="asv">Jn. + 10:41 + </a>) that he "did no sign"; that is, in order that all might fix their attention on Christ. As to the use of prophecy, it is + clear that she had it, from the canticle spoken by her: "My soul doth magnify the Lord" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A5-p11.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.46" target="asv">Lk. 1:46</a>, etc.). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A5-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q27_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q27_A6-p0.1">Whether after Christ, it was proper to the Blessed Virgin to be sanctified in the womb?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was proper for the Blessed Virgin, after Christ, to be sanctified in the womb. For it has been said + + <a id="TP_Q27_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q27_A4.html">(A[4])</a> that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb, in order that she might be worthy to be the mother of God. But this is + proper to her. Therefore she alone was sanctified in the womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, some men seem to have been more closely connected with Christ than Jeremias and John the Baptist, who are said to + have been sanctified in the womb. For Christ is specially called the Son of David and of Abraham, by reason of the promise + specially made to them concerning Christ. Isaias also prophesied of Christ in the most express terms. And the apostles were + in converse with Christ Himself. And yet these are not mentioned as having been sanctified in + the womb. Therefore it was not befitting that either Jeremias or John the Baptist should be sanctified in the womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Job says of himself ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Job.31.18" target="asv">Job 31:18</a>): "From my infancy mercy grew up with me; and it came out with me from [my mother's] womb." Nevertheless we do not for this + reason say that he was sanctified in the womb. Neither therefore are we bound to say that Jeremias and John the Baptist were + sanctified in the womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written of Jeremias ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.1.5" target="asv">Jer. 1:5</a>): "Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee." And of John the Baptist it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A6-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.15" target="asv">Lk. 1:15</a>): "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Augustine (Ep. ad Dardan.) seems to speak dubiously of their (Jeremias' and John the Baptist's) sanctification in the womb. + For the leaping of John in the womb "might," as he says, "signify the great truth," viz. that the woman was the mother of + God, "which was to be made known to his elders, though as yet unknown to the infant. Hence in the Gospel it is written, not + that the infant in her womb believed, but that it 'leaped': and our eyes are witness that + not only infants leap but also cattle. But this was unwonted because it was in the womb. And therefore, just as other miracles + are wont to be done, this was done divinely, in the infant; not humanly by the infant. Perhaps also in this child the use + of reason and will was so far accelerated that while yet in his mother's womb he was able to acknowledge, believe, and consent, + whereas in other children we have to wait for these things till they grow older: this again I count as a miraculous result + of the divine power." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p7"> But since it is expressly said (of John) in the Gospel that "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's + womb"; and of Jeremias, "Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee"; it seems that we must needs assert + that they were sanctified in the womb, although, while in the womb, they had not the use of reason (which is the point discussed + by Augustine); just as neither do children enjoy the use of free will as soon as they are sanctified by + baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p8"> Nor are we to believe that any others, not mentioned by Scripture, were sanctified in the womb. For such privileges of grace, + which are bestowed on some, outside the common law, are ordered for the salvation of others, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:7</a>: "The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit," which would not result from the sanctification of anyone + unless it were made known to the Church. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p9"> And although it is not possible to assign a reason for God's judgments, for instance, why He bestows such a grace on one + and not on another, yet there seems to be a certain fittingness in both of these being sanctified in the womb, by their foreshadowing + the sanctification which was to be effected through Christ. First, as to His Passion, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.12" target="asv">Heb. 13:12</a>: "Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate": which Passion Jeremias + foretold openly by words and by symbols, and most clearly foreshadowed by his own sufferings. Secondly, as to His Baptism + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q27_A6-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:11</a>): "But you are washed, but you are sanctified"; to which Baptism John prepared men by his baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The blessed Virgin, who was chosen by God to be His Mother, received a fuller grace of sanctification than John the Baptist + and Jeremias, who were chosen to foreshadow in a special way the sanctification effected by Christ. A sign of this is that + it was granted to the Blessed Virgin thence-forward never to sin either mortally or venially: whereas to the others who were + thus sanctified it was granted thenceforward not to sin mortally, through the + protection of God's grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In other respects these saints might be more closely united to Christ than Jeremias and John the Baptist. But the latter + were most closely united to Him by clearly foreshadowing His sanctification, as explained above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The mercy of which Job speaks is not the infused virtue; but a certain natural inclination to the act of that virtue. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q27_A6-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q26_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q28" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q28-p0.1">OF THE VIRGINITY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q28-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28-p2"> We now have to consider the virginity of the Mother of God; concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q28-p3"> (1) Whether she was a virgin in conceiving?</p> + <p id="TP_Q28-p4"> (2) Whether she was a virgin in His Birth?</p> + <p id="TP_Q28-p5"> (3) Whether she remained a virgin after His Birth?</p> + <p id="TP_Q28-p6"> (4) Whether she took a vow of virginity?</p> + <div id="TP_Q28_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q28_A1-p0.1">Whether the Mother of God was a virgin in conceiving Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Mother of God was not a virgin in conceiving Christ. For no child having father and mother is conceived + by a virgin mother. But Christ is said to have had not only a mother, but also a father, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.33" target="asv"> Lk. 2:33</a>: "His father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning Him": and further on ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.48" target="asv">Lk. 2:48</a>) in the same chapter she says: "Behold I and Thy father [Vulg.: 'Thy + father and I'] have sought Thee sorrowing." Therefore Christ was not conceived of a virgin mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1" target="asv">Mat. 1</a>) it is proved that Christ was the Son of Abraham and David, through Joseph being descended from David. But this proof would + have availed nothing if Joseph were not the father of Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ's Mother conceived Him of the + seed of Joseph; and consequently that she was not a virgin in conceiving Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv">Gal. 4:4</a>): "God sent His Son, made of a woman." But according to the customary mode of speaking, the term "woman" applies to one who + is known of a man. Therefore Christ was not conceived by a virgin mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, things of the same species have the same mode of generation: since generation is specified by its terminus just + as are other motions. But Christ belonged to the same species as other men, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv"> Phil. 2:7</a>: "Being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." Since therefore other men are begotten of the mingling + of male and female, it seems that Christ was begotten in the same manner; and that consequently He + was not conceived of a virgin mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, every natural form has its determinate matter, outside which it cannot be. But the matter of human form appears + to be the semen of male and female. If therefore Christ's body was not conceived of the semen of male and female, it would + not have been truly a human body; which cannot be asserted. It seems therefore that He was not conceived of a virgin mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.7.14" target="asv">Is. 7:14</a>): "Behold a virgin shall conceive." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> We must confess simply that the Mother of Christ was a virgin in conceiving for to deny this belongs to the heresy of the + Ebionites and Cerinthus, who held Christ to be a mere man, and maintained that He was born of both sexes. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p9"> It is fitting for four reasons that Christ should be born of a virgin. First, in order to maintain the dignity or the Father + Who sent Him. For since Christ is the true and natural Son of God, it was not fitting that He should have another father than + God: lest the dignity belonging to God be transferred to another. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p10"> Secondly, this was befitting to a property of the Son Himself, Who is sent. For He is the Word of God: and the word is conceived + without any interior corruption: indeed, interior corruption is incompatible with perfect conception of the word. Since therefore + flesh was so assumed by the Word of God, as to be the flesh of the Word of God, it was fitting that it also should be conceived + without corruption of the mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p11"> Thirdly, this was befitting to the dignity of Christ's humanity in which there could be no sin, since by it the sin of the + world was taken away, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.29" target="asv"> Jn. 1:29</a>: "Behold the Lamb of God" (i.e. the Lamb without stain) "who taketh away the sin of the world." Now it was not possible in + a nature already corrupt, for flesh to be born from sexual intercourse without incurring the infection of original sin. Whence + Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "In + that union," viz. the marriage of Mary and Joseph, "the nuptial intercourse alone was lacking: because in sinful flesh this + could not be without fleshly concupiscence which arises from sin, and without which He wished to be conceived, Who was to + be without sin." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p12"> Fourthly, on account of the very end of the Incarnation of Christ, which was that men might be born again as sons of God, + "not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.13" target="asv">Jn. 1:13</a>), i.e. of the power of God, of which fact the very conception of Christ was to appear as an exemplar. Whence Augustine says + (De Sanct. Virg.): "It behooved that our Head, by a notable miracle, should be born, after the flesh, of a virgin, that He + might thereby + signify that His members would be born, after the Spirit, of a virgin Church." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.33" target="asv"> Lk. 1:33</a>: Joseph is called the father of the Saviour, not that he really was His father, as the Photinians pretended: but that he + was considered by men to be so, for the safeguarding of Mary's good name. Wherefore Luke adds ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.23" target="asv">Lk. 3:23</a>): "Being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p14"> Or, according to Augustine (De Cons. Evang. ii), Joseph is called the father of Christ just as "he is called the husband + of Mary, without fleshly mingling, by the mere bond of marriage: being thereby united to Him much more closely than if he + were adopted from another family. Consequently that Christ was not begotten of Joseph by fleshly union is no reason why Joseph + should not be called His father; since he would be the father even of an adopted son not born of his wife." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A1-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.18" target="asv"> Mat. 1:18</a>: "Though Joseph was not the father of our Lord and Saviour, the order of His genealogy is traced down to Joseph"---first, + because "the Scriptures are not wont to trace the female line in genealogies": secondly, "Mary and Joseph were of the same + tribe"; wherefore by law he was bound to take her as being of his kin. Likewise, as Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i), + "it was befitting to trace the + genealogy down to Joseph, lest in that marriage any slight should be offered to the male sex, which is indeed the stronger: + for truth suffered nothing thereby, since both Joseph and Mary were of the family of David." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the gloss says on this passage, the word "'mulier,' is here used instead of 'femina,' according to the custom of the Hebrew + tongue: which applies the term signifying woman to those of the female sex who are virgins." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This argument is true of those things which come into existence by the way of nature: since nature, just as it is fixed to + one particular effect, so it is determinate to one mode of producing that effect. But as the supernatural power of God extends + to the infinite: just as it is not determinate to one effect, so neither is it determinate to one mode of producing any effect + whatever. Consequently, just as it was possible for the first man to be + produced, by the Divine power, "from the slime of the earth," so too was it possible for Christ's body to be made, by Divine + power, from a virgin without the seed of the male. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> According to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i, ii, iv), in conception the seed of the male is not by way of matter, but + by way of agent: and the female alone supplies the matter. Wherefore though the seed of the male was lacking in Christ's conception, + it does not follow that due matter was lacking. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p19"> But if the seed of the male were the matter of the fetus in animal conception, it is nevertheless manifest that it is not + a matter remaining under one form, but subject to transformation. And though the natural power cannot transmute other than + determinate matter to a determinate form; nevertheless the Divine power, which is infinite, can transmute all matter to any + form whatsoever. Consequently, just as it transmuted the slime of the earth into Adam's body, so could it + transmute the matter supplied by His Mother into Christ's body, even though it were not the sufficient matter for a natural + conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p20"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A1-p21"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q28_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q28_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ's Mother was a virgin in His birth?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Mother was not a virgin in His Birth. For Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.23" target="asv"> Lk. 2:23</a>: "He who sanctified a strange womb, for the birth of a prophet, He it is who opened His Mother's womb, that He might go forth + unspotted." But opening of the womb excludes virginity. Therefore Christ's Mother was not a virgin in His Birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing should have taken place in the mystery of Christ, which would make His body to seem unreal. Now it seems + to pertain not to a true but to an unreal body, to be able to go through a closed passage; since two bodies cannot be in one + place at the same time. It was therefore unfitting that Christ's body should come forth from His Mother's closed womb: and + consequently that she should remain a virgin in giving birth to Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Gregory says in the Homily for the octave of Easter [*xxvi in Evang.], that by entering after His Resurrection + where the disciples were gathered, the doors being shut, our Lord "showed that His body was the same in nature but differed + in glory": so that it seems that to go through a closed passage pertains to a glorified body. But Christ's body was not glorified + in its conception, but was passible, having "the likeness of sinful flesh," as the + Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.3" target="asv">Rom. 8:3</a>). Therefore He did not come forth through the closed womb of the Virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> In a sermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. III, Cap. ix) it is said: "After giving birth, nature knows not a virgin: but grace + enhances her fruitfulness, and effects her motherhood, while in no way does it injure her virginity." Therefore Christ's Mother + was a virgin also in giving birth to Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Without any doubt whatever we must assert that the Mother of Christ was a virgin even in His Birth: for the prophet says + not only: "Behold a virgin shall conceive," but adds: "and shall bear a son." This indeed was befitting for three reasons. + First, because this was in keeping with a property of Him whose Birth is in question, for He is the Word of God. For the word + is not only conceived in the mind without corruption, but also proceeds from the mind + without corruption. Wherefore in order to show that body to be the body of the very Word of God, it was fitting that it should + be born of a virgin incorrupt. Whence in the sermon of the Council of Ephesus (quoted above) we read: "Whosoever brings forth + mere flesh, ceases to be a virgin. But since she gave birth to the Word made flesh, God safeguarded her virginity so as to + manifest His Word, by which Word He thus manifested Himself: for neither does our word, when brought forth, corrupt the + mind; nor does God, the substantial Word, deigning to be born, destroy virginity." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p7"> Secondly, this is fitting as regards the effect of Christ's Incarnation: since He came for this purpose, that He might take + away our corruption. Wherefore it is unfitting that in His Birth He should corrupt His Mother's virginity. Thus Augustine + says in a sermon on the Nativity of Our Lord: "It was not right that He who came to heal corruption, should by His advent + violate integrity." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p8"> Thirdly, it was fitting that He Who commanded us to honor our father and mother should not in His Birth lessen the honor + due to His Mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Ambrose says this in expounding the evangelist's quotation from the Law: "Every male opening the womb shall be called holy + to the Lord." This, says Bede, "is said in regard to the wonted manner of birth; not that we are to believe that our Lord + in coming forth violated the abode of her sacred womb, which His entrance therein had hallowed." Wherefore the opening here + spoken of does not imply the unlocking of the enclosure of virginal purity; but the + mere coming forth of the infant from the maternal womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ wished so to show the reality of His body, as to manifest His Godhead at the same time. For this reason He mingled + wondrous with lowly things. Wherefore, to show that His body was real, He was born of a woman. But in order to manifest His + Godhead, He was born of a virgin, for "such a Birth befits a God," as Ambrose says in the Christmas hymn. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some have held that Christ, in His Birth, assumed the gift of "subtlety," when He came forth from the closed womb of a virgin; + and that He assumed the gift of "agility" when with dry feet He walked on the sea. But this is not consistent with what has + been decided above (Q[14]). For these gifts of a glorified body result from an overflow of the soul's glory on to the body, + as we shall explain further on, in treating of glorified bodies ( + <a id="TP_Q28_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q82.html">XP, Q[82])</a>: and it has been said above (Q[13], A[3], ad 1; Q[16], A[1], ad 2) that before His Passion Christ "allowed His flesh to do + and to suffer what was proper to it" (Damascene, De Fide Orth. iii): nor was there such an overflow of glory from His soul + on to His body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p12"> We must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by Divine power. Whence Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. + 121): "To the substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no obstacle. For truly He had power to enter + in by doors not open, in Whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate." And Dionysius says in an epistle (Ad Caium + iv) that "Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man: this is shown in His supernatural + conception, of a virgin, and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of earthly feet." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A2-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q28_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q28_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ's Mother remained a virgin after His birth?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.18" target="asv">Mat. 1:18</a>): "Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Now the Evangelist would not have said + this---"before they came together"---unless he were certain of their subsequent coming together; for no one says of one who + does not eventually dine "before he dines" (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.). It seems, + therefore, that the Blessed Virgin subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and consequently that she did not remain a virgin + after (Christ's) Birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the same passage ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.20" target="asv">Mat. 1:20</a>) are related the words of the angel to Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." But marriage is consummated by + carnal intercourse. Therefore it seems that this must have at some time taken place between Mary and Joseph: and that, consequently + she did not remain a virgin after (Christ's) Birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, again in the same passage a little further on ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.24" target="asv">Mat. 1:24,25</a>) we read: "And" (Joseph) "took unto him his wife; and he knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son." Now this + conjunction "till" is wont to designate a fixed time, on the completion of which that takes place which previously had not + taken place. And the verb "knew" refers here to knowledge by intercourse (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.); just as ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.4.1" target="asv">Gn. 4:1</a>) it is + said that "Adam knew his wife." Therefore it seems that after (Christ's) Birth, the Blessed Virgin was known by Joseph; and, + consequently, that she did not remain a virgin after the Birth (of Christ). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "first-born" can only be said of one who has brothers afterwards: wherefore ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv">Rom. 8:29</a>): "Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He might be the first-born + among many brethren." But the evangelist calls Christ the first-born by His Mother. Therefore she had other children after + Christ. And therefore it seems that Christ's Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.2.12" target="asv">Jn. 2:12</a>): "After this He went down to Capharnaum, He"---that is, Christ---"and His Mother and His brethren." But brethren are those + who are begotten of the same parent. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.55" target="asv">Mat. 27:55,56</a>): "There were there"---that is, by the cross of Christ---"many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering + unto Him; among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." Now + this Mary who is called "the mother of James and Joseph" seems to have been also the Mother of Christ; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.19.25" target="asv">Jn. 19:25</a>) that "there stood by + the cross of Jesus, Mary His Mother." Therefore it seems that Christ's Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p8"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.44.2" target="asv">Ezech. 44:2</a>): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel + hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed + gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through + it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And + what is this---'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'---except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that + the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this---'it shall be shut for evermore'---but that Mary is a virgin + before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was + carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for + as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that + He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p10"> Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb [*"Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office + of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.)], wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should + be desecrated by intercourse with man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p11"> Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were + she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had + been miraculously preserved in her. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p12"> Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate + her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p13"> We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him + birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): "Although this particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must observe + that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind take + place eventually, since something may occur to prevent its happening. Thus if a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I set + sail,' we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set sail: but that + his mind was set on dining in port." In like manner the evangelist says: "Before they came together" Mary "was found with + child, of the Holy Ghost," not that they came together afterwards: but that, when it seemed that they would come together, + this was forestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the result being that afterwards they did not come together. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "The Mother of God is called (Joseph's) wife from the first promise of her espousals, + whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse." For, as Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.27" target="asv"> Lk. 1:27</a>: "The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some have said that this is not to be understood of carnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom says [*Opus Imperf. + in Matth., Hom. 1: among the spurious works ascribed to Chrysostom] that "Joseph did not know her, until she gave birth, being + unaware of her dignity: but after she had given birth, then did he know her. Because by reason of her child she surpassed + the whole world in beauty and dignity: since she alone in the narrow abode of + her womb received Him Whom the world cannot contain." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p17"> Others again refer this to knowledge by sight. For as, while Moses was speaking with God, his face was so bright "that the + children of Israel could not steadfastly behold it"; so Mary, while being "overshadowed" by the brightness of the "power of + the Most High," could not be gazed on by Joseph, until she gave birth. But afterwards she is acknowledged by Joseph, by looking + on her face, not by lustful contact. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p18"> Jerome, however, grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by intercourse; but he observes that "before" or "until" + has a twofold sense in Scripture. For sometimes it indicates a fixed time, as + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p18.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.19" target="asv"> Gal. 3:19</a>: The law "was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom He made the promise." On the other hand, + it sometimes indicates an indefinite time, as in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p18.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.122.2" target="asv"> Ps. 122:2</a>: "Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, until He + have mercy on us"; from which it is not to be gathered that our eyes are turned from God as soon as His mercy has been obtained. + In this sense those things are indicated "of which we might doubt if they had not been written down: while others are left + out to be supplied by our understanding. Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until + she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards" (Adversus Helvid. v). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p19"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The Scriptures are wont to designate as the first-born, not only a child who is followed by others, but also the one that + is born first. "Otherwise, if a child were not first-born unless followed by others, the first-fruits would not be due as + long as there was no further produce" [*Jerome, Adversus Helvid. x]: which is clearly false, since according to the law the + first-fruits had to be redeemed within a month ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p19.1" href="./asv.html#Num.18.16" target="asv">Num. 18:16</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p20"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Some, as Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p20.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.49" target="asv"> Mat. 12:49,50, </a> "suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to + be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister." For "Scripture speaks of brethren + in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common + affection." Wherefore the + brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations + of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, "since he is not + said to have had another wife," and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p21"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Mary who is called "the mother of James and Joseph" is not to be taken for the Mother of our Lord, who is not wont to be + named in the Gospels save under this designation of her dignity---"the Mother of Jesus." This Mary is to be taken for the + wife of Alphaeus, whose son was James the less, known as the "brother of the Lord" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A3-p21.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.1.19" target="asv">Gal. 1:19</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p22"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p23"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A3-p24"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q28_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q28_A4-p0.1">Whether the Mother of God took a vow of virginity?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Mother of God did not take a vow of virginity. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.7.14" target="asv">Dt. 7:14</a>): "No one shall be barren among you of either sex." But sterility is a consequence of virginity. Therefore the keeping of + virginity was contrary to the commandment of the Old Law. But before Christ was born the old law was still in force. Therefore + at that time the Blessed Virgin could not lawfully take a vow of virginity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.25" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:25</a>): "Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel." But the perfection of the counsels was to take + its beginning from Christ, who is the "end of the Law," as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.4" target="asv">Rom. 10:4</a>). It was not therefore becoming that the Virgin should take a vow of virginity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the gloss of Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.12" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:12, </a> that "for those who are vowed to virginity, it is reprehensible not only to marry, but also to desire to be married." But + the Mother of Christ committed no sin for which she could be reprehended, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q28_A4-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q27_A4.html">Q[27], A[4]</a>). Since therefore she was "espoused," as related by + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q28_A4-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.27" target="asv"> Lk. 1:27 </a>it seems that she did not take a vow of virginity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg. iv): "Mary answered the announcing angel: 'How shall this be done, because I know not man?' + She would not have said this unless she had already vowed her virginity to God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As we have stated in the + <a id="TP_Q28_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q88_A6.html">SS, Q[88], A[6]</a>, works of perfection are more praiseworthy when performed in fulfilment of a vow. Now it is clear that for reasons already + given ( + <a id="TP_Q28_A4-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q28_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2,3) virginity had a special place in the Mother of God. It was therefore fitting that her virginity should be consecrated + to God by vow. Nevertheless because, while the Law was in force both men and women were bound to attend to the + duty of begetting, since the worship of God was spread according to carnal origin, until Christ was born of that people; the + Mother of God is not believed to have taken an absolute vow of virginity, before being espoused to Joseph, although she desired + to do so, yet yielding her own will to God's judgment. Afterwards, however, having taken a husband, according as the custom + of the time required, together with him she took a vow of virginity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Because it seemed to be forbidden by the law not to take the necessary steps for leaving a posterity on earth, therefore + the Mother of God did not vow virginity absolutely, but under the condition that it were pleasing to God. When, however, she + knew that it was acceptable to God, she made the vow absolute, before the angel's Annunciation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as the fulness of grace was in Christ perfectly, yet some beginning of the fulness preceded in His Mother; so also the + observance of the counsels, which is an effect of God's grace, began its perfection in Christ, but was begun after a fashion + in His Virgin Mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These words of the Apostle are to be understood of those who vow chastity absolutely. Christ's Mother did not do this until + she was espoused to Joseph. After her espousals, however, by their common consent she took a vow of virginity together with + her spouse. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q28_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q27_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q29" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q29-p0.1">OF THE ESPOUSALS OF THE MOTHER OF GOD (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q29-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q29-p2"> We now consider the espousals of God's Mother: concerning which two points arise for inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q29-p3"> (1) Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin?</p> + <p id="TP_Q29-p4"> (2) Whether there was true marriage between our Lord's Mother and Joseph?</p> + <div id="TP_Q29_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q29_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have been born of an espoused virgin. For espousals are ordered to carnal intercourse. + But our Lord's Mother never wished to have carnal intercourse with her husband; because this would be derogatory to the virginity + of her mind. Therefore she should not have been espoused. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that Christ was born of a virgin was miraculous, whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii): "This same power + of God brought forth the infant's limbs out of the virginal womb of His inviolate Mother, by which in the vigor of manhood + He passed through the closed doors. If we are told why this happened, it will cease to be wonderful; if another instance be + alleged, it will no longer be unique." But miracles that are wrought in confirmation of the + Faith should be manifest. Since, therefore, by her Espousals this miracle would be less evident, it seems that it was unfitting + that Christ should be born of an espoused virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the martyr Ignatius, as Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.18" target="asv"> Mat. 1:18, </a> gives as a reason of the espousals of the Mother of God, "that the manner of His Birth might be hidden from the devil, who + would think Him to be begotten not of a virgin but of a wife." But this seems to be no reason at all. First, because by his + natural cunning he knows whatever takes place in bodies. Secondly, because later on the demons, through many evident signs, + knew Christ + after a fashion: whence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.23" target="asv">Mk. 1:23,24</a>): "A man with an unclean spirit . . . cried out, saying: What have we to do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to + destroy us? I know . . . Thou art the Holy one of God." Therefore it does not seem fitting that the Mother of God should have + been espoused. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Jerome gives as another reason, "lest the Mother of God should be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress." But this + reason seems to have no weight, for if she were not espoused, she could not be condemned for adultery. Therefore it does not + seem reasonable that Christ should be born of an espoused virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.18" target="asv">Mat. 1:18</a>): "When as His Mother Mary was espoused to Joseph": and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.26" target="asv">Lk. 1:26,27</a>): "The angel Gabriel was sent . . . to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting that Christ should be born of an espoused virgin; first, for His own sake; secondly, for His Mother's sake; + thirdly, for our sake. For the sake of Christ Himself, for four reasons. First, lest He should be rejected by unbelievers + as illegitimate: wherefore Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.26" target="asv"> Lk. 1:26,27</a>: "How could we blame Herod or the Jews if they seem to persecute one who was born of adultery?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p8"> Secondly, in order that in the customary way His genealogy might be traced through the male line. Thus Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.23" target="asv"> Lk. 3:23</a>: "He Who came into the world, according to the custom of the world had to be enrolled Now for this purpose, it is the men + that are required, because they represent the family in the senate and other courts. The custom of the Scriptures, too, shows + that the ancestry of the men is always traced out." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p9"> Thirdly, for the safety of the new-born Child: lest the devil should plot serious hurt against Him. Hence Ignatius says that + she was espoused "that the manner of His Birth might be hidden from the devil." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p10"> Fourthly, that He might be fostered by Joseph: who is therefore called His "father," as bread-winner.</p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p11"> It was also fitting for the sake of the Virgin. First, because thus she was rendered exempt from punishment; that is, "lest + she should be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress," as Jerome says. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p12"> Secondly, that thus she might be safeguarded from ill fame. Whence Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.26" target="asv"> Lk. 1:26,27</a>: "She was espoused lest she be wounded by the ill-fame of violated virginity, in whom the pregnant womb would betoken corruption." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p13"> Thirdly, that, as Jerome says, Joseph might administer to her wants.</p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p14"> This was fitting, again, for our sake. First, because Joseph is thus a witness to Christ's being born of a virgin. Wherefore + Ambrose says: "Her husband is the more trustworthy witness of her purity, in that he would deplore the dishonor, and avenge + the disgrace, were it not that he acknowledged the mystery." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p15"> Secondly, because thereby the very words of the Virgin are rendered more credible by which she asserted her virginity. Thus + Ambrose says: "Belief in Mary's words is strengthened, the motive for a lie is removed. If she had not been espoused when + pregnant, she would seem to have wished to hide her sin by a lie: being espoused, she had no motive for lying, since a woman's + pregnancy is the reward of marriage and gives grace to the nuptial bond." These two reasons add strength to + our faith. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p16"> Thirdly, that all excuse be removed from those virgins who, through want of caution, fall into dishonor. Hence Ambrose says: + "It was not becoming that virgins should expose themselves to evil report, and cover themselves with the excuse that the Mother + of the Lord had also been oppressed by ill-fame." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p17"> Fourthly, because by this the universal Church is typified, which is a virgin and yet is espoused to one Man, Christ, as + Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg. xii). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p18"> A fifth reason may be added: since the Mother of the Lord being both espoused and a virgin, both virginity and wedlock are + honored in her person, in contradiction to those heretics who disparaged one or the other. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p19"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We must believe that the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, desired, from an intimate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to be espoused, + being confident that by the help of God she would never come to have carnal intercourse: yet she left this to God's discretion. + Wherefore she suffered nothing in detriment to her virginity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p20"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p20.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.26" target="asv"> Lk. 1:26</a>: "Our Lord preferred that men should doubt of His origin rather than of His Mother's purity. For he knew the delicacy of + virgin modesty, and how easily the fair name of chastity is disparaged: nor did He choose that our faith in His Birth should + be strengthened in detriment to His Mother." We must observe, however, that some miracles wrought by God are the direct object + of faith; such are the miracles + of the virginal Birth, the Resurrection of our Lord, and the Sacrament of the Altar. Wherefore our Lord wished these to be + more hidden, that belief in them might have greater merit. Whereas other miracles are for the strengthening of faith: and + these it behooves to be manifest. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p21"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (De Trin. iii), the devil can do many things by his natural power which he is hindered by the Divine power + from doing. Thus it may be that by his natural power the devil could know that the Mother of God knew not man, but was a virgin; + yet was prevented by God from knowing the manner of the Divine Birth. That afterwards the devil after a fashion knew that + He was the Son of God, makes no difficulty: because then the time had already + come for Christ to make known His power against the devil, and to suffer persecution aroused by him. But during His infancy + it behooved the malice of the devil to be withheld, lest he should persecute Him too severely: for Christ did not wish to + suffer such things then, nor to make His power known, but to show Himself to be in all things like other infants. Hence Pope + Leo (Serm. in Epiph. iv) says that "the Magi found the Child Jesus small in body, dependent on others, unable to speak, and + in + no way differing from the generality of human infants." Ambrose, however, expounding + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p21.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.26" target="asv"> Lk. 1:26, </a> seems to understand this of the devil's members. For, after giving the above reason---namely, that the prince of the world + might be deceived---he continues thus: "Yet still more did He deceive the princes of the world, since the evil disposition + of the demons easily discovers even hidden things: but those who spend their lives in worldly vanities can have no acquaintance + of Divine + things." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p22"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The sentence of adulteresses according to the Law was that they should be stoned, not only if they were already espoused + or married, but also if their maidenhood were still under the protection of the paternal roof, until the day when they enter + the married state. Thus it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p22.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.20" target="asv">Dt. 22:20,21</a>): "If . . . virginity be not found in the damsel . . . the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die; because + she hath + done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p23"> It may also be said, according to some writers, that the Blessed Virgin was of the family or kindred of Aaron, so that she + was related to Elizabeth, as we are told ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.36" target="asv">Lk. 1:36</a>). Now a virgin of the priestly tribe was condemned to death for whoredom; for we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A1-p23.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.21.9" target="asv">Lev. 21:9</a>): "If the daughter of a priest be taken in whoredom, and dishonor the name of her father, she shall be burnt with fire." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p24"> Lastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the throwing of stones by ill-fame.</p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p25"></p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A1-p26"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q29_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q29_A2-p0.1">Whether there was a true marriage between Mary and Joseph?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no true marriage between Mary and Joseph. For Jerome says against Helvidius that Joseph "was + Mary's guardian rather than her husband." But if this was a true marriage, Joseph was truly her husband. Therefore there was + no true marriage between Mary and Joseph. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.16" target="asv"> Mat. 1:16</a>: "Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary," Jerome says: "When thou readest 'husband' suspect not a marriage; but remember + that Scripture is wont to speak of those who are betrothed as husband and wife." But a true marriage is not effected by the + betrothal, but by the wedding. Therefore, there was no true marriage between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.19" target="asv">Mat. 1:19</a>): "Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to take her away [*Douay: 'publicly to expose her'], i.e. to take + her to his home in order to cohabit with her, was minded to put her away privately, i.e. to postpone the wedding," as Remigius + [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Matth.] expounds. Therefore, it seems that, as the wedding was not yet solemnized, there was no true + marriage: especially since, after + the marriage contract, no one can lawfully put his wife away. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It cannot be allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his + union with Mary" (since he said that Joseph was Mary's husband) "on the ground that in giving birth to Christ, she had not + conceived of him, but remained a virgin. For by this example the faithful are taught that if after marriage they remain continent + by mutual consent, their union is still and is rightly called marriage, even without + intercourse of the sexes." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; + first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the + second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony + consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged + by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: + the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they + help one another in rearing their offspring. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p7"> Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: + because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was + pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.20" target="asv">Mat. 1:20</a>): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his + wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p8"> But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which + children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q29_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.26" target="asv"> Lk. 1:26,27</a>: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, + but to witness to the reality of the union." Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to + upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage + of Christ's parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was + no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Jerome uses the term "husband" in reference to marriage consummated. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By marriage Jerome means the nuptial intercourse. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. i super Matth. [*Opus Imperfectum among the supposititious works ascribed to St. Chrysostom]) the + Blessed Virgin was so espoused to Joseph that she dwelt in his home: "for just as she who conceives in her husband's house + is understood to have conceived of him, so she who conceives elsewhere is suspect." Consequently sufficient precaution would + not have been taken to safeguard the fair fame of the Blessed Virgin, if she had not + the entry of her husband's house. Wherefore the words, "not willing to take her away" are better rendered as meaning, "not + willing publicly to expose her," than understood of taking her to his house. Hence the evangelist adds that "he was minded + to put her away privately." But although she had the entry of Joseph's house by reason of her first promise of espousals, + yet the time had not yet come for the solemnizing of the wedding; for which reason they had not yet consummated the marriage. + Therefore, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.): "The evangelist does not say, 'before she was taken to the house of her + husband,' because she was already in the house. For it was the custom among the ancients for espoused maidens to enter frequently + the houses of them to whom they were betrothed." Therefore the angel also said to Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary + thy wife"; that is: "Fear not to solemnize your marriage with her." Others, however, say that she was not yet admitted to + his house, but only betrothed to him. But the first is more in keeping with the Gospel narrative. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q29_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q28_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q30" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q30-p0.1">OF THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q30-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q30-p2"> We now have to consider the Blessed Virgin's Annunciation, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q30-p3"> (1) Whether it was befitting that announcement should be made to her of that which was to be begotten of her?</p> + <p id="TP_Q30-p4"> (2) By whom should this announcement be made?</p> + <p id="TP_Q30-p5"> (3) In what manner should this announcement be made?</p> + <p id="TP_Q30-p6"> (4) Of the order observed in the Annunciation.</p> + <div id="TP_Q30_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q30_A1-p0.1">Whether it was necessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. For there seems + to have been no need of the Annunciation except for the purpose of receiving the Virgin's consent. But her consent seems to + have been unnecessary: because the Virginal Conception was foretold by a prophecy of "predestination," which is "fulfilled + without our consent," as a gloss says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.22" target="asv"> Mat. 1:22.</a> There was no need, + therefore, for this Annunciation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Blessed Virgin believed in the Incarnation, for to disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation; + because, as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.22" target="asv">Rom. 3:22</a>): "The justice of God (is) by faith of Jesus Christ." But one needs no further instruction concerning what one believes without + doubt. Therefore the Blessed Virgin had no need for the Incarnation of her Son to be announced to her. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ in her body, so every pious soul conceives Him spiritually. Thus the + Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.19" target="asv">Gal. 4:19</a>): "My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you." But to those who conceive Him spiritually + no announcement is made of this conception. Therefore neither should it have been announced to the Blessed Virgin that she + was to conceive the Son of God in her womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is related ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.31" target="asv">Lk. 1:31</a>) that the angel said to her: "Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was reasonable that it should be announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive Christ. First, in order to maintain + a becoming order in the union of the Son of God with the Virgin---namely, that she should be informed in mind concerning Him, + before conceiving Him in the flesh. Thus Augustine says (De Sancta Virgin. iii): "Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith + of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ"; and further on he adds: "Her + nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner + than in her flesh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p7"> Secondly, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery, being instructed therein by God.</p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p8"> Thirdly, that she might offer to God the free gift of her obedience: which she proved herself right ready to do, saying: + "Behold the handmaid of the Lord." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p9"> Fourthly, in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock between the Son of God and human nature. Wherefore in + the Annunciation the Virgin's consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the causality of our will; not without its consent. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Blessed Virgin did indeed believe explicitly in the future Incarnation; but, being humble, she did not think such high + things of herself. Consequently she required instruction in this matter. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The spiritual conception of Christ through faith is preceded by the preaching of the faith, for as much as "faith is by hearing" + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.17" target="asv">Rom. 10:17</a>). Yet man does not know for certain thereby that he has grace; but he does know that the faith, which he has received, is + true. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q30_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q30_A2-p0.1">Whether the annunciation should have been made by an angel to the Blessed Virgin?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Annunciation should not have been made by an angel to our Blessed Lady. For revelations to the highest + angels are made immediately by God, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii). But the Mother of God is exalted above all the angels. + Therefore it seems that the mystery of the Incarnation should have been announced to her by God immediately, and not by an + angel. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if in this matter it behooved the common order to be observed, by which Divine things are announced to men by angels; + in like manner Divine things are announced to a woman by a man: wherefore the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.14.34" target="asv">1 Cor. 14:34,35</a>): "Let women keep silence in the churches . . . but if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Therefore + it seems that the mystery of the Incarnation should have been announced to the + Blessed Virgin by some man: especially seeing that Joseph, her husband, was instructed thereupon by an angel, as is related + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.20" target="asv">Mat. 1:20,21</a>) + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, none can becomingly announce what he knows not. But the highest angels did not fully know the mystery of the Incarnation: + wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that the question, "Who is this that cometh from Edom?" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.63.1" target="asv">Is. 63:1</a>) is to be understood as made by them. Therefore it seems that the announcement of the Incarnation could not be made becomingly + by any angel. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, greater things should be announced by messengers of greater dignity. But the mystery of the Incarnation is the greatest + of all things announced by angels to men. It seems, therefore, if it behooved to be announced by an angel at all, that this + should have been done by an angel of the highest order. But Gabriel is not of the highest order, but of the order of archangels, + which is the last but one: wherefore the Church sings: "We know that the archangel + Gabriel brought thee a message from God" [*Feast of Purification B.V.M. ix Resp. Brev. O.P.]. Therefore this announcement + was not becomingly made by the archangel Gabriel. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.26" target="asv">Lk. 1:26</a>): "The angel Gabriel was sent by God," etc. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting for the mystery of the Incarnation to be announced to the Mother of God by an angel, for three reasons. First, + that in this also might be maintained the order established by God, by which Divine things are brought to men by means of + the angels. Wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that "the angels were the first to be taught the Divine mystery of the + loving kindness of Jesus: afterwards the grace of knowledge was imparted to us through + them. Thus, then, the most god-like Gabriel made known to Zachary that a prophet son would be born to him; and, to Mary, how + the Divine mystery of the ineffable conception of God would be realized in her." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p8"> Secondly, this was becoming to the restoration of human nature which was to be effected by Christ. Wherefore Bede says in + a homily (in Annunt.): "It was an apt beginning of man's restoration that an angel should be sent by God to the Virgin who + was to be hallowed by the Divine Birth: since the first cause of man's ruin was through the serpent being sent by the devil + to cajole the woman by the spirit of pride." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p9"> Thirdly, because this was becoming to the virginity of the Mother of God. Wherefore Jerome says in a sermon on the Assumption + [*Ascribed to St. Jerome but not his work]: "It is well that an angel be sent to the Virgin; because virginity is ever akin + to the angelic nature. Surely to live in the flesh and not according to the flesh is not an earthly but a heavenly life." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Mother of God was above the angels as regards the dignity to which she was chosen by God. But as regards the present + state of life, she was beneath the angels. For even Christ Himself, by reason of His passible life, "was made a little lower + than the angels," according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.9" target="asv"> Heb. 2:9.</a> But because Christ was both wayfarer and comprehensor, He did not need to be instructed by angels, as regards knowledge of + Divine things. The + Mother of God, however, was not yet in the state of comprehension: and therefore she had to be instructed by angels concerning + the Divine Conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says in a sermon on the Assumption (De Assump. B.V.M. [*Work of another author: among the works of St. Augustine]) + a true estimation of the Blessed Virgin excludes her from certain general rules. For "neither did she 'multiply her conceptions' + nor was she 'under man's, i.e. her husband's,' power ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.3.16" target="asv">Gn. 3:16</a>), who in her spotless womb conceived Christ of the Holy Ghost." Therefore it was fitting that she should be + informed of the mystery of the Incarnation by means not of a man, but of an angel. For this reason it was made known to her + before Joseph: since the message was brought to her before she conceived, but to Joseph after she had conceived. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As may be gathered from the passage quoted from Dionysius, the angels were acquainted with the mystery of the Incarnation: + and yet they put this question, being desirous that Christ should give them more perfect knowledge of the details of this + mystery, which are incomprehensible to any created intellect. Thus Maximus [*Maximus of Constantinople] says that "there can + be no question that the angels knew that the Incarnation was to take place. But it + was not given to them to trace the manner of our Lord's conception, nor how it was that He remained whole in the Father, whole + throughout the universe, and was whole in the narrow abode of the Virgin." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Some say that Gabriel was of the highest order; because Gregory says (Hom. de Centum Ovibus [*34 in Evang.]): "It was right + that one of the highest angels should come, since his message was most sublime." But this does nat imply that he was of the + highest order of all, but in regard to the angels: since he was an archangel. Thus the Church calls him an archangel, and + Gregory himself in a homily (De Centum Ovibus 34) says that "those are called + archangels who announce sublime things." It is therefore sufficiently credible that he was the highest of the archangels. + And, as Gregory says (De Centum Ovibus 34), this name agrees with his office: for "Gabriel means 'Power of God.' This message + therefore was fittingly brought by the 'Power of God,' because the Lord of hosts and mighty in battle was coming to overcome + the powers of the air." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A2-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q30_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q30_A3-p0.1">Whether the angel of annunciation should have appeared to the Virgin in a bodily vision?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the angel of the Annunciation should not have appeared to the Virgin in a bodily vision. For "intellectual + vision is more excellent than bodily vision," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii), and especially more becoming to an angel: + since by intellectual vision an angel is seen in his substance; whereas in a bodily vision he is seen in the bodily shape + which he assumes. Now since it behooved a sublime messenger to come to announce the Divine + Conception, so, seemingly, he should have appeared in the most excellent kind of vision. Therefore it seems that the angel + of the Annunciation appeared to the Virgin in an intellectual vision. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, imaginary vision also seems to excel bodily vision: just as the imagination is a higher power than the senses. But + "the angel . . . appeared to Joseph in his sleep" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.20" target="asv">Mat. 1:20</a>), which was clearly an imaginary vision. Therefore it seems that he should have appeared to the Blessed Virgin also in an + imaginary vision. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the bodily vision of a spiritual substance stupefies the beholder; thus we sing of the Virgin herself: "And the + Virgin seeing the light was filled with fear" [*Feast of Annunciation, B.V.M. ii Resp. Brev. O.P.]. But it was better that + her mind should be preserved from being thus troubled. Therefore it was not fitting that this announcement should be made + in a bodily vision. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine in a sermon (De Annunt. iii) pictures the Blessed Virgin as speaking thus: "To me came the archangel Gabriel with + glowing countenance, gleaming robe, and wondrous step." But these cannot pertain to other than bodily vision. Therefore the + angel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the Blessed Virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The angel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the Blessed Virgin. And this indeed was fitting, first in regard + to that which was announced. For the angel came to announce the Incarnation of the invisible God. Wherefore it was becoming + that, in order to make this known, an invisible creature should assume a form in which to appear visibly: forasmuch as all + the apparitions of the Old Testament are ordered to that apparition in which the Son of + God appeared in the flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p7"> Secondly, it was fitting as regards the dignity of the Mother of God, who was to receive the Son of God not only in her mind, + but in her bodily womb. Therefore it behooved not only her mind, but also her bodily senses to be refreshed by the angelic + vision. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p8"> Thirdly, it is in keeping with the certainty of that which was announced. For we apprehend with greater certainty that which + is before our eyes, than what is in our imagination. Thus Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.) that the angel "came to the + Virgin not in her sleep, but visibly. For since she was receiving from the angel a message exceeding great, before such an + event she needed a vision of great solemnity." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Intellectual vision excels merely imaginary and merely bodily vision. But Augustine himself says (De Annunt. iii) that prophecy + is more excellent if accompanied by intellectual and imaginary vision, than if accompanied by only one of them. Now the Blessed + Virgin perceived not only the bodily vision, but also the intellectual illumination. Wherefore this was a more excellent vision. + Yet it would have been more excellent if she had perceived the angel + himself in his substance by her intellectual vision. But it was incompatible with her state of wayfarer that she should see + an angel in his essence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The imagination is indeed a higher power than the exterior sense: but because the senses are the principle of human knowledge, + the greatest certainty is in them, for the principles of knowledge must needs always be most certain. Consequently Joseph, + to whom the angel appeared in his sleep, did not have so excellent a vision as the Blessed Virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.11" target="asv"> Lk. 1:11</a>: "We are disturbed, and lose our presence of mind, when we are confronted by the presence of a superior power." And this + happens not only in bodily, but also in imaginary vision. Wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A3-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.15.12" target="asv">Gn. 15:12</a>) that "when the sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great and darksome horror seized upon him." But by being + thus disturbed man is not harmed to such an + extent that therefore he ought to forego the vision of an angel. First because from the very fact that man is raised above + himself, in which matter his dignity is concerned, his inferior powers are weakened; and from this results the aforesaid disturbance: + thus, also, when the natural heat is drawn within a body, the exterior parts tremble. Secondly, because, as Origen says (Hom. + iv in Luc.): "The angel who appeared, knowing hers was a human nature, first sought to remedy the disturbance of + mind to which a man is subject." Wherefore both to Zachary and to Mary, as soon as they were disturbed, he said: "Fear not." + For this reason, as we read in the life of Anthony, "it is difficult to discern good from evil spirits. For if joy succeed + fear, we should know that the help is from the Lord: because security of soul is a sign of present majesty. But if the fear + with which we are stricken persevere, it is an enemy that we see." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p12"> Moreover it was becoming to virginal modesty that the Virgin should be troubled. Because, as Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.20" target="asv"> Lk. 1:20</a>: "It is the part of a virgin to be timid, to fear the advances of men, and to shrink from men's addresses." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p13"> But others says that as the Blessed Virgin was accustomed to angelic visions, she was not troubled at seeing this angel, + but with wonder at hearing what the angel said to her, for she did not think so highly of herself. Wherefore the evangelist + does not say that she was troubled at seeing the angel, but "at his saying." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A3-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q30_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q30_A4-p0.1">Whether the Annunciation took place in becoming order?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Annunciation did not take place in becoming order. For the dignity of the Mother of God results from + the child she conceived. But the cause should be made known before the effect. Therefore the angel should have announced to + the Virgin the conception of her child before acknowledging her dignity in greeting her. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, proof should be omitted in things which admit of no doubt; and premised where doubt is possible. But the angel seems + first to have announced what the virgin might doubt, and which, because of her doubt, would make her ask: "How shall this + be done?" and afterwards to have given the proof, alleging both the instance of Elizabeth and the omnipotence of God. Therefore + the Annunciation was made by the angel in unbecoming order. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the greater cannot be adequately proved by the less. But it was a greater wonder for a virgin than for an old woman + to be with child. Therefore the angel's proof was insufficient to demonstrate the conception of a virgin from that of an old + woman. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv">Rom. 13:1</a>): "Those that are of God, are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God']." Now the angel was "sent by God" + to announce unto the Virgin, as is related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A4-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.26" target="asv">Lk. 1:26</a>. Therefore the Annunciation was made by the angel in the most perfect order. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The Annunciation was made by the angel in a becoming manner. For the angel had a threefold purpose in regard to the Virgin. + First, to draw her attention to the consideration of a matter of such moment. This he did by greeting her by a new and unwonted + salutation. Wherefore Origen says, commenting on Luke (Hom. vi), that if "she had known that similar words had been addressed + to anyone else, she, who had knowledge of the Law, would never have been astonished + at the seeming strangeness of the salutation." In which salutation he began by asserting her worthiness of the conception, + by saying, "Full of grace"; then he announced the conception in the words, "The Lord is with thee"; and then foretold the + honor which would result to her therefrom, by saying, "Blessed art thou among women." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p7"> Secondly, he purposed to instruct her about the mystery of the Incarnation, which was to be fulfilled in her. This he did + by foretelling the conception and birth, saying: "Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb," etc.; and by declaring the dignity + of the child conceived, saying: "He shall be great"; and further, by making known the mode of conception, when he said: "The + Holy Ghost shall come upon thee." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p8"> Thirdly, he purposed to lead her mind to consent. This he did by the instance of Elizabeth, and by the argument from Divine + omnipotence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To a humble mind nothing is more astonishing than to hear its own excellence. Now, wonder is most effective in drawing the + mind's attention. Therefore the angel, desirous of drawing the Virgin's attention to the hearing of so great a mystery, began + by praising her. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Ambrose says explicitly on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q30_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.34" target="asv"> Lk. 1:34, </a> that the Blessed Virgin did not doubt the angel's words. For he says: "Mary's answer is more temperate than the words of + the priest. She says: How shall this be? He replies: Whereby shall I know this? He denies that he believes, since he denies + that he knows this. She does not doubt fulfilment when she asks how it shall be done." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p11"> Augustine, however, seems to assert that she doubted. For he says (De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. li): "To Mary, in doubt + about the conception, the angel declares the possibility thereof." But such a doubt is one of wonder rather than of unbelief. + And so the angel adduces a proof, not as a cure for unbelief, but in order to remove her astonishment. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Ambrose says (Hexaemeron v): "For this reason had many barren women borne children, that the virginal birth might be credible." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p13"> The conception of the sterile Elizabeth is therefore adduced, not as a sufficient argument, but as a kind of figurative example.: + consequently in support of this instance, the convincing argument is added taken from the Divine omnipotence. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q30_A4-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q29_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q31" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q31-p0.1">OF THE MATTER FROM WHICH THE SAVIOUR'S BODY WAS CONCEIVED (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q31-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p2"> We have now to consider the Saviour's conception. First, as to the matter from which His body was conceived; secondly, as + to the author of His conception; thirdly, as to the manner and order of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p3"> Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p4"> (1) Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam?</p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p5"> (2) Whether it was derived from David?</p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p6"> (3) Of the genealogy of Christ which is given in the Gospels;</p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p7"> (4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be born of a woman?</p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p8"> (5) Whether His body was formed from the purest blood of the Virgin?</p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p9"> (6) Whether the flesh of Christ was in the patriarchs as to something signate?</p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p10"> (7) Whether the flesh of Christ in the patriarchs was subject to sin?</p> + <p id="TP_Q31-p11"> (8) Whether Christ paid tithes in the loins of Abraham?</p> + <div id="TP_Q31_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q31_A1-p0.1">Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's flesh was not derived from Adam. For the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.47" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:47</a>): "The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly." Now, the first man is Adam: and the second + man is Christ. Therefore Christ is not derived from Adam, but has an origin distinct from him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the conception of Christ should have been most miraculous. But it is a greater miracle to form man's body from the + slime of the earth, than from human matter derived from Adam. It seems therefore unfitting that Christ should take flesh from + Adam. Therefore the body of Christ should not have been formed from the mass of the human race derived from Adam, but of some + other matter. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by "one man sin entered into this world," i.e. by Adam, because in him all nations sinned originally, as is clear + from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.12" target="asv"> Rom. 5:12.</a> But if Christ's body was derived from Adam, He would have been in Adam originally when he sinned: therefore he would have + contracted original sin; which is unbecoming in His purity. Therefore the body of Christ was not formed of matter derived + from Adam. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.16" target="asv">Heb. 2:16</a>): "Nowhere doth He"---that is, the Son of God---"take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold." But + the seed of Abraham was derived from Adam. Therefore Christ's body was formed of matter derived from Adam. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ assumed human nature in order to cleanse it of corruption. But human nature did not need to be cleansed save in as + far as it was soiled in its tainted origin whereby it was descended from Adam. Therefore it was becoming that He should assume + flesh of matter derived from Adam, that the nature itself might be healed by the assumption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The second man, i.e. Christ, is said to be of heaven, not indeed as to the matter from which His body was formed, but either + as to the virtue whereby it was formed; or even as to His very Godhead. But as to matter, Christ's body was earthly, as Adam's + body was. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q31_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q29_A1.html">Q[29], A[1]</a>, ad 2) the mystery of Christ's Incarnation is miraculous, not as ordained to strengthen faith, but as an article of faith. + And therefore in the mystery of the Incarnation we do not seek that which is most miraculous, as in those miracles that are + wrought for the confirmation of faith' but what is most becoming to Divine wisdom, and most expedient to the salvation of + man, since this is what we seek + in all matters of faith. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p9"> It may also be said that in the mystery of the Incarnation the miracle is not only in reference to the matter of the conception, + but rather in respect of the manner of the conception and birth; inasmuch as a virgin conceived and gave birth to God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q31_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html">Q[15], A[1]</a>, ad 2), Christ's body was in Adam in respect of a bodily substance---that is to say, that the corporeal matter of Christ's + body was derived from Adam: but it was not there by reason of seminal virtue, because it was not conceived from the seed of + man. Thus it did not contract original sin, as others who are descended from Adam by man's seed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A1-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q31_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q31_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ took flesh of the seed of David?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not take flesh of the seed of David. For Matthew, in tracing the genealogy of Christ, brings + it down to Joseph. But Joseph was not Christ's father, as shown above ( + <a id="TP_Q31_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q28_A1.html">Q[28], A[1]</a>, ad 1,2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not descended from David. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.6" target="asv">Ex. 6</a>. Now Mary the Mother of Christ is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who was a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.5" target="asv"> Lk. 1:5,36.</a> Therefore, since David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.1" target="asv">Mat. 1</a>, it seems that Christ was not descended from David. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written of Jechonias ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.22.30" target="asv">Jer. 22:30</a>): "Write this man barren . . . for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall sit upon the throne of David." Whereas + of Christ it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.9.7" target="asv">Is. 9:7</a>): "He shall sit upon the throne of David." Therefore Christ was not of the seed of Jechonias: nor, consequently, of the family + of David, since Matthew traces the genealogy from David through Jechonias. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.3" target="asv">Rom. 1:3</a>): "Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ is said to have been the son especially of two of the patriarchs, Abraham and David, as is clear from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.1" target="asv"> Mat. 1:1.</a> There are many reasons for this. First to these especially was the promise made concerning Christ. For it was said to Abraham + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.22.18" target="asv">Gn. 22:18</a>): "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed": which words the Apostle expounds of Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.16" target="asv">Gal. 3:16</a>): "To Abraham were the + promises made and to his seed. He saith not, 'And to his seeds' as of many; but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ." + And to David it was said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Ps.131.11" target="asv">Ps. 131:11</a>): "Of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne." Wherefore the Jewish people, receiving Him with kingly honor, said + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.9" target="asv">Mat. 21:9</a>): "Hosanna to the Son of David." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p7"> A second reason is because Christ was to be king, prophet, and priest. Now Abraham was a priest; which is clear from the + Lord saying unto him ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.15.9" target="asv">Gn. 15:9</a>): "Take thee [Vulg.: 'Me'] a cow of three years old," etc. He was also a prophet, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.20.7" target="asv"> Gn. 20:7</a>: "He is a prophet; and he shall pray for thee." Lastly David was both king and prophet. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p8"> A third reason is because circumcision had its beginning in Abraham: while in David God's election was most clearly made + manifest, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.13.14" target="asv">1 Kings 13:14</a>: "The Lord hath sought Him a man according to His own heart." And consequently Christ is called in a most special way the + Son of both, in order to show that He came for the salvation both of the circumcised and of the elect among the Gentiles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Faustus the Manichean argued thus, in the desire to prove that Christ is not the Son of David, because He was not conceived + of Joseph, in whom Matthew's genealogy terminates. Augustine answered this argument thus (Contra Faust. xxii): "Since the + same evangelist affirms that Joseph was Mary's husband and that Christ's mother was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed + of Abraham, what must we believe, but that Mary was not a stranger to the family of + David: and that it is not without reason that she was called the wife of Joseph, by reason of the close alliance of their + hearts, although not mingled in the flesh; and that the genealogy is traced down to Joseph rather than to her by reason of + the dignity of the husband? So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family of David: because we believe the Scriptures, + which assert both that Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary was His Mother, not by sexual + intercourse but retaining her virginity." For as Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.18" target="asv"> Mat. 1:18</a>: "Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe: wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she was his kinswoman. Hence it was + that they were enrolled together at Bethlehem, as being descended from the same stock." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Gregory of Nazianzum answers this objection by saying that it happened by God's will, that the royal family was united to + the priestly race, so that Christ, who is both king and priest, should be born of both according to the flesh. Wherefore Aaron, + who was the first priest according to the Law, married a wife of the tribe of Juda, Elizabeth, daughter of Aminadab. It is + therefore possible that Elizabeth's father married a wife of the family of David, + through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of David, would be a cousin of Elizabeth. or conversely, and with + greater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary's father, who was of the family of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p11"> Again, it may be said with Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii) that if Joachim, Mary's father, was of the family of Aaron (as + the heretic Faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings), then we must believe that Joachim's mother, or else + his wife, was of the family of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way descended from David. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.25" target="asv"> Lk. 3:25, </a> this prophetical passage does not deny that a posterity will be born of the seed of Jechonias. And so Christ is of his seed. + Neither is the fact that Christ reigned contrary to prophecy, for He did not reign with worldly honor; since He declared: + "My kingdom is not of this world." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A2-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q31_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q31_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ's genealogy is suitably traced by the evangelists?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's genealogy is not suitably traced by the Evangelists. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.8" target="asv">Is. 53:8</a>): "Who shall declare His generation?" Therefore Christ's genealogy should not have been set down. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one man cannot possibly have two fathers. But Matthew says that "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary": whereas + Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli. Therefore they contradict one another. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there seem to be divergencies between them on several points. For Matthew, at the commencement of his book, beginning + from Abraham and coming down to Joseph, enumerates forty-two generations. Whereas Luke sets down Christ's genealogy after + His Baptism, and beginning from Christ traces the series of generations back to God, counting in all seventy-seven generations, + the first and last included. It seems therefore that their accounts of Christ's + genealogy do not agree. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">4 Kings 8:24</a>) that Joram begot Ochozias, who was succeeded by his son Joas: who was succeeded by his son Amasius: after whom reigned his + son Azarias, called Ozias; who was succeeded by his son Joathan. But Matthew says that Joram begot Ozias. Therefore it seems + that his account of Christ's genealogy is unsuitable, since he omits three kings in the middle thereof. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, all those who are mentioned in Christ's genealogy had both a father and a mother, and many of them had brothers + also. Now in Christ's genealogy Matthew mentions only three mothers---namely, Thamar, Ruth, and the wife of Urias. He also + mentions the brothers of Judas and Jechonias, and also Phares and Zara. But Luke mentions none of these. Therefore the evangelists + seem to have described the genealogy of Christ in an unsuitable manner. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The authority of Scripture suffices. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.3.16" target="asv">2 Tim. 3:16</a>), "All Holy Scripture is inspired of God [Vulg.: 'All scripture inspired of God is profitable'], etc. Now what is done by + God is done in perfect order, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv">Rom. 13:1</a>: "Those that are of God are ordained [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God']. Therefore Christ's genealogy is set + down by the evangelists in a suitable order. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1" target="asv">Mat. 1</a>, Isaias speaks of the generation of Christ's Godhead. Whereas Matthew relates the generation of Christ in His humanity; not + indeed by explaining the manner of the Incarnation, which is also unspeakable; but by enumerating Christ's forefathers from + whom He was descended according to the flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Various answers have been made by certain writers to this objection which was raised by Julian the Apostate; for some, as + Gregory of Nazianzum, say that the people mentioned by the two evangelists are the same, but under different names, as though + they each had two. But this will not stand: because Matthew mentions one of David's sons---namely, Solomon; whereas Luke mentions + another---namely, Nathan, who according to the history of the kings + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiKgdms.5.14" target="asv">2 Kings 5:14</a>) were clearly brothers. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p11"> Wherefore others said that Matthew gave the true genealogy of Christ: while Luke gave the supposititious genealogy; hence + he began: "Being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph." For among the Jews there were some who believed that, on account + of the crimes of the kings of Juda, Christ would be born of the family of David, not through the kings, but through some other + line of private individuals. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p12"> Others again have supposed that Matthew gave the forefathers according to the flesh: whereas Luke gave these according to + the spirit, that is, righteous men, who are called (Christ's) forefathers by likeness of virtue. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p13"> But an answer is given in the Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. [*Part i, qu. lvi; part 2, qu. vi] to the effect that we are not to + understand that Joseph is said by Luke to be the son of Heli: but that at the time of Christ, Heli and Joseph were differently + descended from David. Hence Christ is said to have been supposed to be the son of Joseph, and also to have been the son of + Heli as though (the Evangelist) were to say that Christ, from the fact that He was the son of Joseph, could be + called the son of Heli and of all those who were descended from David; as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.5" target="asv">Rom. 9:5</a>): "Of whom" (viz. the Jews) "is Christ according to the flesh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p14"> Augustine again gives three solutions (De Qq. Evang. ii), saying: "There are three motives by one or other of which the evangelist + was guided. For either one evangelist mentions Joseph's father of whom he was begotten; whilst the other gives either his + maternal grandfather or some other of his later forefathers; or one was Joseph's natural father: the other is father by adoption. + Or, according to the Jewish custom, one of those having died without children, a near relation of + his married his wife, the son born of the latter union being reckoned as the son of the former": which is a kind of legal + adoption, as Augustine himself says (De Consensu Evang. ii, Cf. Retract. ii). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p15"> This last motive is the truest: Jerome also gives it commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.16" target="asv">Mat. 1:16</a>; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history (I, vii), says that it is given by Africanus the historian. For these writers + says that Mathan and Melchi, at different times, each begot a son of one and the same wife, named Estha. For Mathan, who traced + his descent through Solomon, had married her first, and died, leaving one son, whose name was Jacob: and after his death, + as the law did not forbid his + widow to remarry, Melchi, who traced his descent through Mathan, being of the same tribe though not of the same family as + Mathan, married his widow, who bore him a son, called Heli; so that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers born to different + fathers. Now one of these, Jacob, on his brother Heli dying without issue, married the latter's widow, according to the prescription + of the law, of whom he had a son, Joseph, who by nature was his own son, but by law was accounted the son of Heli. + Wherefore Matthew says "Jacob begot Joseph": whereas Luke, who was giving the legal genealogy, speaks of no one as begetting. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p16"> And although Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) says that the Blessed Virgin Mary was connected with Joseph in as far as Heli was + accounted as his father, for he says that she was descended from Melchi: yet must we also believe that she was in some way + descended from Solomon through those patriarchs enumerated by Matthew, who is said to have set down Christ's genealogy according + to the flesh; and all the more since Ambrose states that Christ was of the seed of Jechonias. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii) "Matthew purposed to delineate the royal personality of Christ; Luke the priestly + personality: so that in Matthew's genealogy is signified the assumption of our sins by our Lord Jesus Christ": inasmuch as + by his carnal origin "He assumed 'the likeness of sinful flesh.' But in Luke's genealogy the washing away of our sins is signified," + which is effected by Christ's sacrifice. "For which reason Matthew + traces the generations downwards, Luke upwards." For the same reason too "Matthew descends from David through Solomon, in + whose mother David sinned; whereas Luke ascends to David through Nathan, through whose namesake, the prophet, God expiated + his sin." And hence it is also that, because "Matthew wished to signify that Christ had condescended to our mortal nature, + he set down the genealogy of Christ at the very outset of his Gospel, beginning with Abraham and descending to Joseph and + the birth + of Christ Himself. Luke, on the contrary, sets forth Christ's genealogy not at the outset, but after Christ's Baptism, and + not in the descending but in the ascending order: as though giving prominence to the office of the priest in expiating our + sins, to which John bore witness, saying: 'Behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.' And in the ascending order, he + passes Abraham and continues up to God, to whom we are reconciled by cleansing and expiating. With reason too he follows the + origin of adoption; because by adoption we become children of God: whereas by carnal generation the Son of God became the + Son of Man. Moreover he shows sufficiently that he does not say that Joseph was the son of Heli as though begotten by him, + but because he was adopted by him, since he says that Adam was the son of God, inasmuch as he was created by God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p18"> Again, the number forty pertains to the time of our present life: because of the four parts of the world in which we pass + this mortal life under the rule of Christ. And forty is the product of four multiplied by ten: while ten is the sum of the + numbers from one to four. The number ten may also refer to the decalogue; and the number four to the present life; or again + to the four Gospels, according to which Christ reigns in us. And thus "Matthew, putting forward the royal + personality of Christ, enumerates forty persons not counting Him" (cf. Augustine, De Consensu Evang. ii). But this is to be + taken on the supposition that it be the same Jechonias at the end of the second, and at the commencement of the third series + of fourteen, as Augustine understands it. According to him this was done in order to signify "that under Jechonias there was + a certain defection to strange nations during the Babylonian captivity; which also foreshadowed the fact that Christ would + pass from the Jews to the Gentiles." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p19"> On the other hand, Jerome (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p19.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.12" target="asv"> Mat. 1:12-15</a>) says that there were two Joachims---that is, Jechonias, father and son: both of whom are mentioned in Christ's genealogy, + so as to make clear the distinction of the generations, which the evangelist divides into three series of fourteen; which + amounts in all to forty-two persons. Which number may also be applied to the Holy Church: for it is the product of six, which + signifies the labor of the present life, and + seven, which signifies the rest of the life to come: for six times seven are forty-two. The number fourteen, which is the + sum of ten and four, can also be given the same signification as that given to the number forty, which is the product of the + same numbers by multiplication. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p20"> But the number used by Luke in Christ's genealogy signifies the generality of sins. "For the number ten is shown in the ten + precepts of the Law to be the number of righteousness. Now, to sin is to go beyond the restriction of the Law. And eleven + is the number beyond ten." And seven signifies universality: because "universal time is involved in seven days." Now seven + times eleven are seventy-seven: so that this number signifies the generality of sins which are taken away by + Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p21"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p21.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.8" target="asv">Mat. 1:8</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p21.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.11" target="asv">11</a>: "Because Joram allied himself with the family of the most wicked Jezabel, therefore his memory is omitted down to the third + generation, lest it should be inserted among the holy predecessors of the Nativity." Hence as Chrysostom [*Cf. Opus Imperf. + in Matth. Hom. i, falsely ascribed to Chrysostom] says: "Just as great was the blessing conferred on Jehu, who wrought vengeance + on the house of Achab and + Jezabel, so also great was the curse on the house of Joram, through the wicked daughter of Achab and Jezabel, so that until + the fourth generation his posterity is cut off from the number of kings, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p21.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.5" target="asv"> Ex. 20:5</a>: I shall visit [Vulg.: 'Visiting'] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p22"> It must also be observed that there were other kings who sinned and are mentioned in Christ's genealogy: but their impiety + was not continuous. For, as it is stated in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. lxxxv: "Solomon through his father's merits + is included in the series of kings; and Roboam . . . through the merits of Asa," who was son of his (Roboam's) son, Abiam. + "But the impiety of those three [*i.e. Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias, of whom St. Augustine asks in this + question lxxxv, why they were omitted by St. Matthew] was continuous." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p23"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.3" target="asv"> Mat. 1:3</a>: "None of the holy women are mentioned in the Saviour's genealogy, but only those whom Scripture censures, so that He who + came for the sake of sinners, by being born of sinners, might blot out all sin." Thus Thamar is mentioned, who is censured + for her sin with her father-in-law; Rahab who was a whore; Ruth who was a foreigner; and Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, who + was an adulteress. The last, however, is + not mentioned by name, but is designated through her husband; both on account of his sin, for he was cognizant of the adultery + and murder; and further in order that, by mentioning the husband by name, David's sin might be recalled. And because Luke + purposes to delineate Christ as the expiator of our sins, he makes no mention of these women. But he does mention Juda's brethren, + in order to show that they belong to God's people: whereas Ismael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, Jacob's brother, + were cut off from God's people, and for this reason are not mentioned in Christ's genealogy. Another motive was to show the + emptiness of pride of birth: for many of Juda's brethren were born of hand-maidens, and yet all were patriarchs and heads + of tribes. Phares and Zara are mentioned together, because, as Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A3-p23.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.23" target="asv"> Lk. 3:23, </a> "they are the type of the twofold life of man: one, according to the Law," signified by Zara; "the other by Faith," of which + Phares is the + type. The brethren of Jechonias are included, because they all reigned at various times: which was not the case with other + kings: or, again, because they were alike in wickedness and misfortune. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p24"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A3-p25"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q31_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q31_A4-p0.1">Whether the matter of Christ's body should have been taken from a woman?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should not have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble than + the female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that which is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that + He should not have taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve was formed from the rib of a man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever is conceived of a woman is shut up in her womb. But it ill becomes God, Who fills heaven and earth, as is + written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.23.24" target="asv">Jer. 23:24</a>, to be shut up within the narrow limits of the womb. Therefore it seems that He should not have been conceived of a woman. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, those who are conceived of a woman contract a certain uncleanness: as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Job.25.4" target="asv">Job 25:4</a>): "Can man be justified compared with God? Or he that is born of a woman appear clean?" But it was unbecoming that any uncleanness + should be in Christ: for He is the Wisdom of God, of whom it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A4-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.7.25" target="asv">Wis. 7:25</a>) that "no defiled thing cometh into her." Therefore it does not seem right that He should have taken + flesh from a woman. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv">Gal. 4:4</a>): "God sent His Son, made of a woman." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Although the Son of God could have taken flesh from whatever matter He willed, it was nevertheless most becoming that He + should take flesh from a woman. First because in this way the entire human nature was ennobled. Hence Augustine says (QQ. + lxxxiii, qu. 11): "It was suitable that man's liberation should be made manifest in both sexes. Consequently, since it behooved + a man, being of the nobler sex, to assume, it was becoming that the liberation of the + female sex should be manifested in that man being born of a woman." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p7"> Secondly, because thus the truth of the Incarnation is made evident. Wherefore Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): "Thou shalt + find in Christ many things both natural, and supernatural. In accordance with nature He was within the womb," viz. of a woman's + body: "but it was above nature that a virgin should conceive and give birth: that thou mightest believe that He was God, who + was renewing nature; and that He was man who, according to nature, was being born of a man." And Augustine + says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii): "If Almighty God had created a man formed otherwise than in a mother's womb, and had suddenly + produced him to sight . . . would He not have strengthened an erroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe + that He had become a true man? And whilst He is doing all things wondrously, would He have taken away that which He accomplished + in mercy? But now, He, the mediator between God and man, has so shown Himself, that, uniting both natures in the unity of + one Person, He has given a dignity to ordinary by extraordinary things, and tempered the extraordinary by the ordinary." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p8"> Thirdly, because in this fashion the begetting of man is accomplished in every variety of manner. For the first man was made + from the "slime of the earth," without the concurrence of man or woman: Eve was made of man but not of woman: and other men + are made from both man and woman. So that this fourth manner remained as it were proper to Christ, that He should be made + of a woman without the concurrence of a man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason He took human nature in the male sex. But lest the female + sex should be despised, it was fitting that He should take flesh of a woman. Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "Men, + despise not yourselves: the Son of God became a man: despise not yourselves, women; the Son of God was born of a woman." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Augustine thus (Contra Faust. xxiii) replies to Faustus, who urged this objection; "By no means," says he, "does the Catholic + Faith, which believes that Christ the Son of God was born of a virgin, according to the flesh, suppose that the same Son of + God was so shut up in His Mother's womb, as to cease to be elsewhere, as though He no longer continued to govern heaven and + earth, and as though He had withdrawn Himself from the Father. But you, + Manicheans, being of a mind that admits of nought but material images, are utterly unable to grasp these things." For, as + he again says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii), "it belongs to the sense of man to form conceptions only through tangible bodies, none + of which can be entire everywhere, because they must of necessity be diffused through their innumerable parts in various places + . . . Far otherwise is the nature of the soul from that of the body: how much more the nature of God, the Creator of soul + and body! . . . He is able to be entire everywhere, and to be contained in no place. He is able to come without moving from + the place where He was; and to go without leaving the spot whence He came." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There is no uncleanness in the conception of man from a woman, as far as this is the work of God: wherefore it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.15" target="asv">Acts 10:15</a>): "That which God hath cleansed do not thou call common," i.e. unclean. There is, however, a certain uncleanness therein, + resulting from sin, as far as lustful desire accompanies conception by sexual union. But this was not the case with Christ, + as shown above ( + <a id="TP_Q31_A4-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q28_A1.html">Q[28], A[1]</a>). But if there were + any uncleanness therein, the Word of God would not have been sullied thereby, for He is utterly unchangeable. Wherefore Augustine + says (Contra Quinque Haereses v): "God saith, the Creator of man: What is it that troubles thee in My Birth? I was not conceived + by lustful desire. I made Myself a mother of whom to be born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the drain, and yet + not be defiled: much more can the Splendor of eternal light cleanse whatever It shines upon, but Itself cannot be + sullied." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A4-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q31_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q31_A5-p0.1">Whether the flesh of Christ was conceived of the Virgin's purest blood?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the flesh of Christ was not conceived of the Virgin's purest blood: For it is said in the collect (Feast + of the Annunciation) that God "willed that His Word should take flesh from a Virgin." But flesh differs from blood. Therefore + Christ's body was not taken from the Virgin's blood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as the woman was miraculously formed from the man, so Christ's body was formed miraculously from the Virgin. But + the woman is not said to have been formed from the man's blood, but rather from his flesh and bones, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.23" target="asv"> Gn. 2:23</a>: "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." It seems therefore that neither should Christ's body have been formed + from the Virgin's blood, but from her flesh and bones. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's body was of the same species as other men's bodies. But other men's bodies are not formed from the purest + blood but from the semen and the menstrual blood. Therefore it seems that neither was Christ's body conceived of the purest + blood of the Virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that "the Son of God, from the Virgin's purest blood, formed Himself flesh, animated with + a rational soul." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q31_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q31_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, in Christ's conception His being born of a woman was in accordance with the laws of nature, but that He was born of a virgin + was above the laws of nature. Now, such is the law of nature that in the generation of an animal the female supplies the matter, + while the male is the active principle of generation; as the Philosopher proves (De Gener. Animal. i). But a woman who conceives + of a man is not a virgin. And + consequently it belongs to the supernatural mode of Christ's generation, that the active principle of generation was the supernatural + power of God: but it belongs to the natural mode of His generation, that the matter from which His body was conceived is similar + to the matter which other women supply for the conception of their offspring. Now, this matter, according to the Philosopher + (De Gener. Animal.), is the woman's blood, not any of her blood, but brought to a more perfect stage of + secretion by the mother's generative power, so as to be apt for conception. And therefore of such matter was Christ's body + conceived. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Since the Blessed Virgin was of the same nature as other women, it follows that she had flesh and bones of the same nature + as theirs. Now, flesh and bones in other women are actual parts of the body, the integrity of which results therefrom: and + consequently they cannot be taken from the body without its being corrupted or diminished. But as Christ came to heal what + was corrupt, it was not fitting that He should bring corruption or diminution to the + integrity of His Mother. Therefore it was becoming that Christ's body should be formed not from the flesh or bones of the + Virgin, but from her blood, which as yet is not actually a part, but is potentially the whole, as stated in De Gener. Animal. + i. Hence He is said to have taken flesh from the Virgin, not that the matter from which His body was formed was actual flesh, + but blood, which is flesh potentially. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated in the + <a id="TP_Q31_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q92_A3.html">FP, Q[92], A[3]</a>, ad 2, Adam, through being established as a kind of principle of human nature, had in his body a certain proportion of flesh + and bone, which belonged to him, not as an integral part of his personality, but in regard to his state as a principle of + human nature. And from this was the woman formed, without detriment to the man. But in the Virgin's body there was nothing + of this sort, from which + Christ's body could be formed without detriment to His Mother's body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Woman's semen is not apt for generation, but is something imperfect in the seminal order, which, on account of the imperfection + of the female power, it has not been possible to bring to complete seminal perfection. Consequently this semen is not the + necessary matter of conception; as the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal. i): wherefore there was none such in Christ's conception: + all the more since, though it is imperfect in the seminal order, a + certain concupiscence accompanies its emission, as also that of the male semen: whereas in that virginal conception there + could be no concupiscence. Wherefore Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ's body was not conceived "seminally." + But the menstrual blood, the flow of which is subject to monthly periods, has a certain natural impurity of corruption: like + other superfluities, which nature does not heed, and therefore expels. Of such menstrual blood infected with corruption and + repudiated by nature, the conception is not formed; but from a certain secretion of the pure blood which by a process of elimination + is prepared for conception, being, as it were, more pure and more perfect than the rest of the blood. Nevertheless, it is + tainted with the impurity of lust in the conception of other men: inasmuch as by sexual intercourse this blood is drawn to + a place apt for conception. This, however, did not take place in Christ's conception: because this blood was brought + together in the Virgin's womb and fashioned into a child by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Therefore is Christ's body said + to be "formed of the most chaste and purest blood of the Virgin." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q31_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q31_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ's body was in Adam and the other patriarchs, as to something signate?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's body was in Adam and the patriarchs as to something signate. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. + x) that the flesh of Christ was in Adam and Abraham "by way of a bodily substance." But bodily substance is something signate. + Therefore Christ's flesh was in Adam, Abraham, and the other patriarchs, according to something signate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.3" target="asv">Rom. 1:3</a>) that Christ "was made . . . of the seed of David according to the flesh." But the seed of David was something signate in + him. Therefore Christ was in David, according to something signate, and for the same reason in the other patriarchs. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the human race is Christ's kindred, inasmuch as He took flesh therefrom. But if that flesh were not something signate + in Adam, the human race, which is descended from Adam, would seem to have no kindred with Christ: but rather with those other + things from which the matter of His flesh was taken. Therefore it seems that Christ's flesh was in Adam and the other patriarchs + according to something signate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that in whatever way Christ was in Adam and Abraham, other men were there also; but not conversely. + But other men were not in Adam and Abraham by way of some signate matter, but only according to origin, as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q31_A6-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q119_A1.html">FP, Q[119] , A[1]</a>, A[2], ad 4. Therefore neither was Christ in Adam and Abraham according to something signate; and, for the same reason, neither + was He in the other patriarchs. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[5], ad 1), the matter of Christ's body was not the flesh and bones of the Blessed Virgin, nor anything + that was actually a part of her body, but her blood which was her flesh potentially. Now, whatever was in the Blessed Virgin, + as received from her parents, was actually a part of her body. Consequently that which the Blessed Virgin received from her + parents was not the matter of Christ's body. Therefore we must say that Christ's body was + not in Adam and the other patriarchs according to something signate, in the sense that some part of Adam's or of anyone else's + body could be singled out and designated as the very matter from which Christ's body was to be formed: but it was there according + to origin, just as was the flesh of other men. For Christ's body is related to Adam and the other patriarchs through the medium + of His Mother's body. Consequently Christ's body was in the patriarchs, in no other way than was His Mother's + body, which was not in the patriarchs according to signate matter: as neither were the bodies of other men, as stated in the + + <a id="TP_Q31_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q119_A1.html">FP, Q[119], A[1]</a>, A[2], ad 4. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The expression "Christ was in Adam according to bodily substance," does not mean that Christ's body was a bodily substance + in Adam: but that the bodily substance of Christ's body, i.e. the matter which He took from the Virgin, was in Adam as in + its active principle, but not as in its material principle: in other words, by the generative power of Adam and his descendants + down to the Blessed Virgin, this matter was prepared for Christ's conception. But + this matter was not fashioned into Christ's body by the seminal power derived from Adam. Therefore Christ is said to have + been in Adam by way of origin, according to bodily substance: but not according to seminal virtue. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although Christ's body was not in Adam and the other patriarchs, according to seminal virtue, yet the Blessed Virgin's body + was thus in them, through her being conceived from the seed of a man. For this reason, through the medium of the Blessed Virgin, + Christ is said to be of the seed of David, according to the flesh, by way of origin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ and the human race are kindred, through the likeness of species. Now, specific likeness results not from remote but + from proximate matter, and from the active principle which begets its like in species. Thus, then, the kinship of Christ and + the human race is sufficiently preserved by His body being formed from the Virgin's blood, derived in its origin from Adam + and the other patriarchs. Nor is this kinship affected by the matter whence this + blood is taken, as neither is it in the generation of other men, as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q31_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q119_A2.html">FP, Q[119], A[2]</a>, ad 3. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q31_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q31_A7-p0.1">Whether Christ's flesh in the patriarchs was infected by sin?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's flesh was not infected by sin in the patriarchs. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.7.25" target="asv">Wis. 7:25</a>) that "no defiled thing cometh into" Divine Wisdom. But Christ is the Wisdom of God according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A7-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24</a>. Therefore Christ's flesh was never defiled by sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ "assumed the first-fruits of our nature." But in the primitive state + human flesh was not infected by sin. Therefore Christ's flesh was not infected either in Adam or in the other patriarchs. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that "human nature ever had, together with the wound, the balm with which to heal + it." But that which is infected cannot heal a wound; rather does it need to be healed itself. Therefore in human nature there + was ever something preserved from infection, from which afterwards Christ's body was formed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Christ's body is not related to Adam and the other patriarchs, save through the medium of the Blessed Virgin's body, of whom + He took flesh. But the body of the Blessed Virgin was wholly conceived in original sin, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q31_A7-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A3.html">Q[14], A[3]</a>, ad 1), and thus, as far as it was in the patriarchs, it was subject to sin. Therefore the flesh of Christ, as far as it + was in the patriarchs, was subject to sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> When we say that Christ or His flesh was in Adam and the other patriarchs, we compare Him, or His flesh, to Adam and the + other patriarchs. Now, it is manifest that the condition of the patriarchs differed from that of Christ: for the patriarchs + were subject to sin, whereas Christ was absolutely free from sin. Consequently a twofold error may occur on this point. First, + by attributing to Christ, or to His flesh, that condition which was in the patriarchs; by + saying, for instance, that Christ sinned in Adam, since after some fashion He was in him. But this is false; because Christ + was not in Adam in such a way that Adam's sin belonged to Christ: forasmuch as He is not descended from him according to the + law of concupiscence, or according to seminal virtue; as stated above (A[1], ad 3, A[6], ad 1; + <a id="TP_Q31_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html"> Q[15], A[1]</a>, ad 2). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p7"> Secondly, error may occur by attributing the condition of Christ or of His flesh to that which was actually in the patriarchs: + by saying, for instance, that, because Christ's flesh, as existing in Christ, was not subject to sin, therefore in Adam also + and in the patriarchs there was some part of his body that was not subject to sin, and from which afterwards Christ's body + was formed; as some indeed held. For this is quite impossible. First, because Christ's flesh was not in Adam + and in the other patriarchs, according to something signate, distinguishable from the rest of his flesh, as pure from impure; + as already stated (A[6] ). Secondly, because since human flesh is infected by sin, through being conceived in lust, just as + the entire flesh of a man is conceived through lust, so also is it entirely defiled by sin. Consequently we must say that + the entire flesh of the patriarchs was subjected to sin, nor was there anything in them that was free from sin, and from which + afterwards Christ's body could be formed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ did not assume the flesh of the human race subject to sin, but cleansed from all infection of sin. Thus it is that + "no defiled thing cometh into the Wisdom of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our nature, as to the likeness of condition; forasmuch as He assumed flesh + not infected by sin, like unto the flesh of man before sin. But this is not to be understood to imply a continuation of that + primitive purity, as though the flesh of innocent man was preserved in its freedom from sin until the formation of Christ's + body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Before Christ, there was actually in human nature a wound, i.e. the infection of original sin. But the balm to heal the wound + was not there actually, but only by a certain virtue of origin, forasmuch as from those patriarchs the flesh of Christ was + to be propagated. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A7-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q31_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q31_A8-p0.1">Whether Christ paid tithes in Abraham's loins?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ "paid tithes" in Abraham's loins. For the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A8-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.6" target="asv">Heb. 7:6-9</a>) that Levi, the great-grandson of Abraham, "paid tithes in Abraham," because, when the latter paid tithes to Melchisedech, + "he was yet in his loins." In like manner Christ was in Abraham's loins when the latter paid tithes. Therefore Christ Himself + also paid tithes in Abraham. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ is of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh which He received from His Mother. But His Mother paid tithes + in Abraham. Therefore for a like reason did Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, "in Abraham tithe was levied on that which needed healing," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x). But all flesh subject + to sin needed healing. Since therefore Christ's flesh was the subject of sin, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q31_A8-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q31_A7.html">(A[7])</a>, it seems that Christ's flesh paid tithes in Abraham. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, this does not seem to be at all derogatory to Christ's dignity. For the fact that the father of a bishop pays tithes + to a priest does not hinder his son, the bishop, from being of higher rank than an ordinary priest. Consequently, although + we may say that Christ paid tithes when Abraham paid them to Melchisedech, it does not follow that Christ was not greater + than Melchisedech. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that "Christ did not pay tithes there," i.e. in Abraham, "for His flesh derived from him, + not the heat of the wound, but the matter of the antidote." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It behooves us to say that the sense of the passage quoted from the Apostle is that Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham. + For the Apostle proves that the priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech is greater than the Levitical priesthood, + from the fact that Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech, while Levi, from whom the legal priesthood was derived, was yet in + his loins. Now, if Christ had also paid tithes in Abraham, His priesthood would not have been + according to the order of Melchisedech, but of a lower order. Consequently we must say that Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham's + loins, as Levi did. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p8"> For since he who pays a tithe keeps nine parts to himself, and surrenders the tenth to another, inasmuch as the number ten + is the sign of perfection, as being, in a sort, the terminus of all numbers which mount from one to ten, it follows that he + who pays a tithe bears witness to his own imperfection and to the perfection of another. Now, to sin is due the imperfection + of the human race, which needs to be perfected by Him who cleanses from sin. But to heal from sin belongs to + Christ alone, for He is the "Lamb that taketh away the sin of the world" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A8-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.29" target="asv">Jn. 1:29</a>), whose figure was Melchisedech, as the Apostle proves ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q31_A8-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.7" target="asv">Heb. 7</a>). Therefore by giving tithes to Melchisedech, Abraham foreshadowed that he, as being conceived in sin, and all who were to + be his descendants in contracting original sin, needed that healing which is through Christ. And Isaac, Jacob, and Levi, and + all the others were in Abraham in such a way so as to be descended from him, not + only as to bodily substance, but also as to seminal virtue, by which original sin is transmitted. Consequently, they all paid + tithes in Abraham, i.e. foreshadowed as needing to be healed by Christ. And Christ alone was in Abraham in such a manner as + to descend from him, not by seminal virtue, but according to bodily substance. Therefore He was not in Abraham so as to need + to be healed, but rather "as the balm with which the wound was to be healed." Therefore He did not pay tithes in Abraham's + loins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p9"> Thus the answer to the first objection is made manifest.</p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Because the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, she was in Abraham as needing to be healed. Therefore she paid + tithes in him, as descending from him according to seminal virtue. But this is not true of Christ's body, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's flesh is said to have been subject to sin, according as it was in the patriarchs, by reason of the condition in + which it was in His forefathers, who paid the tithes: but not by reason of its condition as actually in Christ, who did not + pay the tithes. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The levitical priesthood was handed down through carnal origin: wherefore it was not less in Abraham than in Levi. Consequently, + since Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech as to one greater than he, it follows that the priesthood of Melchisedech, inasmuch + as he was a figure of Christ, was greater than that of Levi. But the priesthood of Christ does not result from carnal origin, + but from spiritual grace. Therefore it is possible that a father pay + tithes to a priest, as the less to the greater, and yet his son, if he be a bishop, is greater than that priest, not through + carnal origin, but through the spiritual grace which he has received from Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q31_A8-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q30_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q32" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q32-p0.1">OF THE ACTIVE PRINCIPLE IN CHRIST'S CONCEPTION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q32-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q32-p2"> We shall now consider the active principle in Christ's conception: concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q32-p3"> (1) Whether the Holy Ghost was the active principle of Christ's conception?</p> + <p id="TP_Q32-p4"> (2) Whether it can be said that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost?</p> + <p id="TP_Q32-p5"> (3) Whether it can be said that the Holy Ghost is Christ's father according to the flesh?</p> + <p id="TP_Q32-p6"> (4) Whether the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in Christ's conception?</p> + <div id="TP_Q32_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q32_A1-p0.1">Whether the accomplishment of Christ's conception should be attributed to the Holy Ghost?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the accomplishment of Christ's conception should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost, because. as Augustine + says (De Trin. i), "The works of the Trinity are indivisible, just as the Essence of the Trinity is indivisible." But the + accomplishment of Christ's conception was the work of God. Therefore it seems that it should not be attributed to the Holy + Ghost any more than to the Father or the Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv">Gal. 4:4</a>): "When the fulness of time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman"; which words Augustine expounds by saying (De Trin. + iv): "Sent, in so far as made of a woman." But the sending of the Son is especially attributed to the Father, as stated in + the + <a id="TP_Q32_A1-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q43_A8.html">FP, Q[43], A[8]</a>. Therefore His conception also, by reason of which He was "made of a woman," should be attributed principally to + the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.9.1" target="asv">Prov. 9:1</a>): "Wisdom hath built herself a house." Now, Christ is Himself the Wisdom of God; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24</a>: "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." And the house of this Wisdom is Christ's body, which is also called His + temple, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p4.3" href="./asv.html#John.2.21" target="asv"> Jn. 2:21</a>: "But He spoke of the temple of His body." Therefore it seems that the accomplishment of Christ's conception should be attributed + principally to the Son, and not, therefore, to the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.35" target="asv">Lk. 1:35</a>): "The Holy Ghost shall come upon Thee." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The whole Trinity effected the conception of Christ's body: nevertheless, this is attributed to the Holy Ghost, for three + reasons. First, because this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, considered on the part of God. For the Holy Ghost + is the love of Father and Son, as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q32_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q37_A1.html">FP, Q[37], A[1]</a>. Now, that the Son of God took to Himself flesh from the Virgin's womb was due to the exceeding love of God: wherefore it + is + said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.3.16" target="asv">Jn. 3:16</a>): "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p7"> Secondly, this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, on the part of the nature assumed. Because we are thus given + to understand that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of Person, not by reason of its merits, but through + grace alone; which is attributed to the Holy Ghost, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.12.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 12:4</a>: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." Wherefore Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): "The manner in which + Christ was + born of the Holy Ghost . . . suggests to us the grace of God, whereby man, without any merits going before, in the very beginning + of his nature when he began to exist was joined to God the Word, into so great unity of Person, that He Himself should be + the Son of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p8"> Thirdly, because this is befitting the term of the Incarnation. For the term of the Incarnation was that that man, who was + being conceived, should be the Holy one and the Son of God. Now, both of these are attributed to the Holy Ghost. For by Him + men are made to be sons of God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.6" target="asv"> Gal. 4:6</a>: "Because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your [Vulg.: 'our'] hearts, crying: Abba, Father." Again, + He is the "Spirit of sanctification," + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.4" target="asv"> Rom. 1:4.</a> Therefore, just as other men are sanctified spiritually by the Holy Ghost; so as to be the adopted sons of God, so was Christ + conceived in sanctity by the Holy Ghost, so as to be the natural Son of God. Hence, according to a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.4" target="asv"> Rom. 1:4, </a> the words, "Who was predestinated the Son of God, in power," are explained by what immediately follows: "According to the + Spirit of sanctification, i.e. through being conceived of the Holy + Ghost." And the Angel of the Annunciation himself, after saying, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," draws the conclusion: + "Therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The work of the conception is indeed common to the whole Trinity; yet in some way it is attributed to each of the Persons. + For to the Father is attributed authority in regard to the Person of the Son, who by this conception took to Himself (human + nature). The taking itself (of human nature) is attributed to the Son: but the formation of the body taken by the Son is attributed + to the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.6" target="asv"> Gal. 4:6</a>: "God sent the Spirit of His Son." For just as the power of the soul which is in the semen, through the spirit enclosed therein, + fashions the body in the generation of other men, so the Power of God, which is the Son Himself, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24</a>: "Christ, the Power of God," through the Holy Ghost formed the body which He assumed. This is also shown by the words of + the angel: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," as it were, in order to prepare and fashion + the matter of Christ's body; "and the Power of the Most High," i.e. Christ, "shall overshadow thee---that is to say, the incorporeal + Light of the Godhead shall in thee take the corporeal substance of human nature: for a shadow is formed by light and body," + as Gregory says (Moral. xviii). The "Most High" is the Father, whose Power is the Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The mission refers to the Person assuming, who is sent by the Father; but the conception refers to the body assumed, which + is formed by the operation of the Holy Ghost. And therefore, though mission and conception are in the same subject; since + they differ in our consideration of them, mission is attributed to the Father, but the accomplishment of the conception to + the Holy Ghost; whereas the assumption of flesh is attributed to the Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. 52): "This may be understood in two ways. For, first, Christ's house is the + Church, which He built with His blood. Secondly, His body may be called His house, just as it is called His temple . . . and + what is done by the Holy Ghost is done by the Son of God, because Theirs is one Nature and one Will." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A1-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q32_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q32_A2-p0.1">Whether it should be said that Christ was conceived of [de] the Holy Ghost?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that we should not say that Christ was conceived of [de] the Holy Ghost. Because on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.36" target="asv"> Rom. 11:36</a>: "For of Him [ex ipso] and by Him, and in Him, are all things," the gloss of Augustine says: "Notice that he does not say, + 'of Him' [de ipso], but 'of Him' [ex ipso]. For of Him [ex ipso], are heaven and earth, since He made them: but not of Him + [de ipso], since they are not made of His substance." But the Holy Ghost did not form + Christ's body of [de] His own substance. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of [de] the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the active principle of [de] which something is conceived is as the seed in generation. But the Holy Ghost did not + take the place of seed in Christ's conception. For Jerome says (Expos. Cathol. Fidei) [*Written by Pelagius]: "We do not say, + as some wicked wretches hold, that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed: but we say that Christ's body was wrought," i.e. + formed, "by the power and might of the Creator." Therefore we should not say that Christ's + body was conceived of [de] the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no one thing is made of two, except they be in some way mingled. But Christ's body was formed of [de] the Virgin + Mary. If therefore we say that Christ was conceived of [de] the Holy Ghost, it seems that a mingling took place of the Holy + Ghost with the matter supplied by the Virgin: and this is clearly false. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived + of [de] the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.18" target="asv">Mat. 1:18</a>): "Before they came together, she was found with child, of [de] the Holy Ghost." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Conception is not attributed to Christ's body alone, but also to Christ Himself by reason of His body. Now, in the Holy Ghost + we may observe a twofold habitude to Christ. For to the Son of God Himself, who is said to have been conceived, He has a habitude + of consubstantiality: while to His body He has the habitude of efficient cause. And this preposition of [de] signifies both + habitudes: thus we say that a certain man is "of [de] his father." And therefore + we can fittingly say that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost in such a way that the efficiency of the Holy Ghost be referred + to the body assumed, and the consubstantiality to the Person assuming. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's body, through not being consubstantial with the Holy Ghost, cannot properly be said to be conceived "of" [de] the + Holy Ghost, but rather "from [ex] the Holy Ghost," as Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. ii.): "What is from someone is either + from his substance or from his power: from his substance, as the Son who is from the Father; from his power, as all things + are from God, just as Mary conceived from the Holy Ghost." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It seems that on this point there is a difference of opinion between Jerome and certain other Doctors, who assert that the + Holy Ghost took the place of seed in this conception. For Chrysostom says (Hom. i in Matth. [*Opus Imperf., among the supposititious + writings]): "When God's Only-Begotten was about to enter into the Virgin, the Holy Ghost preceded Him; that by the previous + entrance of the Holy Ghost, Christ might be born unto sanctification + according to His body, the Godhead entering instead of the seed." And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "God's wisdom and + power overshadowed her, like unto a Divine seed." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p9"> But these expressions are easily explained. Because Chrysostom and Damascene compare the Holy Ghost, or also the Son, who + is the Power of the Most High, to seed, by reason of the active power therein; while Jerome denies that the Holy Ghost took + the place of seed, considered as a corporeal substance which is transformed in conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Enchiridion xl), Christ is said to be conceived or born of the Holy Ghost in one sense; of the Virgin + Mary in another---of the Virgin Mary materially; of the Holy Ghost efficiently. Therefore there was no mingling here. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q32_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q32_A3-p0.1">Whether the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's father in respect of His humanity?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's father in respect of His humanity. Because, according to the + Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i): "The Father is the active principle in generation, the Mother supplies the matter." But + the Blessed Virgin is called Christ's Mother, by reason of the matter which she supplied in His conception. Therefore it seems + that the Holy Ghost can be called His father, through being the active principle in His + conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as the minds of other holy men are fashioned by the Holy Ghost, so also was Christ's body fashioned by the Holy + Ghost. But other holy men, on account of the aforesaid fashioning, are called the children of the whole Trinity, and consequently + of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ should be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as His body was fashioned + by the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God is called our Father by reason of His having made us, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q32_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.6" target="asv"> Dt. 32:6</a>: "Is not He thy Father, that hath possessed thee, and made thee and created thee?" But the Holy Ghost made Christ's body, + as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q32_A3-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q32_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2). Therefore the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's Father in respect of the body fashioned by Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): "Christ was born of the Holy Ghost not as a Son, and of the Virgin Mary as a Son." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The words "fatherhood," "motherhood," and "sonship," result from generation; yet not from any generation, but from that of + living things, especially animals. For we do not say that fire generated is the son of the fire generating it, except, perhaps, + metaphorically; we speak thus only of animals in whom generation is more perfect. Nevertheless, the word "son" is not applied + to everything generated in animals, but only to that which is generated into likeness + of the generator. Wherefore, as Augustine says (Enchiridion xxxix), we do not say that a hair which is generated in a man + is his son; nor do we say that a man who is born is the son of the seed; for neither is the hair like the man nor is the man + born like the seed, but like the man who begot him. And if the likeness be perfect, the sonship is perfect, whether in God + or in man. But if the likeness be imperfect, the sonship is imperfect. Thus in man there is a certain imperfect likeness to + God, + both as regards his being created to God's image and as regards His being created unto the likeness of grace. Therefore in + both ways man can be called His son, both because he is created to His image and because he is likened to Him by grace. Now, + it must be observed that what is said in its perfect sense of a thing should not be said thereof in its imperfect sense: thus, + because Socrates is said to be naturally a man, in the proper sense of "man," never is he called man in the sense in which + the portrait of a man is called a man, although, perhaps, he may resemble another man. Now, Christ is the Son of God in the + perfect sense of sonship. Wherefore, although in His human nature He was created and justified, He ought not to be called + the Son of God, either in respect of His being created or of His being justified, but only in respect of His eternal generation, + by reason of which He is the Son of the Father alone. Therefore nowise should Christ be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, + nor even of the whole Trinity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ was conceived of the Virgin Mary, who supplied the matter of His conception unto likeness of species. For this reason + He is called her Son. But as man He was conceived of the Holy Ghost as the active principle of His conception, but not unto + likeness of species, as a man is born of his father. Therefore Christ is not called the Son of the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Men who are fashioned spiritually by the Holy Ghost cannot be called sons of God in the perfect sense of sonship. And therefore + they are called sons of God in respect of imperfect sonship, which is by reason of the likeness of grace, which flows from + the whole Trinity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p9"> But with Christ it is different, as stated above.</p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p10"> The same reply avails for the Third Objection.</p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q32_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q32_A4-p0.1">Whether the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in the conception of Christ's body?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in the conception of Christ's body. For Damascene says (De Fide + Orth. iii) that "the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin, purifying her, and bestowing on her the power to receive and to bring + forth the Word of God." But she had from nature the passive power of generation, like any other woman. Therefore He bestowed + on her an active power of generation. And thus she cooperated actively in Christ's + conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, all the powers of the vegetative soul are active, as the Commentator says (De Anima ii). But the generative power, + in both man and woman, belongs to the vegetative soul. Therefore, both in man and woman, it cooperates actively in the conception + of the child. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the conception of a child the woman supplies the matter from which the child's body is naturally formed. But + nature is an intrinsic principle of movement. Therefore it seems that in the very matter supplied by the Blessed Virgin there + was an active principle. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The active principle in generation is called the "seminal virtue." But, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x), Christ's body + "was taken from the Virgin, only as to corporeal matter, by the Divine power of conception and formation, but not by any human + seminal virtue." Therefore the Blessed Virgin did not cooperate actively in, the conception of Christ's body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Some say that the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in Christ's conception, both by natural and by a supernatural power. + By natural power, because they hold that in all natural matter there is an active principle. otherwise they believe that there + would be no such thing as natural transformation. But in this they are deceived. Because a transformation is said to be natural + by reason not only of an active but also of a passive intrinsic principle: for the + Philosopher says expressly (Phys. viii) that in heavy and light things there is a passive, and not an active, principle of + natural movement. Nor is it possible for matter to be active in its own formation, since it is not in act. Nor, again, is + it possible for anything to put itself in motion except it be divided into two parts, one being the mover, the other being + moved: which happens in animate things only, as is proved Phys. viii. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p7"> By a supernatural power, because they say that the mother requires not only to supply the matter, which is the menstrual + blood, but also the semen, which, being mingled with that of the male, has an active power in generation. And since in the + Blessed Virgin there was no resolution of semen, by reason of her inviolate virginity, they say that the Holy Ghost supernaturally + bestowed on her an active power in the conception of Christ's body, which power other mothers have by reason + of the semen resolved. But this cannot stand, because, since "each thing is on account of its operation" (De Coel. ii), nature + would not, for the purpose of the act of generation, distinguish the male and female sexes, unless the action of the male + were distinct from that of the female. Now, in generation there are two distinct operations---that of the agent and that of + the patient. Wherefore it follows that the entire active operation is on the part of the male, and the passive on the part + of + the female. For this reason in plants, where both forces are mingled, there is no distinction of male and female. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p8"> Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin was not Christ's Father, but His Mother, it follows that it was not given to her to + exercise an active power in His conception: whether to cooperate actively so as to be His Father, or not to cooperate at all, + as some say. whence it would follow that this active power was bestowed on her to no purpose. We must therefore say that in + Christ's conception itself she did not cooperate actively, but merely supplied the matter thereof. Nevertheless, + before the conception she cooperated actively in the preparation of the matter so that it should be apt for the conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This conception had three privileges---namely, that it was without original sin; that it was not that of a man only, but + of God and man; and that it was a virginal conception. And all three were effected by the Holy Ghost. Therefore Damascene + says, as to the first, that the Holy Ghost "came upon the Virgin, purifying her"---that is, preserving her from conceiving + with original sin. As to the second, he says: "And bestowing on her the power to + receive," i.e. to conceive, "the Word of God." As to the third, he says: "And to give birth" to Him, i.e. that she might, + while remaining a virgin, bring Him forth, not actively, but passively, just as other mothers achieve this through the action + of the male seed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The generative power of the female is imperfect compared to that of the male. And, therefore, just as in the arts the inferior + art gives a disposition to the matter to which the higher art gives the form, as is stated Phys. ii, so also the generative + power of the female prepares the matter, which is then fashioned by the active power of the male. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In order for a transformation to be natural, there is no need for an active principle in matter, but only for a passive principle, + as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q32_A4-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q31_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q33" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q33-p0.1">OF THE MODE AND ORDER OF CHRIST'S CONCEPTION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q33-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q33-p2"> We have now to consider the mode and order of Christ's conception, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q33-p3"> (1) Whether Christ's body was formed in the first instant of its conception?</p> + <p id="TP_Q33-p4"> (2) Whether it was animated in the first instant of its conception?</p> + <p id="TP_Q33-p5"> (3) Whether it was assumed by the Word in the first instant of its conception?</p> + <p id="TP_Q33-p6"> (4) Whether this conception was natural or miraculous?</p> + <div id="TP_Q33_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q33_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ's body was formed in the first instant of its conception?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's body was not formed in the first instant of its conception. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q33_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.2.20" target="asv">Jn. 2:20</a>): "Six-and-forty years was this Temple in building"; on which words Augustine comments as follows (De Trin. iv): "This number + applies manifestly to the perfection of our Lord's body." He says, further (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 56): "It is not without reason + that the Temple, which was a type of His body, is said to have been forty-six + years in building: so that as many years as it took to build the Temple, in so many days was our Lord's body perfected." Therefore + Christ's body was not perfectly formed in the first instant of its conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, there was need of local movement for the formation of Christ's body in order that the purest blood of the Virgin's + body might be brought where generation might aptly take place. Now, no body can be moved locally in an instant: since the + time taken in movement is divided according to the division of the thing moved, as is proved Phys. vi. Therefore Christ's + body was not formed in an instant. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's body was formed of the purest blood of the Virgin, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q33_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q31_A5.html">Q[31], A[5]</a>). But that matter could not be in the same instant both blood and flesh, because thus matter would have been at the same + time the subject of two forms. Therefore the last instant in which it was blood was distinct from the first instant in which + it was flesh. But between any two instants there is an interval of time. Therefore Christ's + body was not formed in an instant, but during a space of time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, as the augmentative power requires a fixed time for its act, so also does the generative power: for both are natural + powers belonging to the vegetative soul. But Christ's body took a fixed time to grow, like the bodies of other men: for it + is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q33_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.52" target="asv">Lk. 2:52</a>) that He "advanced in wisdom and age." Therefore it seems for the same reason that the formation of His body, since that, + too, belongs to the generative power, was not + instantaneous, but took a fixed time, like the bodies of other men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Moral. xviii): "As soon as the angel announced it, as soon as the Spirit came down, the Word was in the womb, + within the womb the Word was made flesh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> In the conception of Christ's body three points may be considered: first, the local movement of the blood to the place of + generation; secondly, the formation of the body from that matter; thirdly, the development whereby it was brought to perfection + of quantity. of these, the second is the conception itself; the first is a preamble; the third, a result of the conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p8"> Now, the first could not be instantaneous: since this would be contrary to the very nature of the local movement of any body + whatever, the parts of which come into a place successively. The third also requires a succession of time: both because there + is no increase without local movement, and because increase is effected by the power of the soul already informing the body, + the operation of which power is subject to time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p9"> But the body's very formation, in which conception principally consists, was instantaneous, for two reasons. First, because + of the infinite power of the agent, viz. the Holy Ghost, by whom Christ's body was formed, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q33_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q32_A1.html">Q[32], A[1]</a>). For the greater the power of an agent, the more quickly can it dispose matter; and, consequently, an agent of infinite + power can dispose matter instantaneously to its due form. Secondly, on the part of the Person + of the Son, whose body was being formed. For it was unbecoming that He should take to Himself a body as yet unformed. While, + if the conception had been going on for any time before the perfect formation of the body, the whole conception could not + be attributed to the Son of God, since it is not attributed to Him except by reason of the assumption of that body. Therefore + in the first instant in which the various parts of the matter were united together in the place of generation, Christ's body + was both perfectly formed and assumed. And thus is the Son of God said to have been conceived; nor could it be said otherwise. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Neither quotation from Augustine refers to formation alone of Christ's body, but to its formation, together with a fixed + development up to the time of His birth. Wherefore in the aforesaid number are foreshadowed the number of months during which + Christ was in the Virgin's womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This local movement is not comprised within the conception itself, but is a preamble thereto. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is not possible to fix the last instant in which that matter was blood: but it is possible to fix the last period of time + which continued without any interval up to the first instant in which Christ's body was formed. And this instant was the terminus + of the time occupied by the local movement of the matter towards the place of generation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Increase is caused by the augmentative power of that which is the subject of increase: but the formation of the body is caused + by the generative power, not of that which is generated, but of the father generating from seed, in which the formative power + derived from the father's soul has its operation. But Christ's body was not formed by the seed of man, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q33_A1-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q31_A5.html">Q[31], A[5]</a>, ad 3), but by the operation of the Holy + Ghost. Therefore the formation thereof should be such as to be worthy of the Holy Ghost. But the development of Christ's body + was the effect of the augmentative power in Christ's soul: and since this was of the same species as ours, it behooved His + body to develop in the same way as the bodies of other men, so as to prove the reality of His human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A1-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q33_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q33_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ's body was animated in the first instant of its conception?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception. For Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Julian.): + "Christ's flesh was not of another nature than ours: nor was the beginning of His animation different from that of other men." + But the soul is not infused into other men at the first instant of their conception. Therefore neither should Christ's soul + have been infused into His body in the first instant of its conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the soul, like any natural form, requires determinate quantity in its matter. But in the first instant of its conception + Christ's body was not of the same quantity as the bodies of other men when they are animated: otherwise, if afterwards its + development had been continuous, either its birth would have occurred sooner, or at the time of birth He would have been a + bigger child than others. The former alternative is contrary to what Augustine says (De + Trin. iv), where he proves that Christ was in the Virgin's womb for the space of nine months: while the latter is contrary + to what Pope Leo says (Serm. iv in Epiph.): "They found the child Jesus nowise differing from the generality of infants." + Therefore Christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whenever there is "before" and "after" there must be several instants. But according to the Philosopher (De Gener. + Animal. ii) in the generation of a man there must needs be "before" and "after": for he is first of all a living thing, and + afterwards, an animal, and after that, a man. Therefore the animation of Christ could not be effected in the first instant + of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "At the very instant that there was flesh, it was the flesh of the Word of God, it was + flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> For the conception to be attributed to the very Son of God, as we confess in the Creed, when we say, "who was conceived by + the Holy Ghost," we must needs say that the body itself, in being conceived, was assumed by the Word of God. Now it has been + shown above ( + <a id="TP_Q33_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html">Q[6], AA[1]</a> ,2) that the Word of God assumed the body by means of the soul, and the soul by means of the spirit, i.e. the intellect. + Wherefore in the first instant of its + conception Christ's body must needs have been animated by the rational soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The beginning of the infusion of the soul may be considered in two ways. First, in regard to the disposition of the body. + And thus, the beginning of the infusion of the soul into Christ's body was the same as in other men's bodies: for just as + the soul is infused into another man's body as soon as it is formed, so was it with Christ. Secondly, this beginning may be + considered merely in regard to time. And thus, because Christ's body was perfectly + formed in a shorter space of time, so after a shorter space of time was it animated. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The soul requires due quantity in the matter into which it is infused: but this quantity allows of a certain latitude because + it is not fixed to a certain amount. Now the quantity that a body has when the soul is first infused into it is in proportion + to the perfect quantity to which it will attain by development: that is to say, men of greater stature have greater bodies + at the time of first animation. But Christ at the perfect age was of becoming + and middle stature: in proportion to which was the quantity of His body at the time when other men's bodies are animated; + though it was less than theirs at the first instant of His conception. Nevertheless that quantity was not too small to safeguard + the nature of an animated body; since it would have sufficed for the animation of a small man's body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> What the Philosopher says is true in the generation of other men, because the body is successively formed and disposed for + the soul: whence, first, as being imperfectly disposed, it receives an imperfect soul; and afterwards, when it is perfectly + disposed, it receives a perfect soul. But Christ's body, on account of the infinite power of the agent, was perfectly disposed + instantaneously. Wherefore, at once and in the first instant it received a + perfect form, that is, the rational soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q33_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q33_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ's flesh was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's flesh was first of all conceived, and afterwards assumed. Because what is not cannot be assumed. + But Christ's flesh began to exist when it was conceived. Therefore it seems that it was assumed by the Word of God after it + was conceived. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's flesh was assumed by the Word of God, by means of the rational soul. But it received the rational soul + at the term of the conception. Therefore it was assumed at the term of the conception. But at the term of the conception it + was already conceived. Therefore it was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in everything generated, that which is imperfect precedes in time that which is perfect: which is made clear by + the Philosopher (Metaph. ix). But Christ's body is something generated. Therefore it did not attain to its ultimate perfection, + which consisted in the union with the Word of God, at the first instant of its conception; but, first of all, the flesh was + conceived and afterwards assumed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Fide ad Petrum xviii [*Written by Fulgentius]): "Hold steadfastly, and doubt not for a moment that Christ's + flesh was not conceived in the Virgin's womb, before being assumed by the Word." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above, we may say properly that "God was made man," but not that "man was made God": because God took to Himself + that which belongs to man---and that which belongs to man did not pre-exist, as subsisting in itself, before being assumed + by the Word. But if Christ's flesh had been conceived before being assumed by the Word, it would have had at some time an + hypostasis other than that of the Word of God. And this is against the very nature of the + Incarnation, which we hold to consist in this, that the Word of God was united to human nature and to all its parts in the + unity of hypostasis: nor was it becoming that the Word of God should, by assuming human nature, destroy a pre-existing hypostasis + of human nature or of any part thereof. It is consequently contrary to faith to assert that Christ's flesh was first of all + conceived and afterwards assumed by the Word of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> If Christ's flesh had been formed or conceived, not instantaneously, but successively, one of two things would follow: either + that what was assumed was not yet flesh, or that the flesh was conceived before it was assumed. But since we hold that the + conception was effected instantaneously, it follows that in that flesh the beginning and the completion of its conception + were in the same instant. So that, as Augustine [*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum + xviii] says: "We say that the very Word of God was conceived in taking flesh, and that His very flesh was conceived by the + Word taking flesh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p8"> From the above the reply to the Second Objection is clear. For in the same moment that this flesh began to be conceived, + its conception and animation were completed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The mystery of the Incarnation is not to be looked upon as an ascent, as it were, of a man already existing and mounting + up to the dignity of the Union: as the heretic Photinus maintained. Rather is it to be considered as a descent, by reason + of the perfect Word of God taking unto Himself the imperfection of our nature; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q33_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.38" target="asv"> Jn. 6:38</a>: "I came down from heaven." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q33_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q33_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ's conception was natural?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's conception was natural. For Christ is called the Son of Man by reason of His conception in the + flesh. But He is a true and natural Son of Man: as also is He the true and natural Son of God. Therefore His conception was + natural. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no creature can be the cause of a miraculous effect. But Christ's conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin, + who is a mere creature: for we say that the Virgin conceived Christ. Therefore it seems that His conception was not miraculous, + but natural. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, for a transformation to be natural, it is enough that the passive principle be natural, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q33_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q32_A4.html">Q[32], A[4]</a>). But in Christ's conception the passive principle on the part of His Mother was natural, as we have shown ( + <a id="TP_Q33_A4-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q32_A4.html">Q[32], A[4]</a>). Therefore Christ's conception was natural. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Ep. ad Caium Monach.): "Christ does in a superhuman way those things that pertain to man: this is shown in + the miraculous virginal conception." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): "In this mystery thou shalt find many things that are natural, and many that are supernatural." + For if we consider in this conception anything connected with the matter thereof, which was supplied by the mother, it was + in all such things natural. But if we consider it on the part of the active power, thus it was entirely miraculous. And since + judgment of a thing should be pronounced in respect of its form rather than of its + matter: and likewise in respect of its activity rather than of its passiveness: therefore is it that Christ's conception should + be described simply as miraculous and supernatural, although in a certain respect it was natural. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ is said to be a natural Son of Man, by reason of His having a true human nature, through which He is a Son of Man, + although He had it miraculously; thus, too, the blind man to whom sight has been restored sees naturally by sight miraculously + received. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin, not as the active principle thereof, but because she supplied the matter, + and because the conception took place in her womb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A natural passive principle suffices for a transformation to be natural, when it is moved by its proper active principle + in a natural and wonted way. But this is not so in the case in point. Therefore this conception cannot be called simply natural. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q33_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q32_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q34" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q34-p0.1">OF THE PERFECTION OF THE CHILD CONCEIVED (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q34-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34-p2"> We must now consider the perfection of the child conceived: and concerning this there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q34-p3"> (1) Whether Christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of His conception?</p> + <p id="TP_Q34-p4"> (2) Whether in that same instant He had the use of free-will?</p> + <p id="TP_Q34-p5"> (3) Whether in that same instant He could merit?</p> + <p id="TP_Q34-p6"> (4) Whether in that same instant He was a perfect comprehensor?</p> + <div id="TP_Q34_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q34_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ was sanctified in the first instant of His conception?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was not sanctified in the first instant of His conception. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.46" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:46</a>): "That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural: afterwards that which is spiritual." But sanctification + by grace is something spiritual. Therefore Christ received the grace of sanctification, not at the very beginning of His conception, + but after a space of time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, sanctification seems to be a cleansing from sin: according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.1" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:1</a>: "And such some of you were," namely, sinners, "but you are washed, but you are sanctified." But sin was never in Christ. + Therefore it was not becoming that He should be sanctified by grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as by the Word of God "all things were made," so from the Word incarnate all men who are made holy receive holiness, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.11" target="asv"> Heb. 2:11</a>: "Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one." But "the Word of God, by whom all things were made, + was not Himself made"; as Augustine says (De Trin. i). Therefore Christ, by whom all are made holy, was not Himself made holy. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.35" target="asv">Lk. 1:35</a>): "The Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.10.36" target="asv">Jn. 10:36</a>): "Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q34_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A9.html">Q[7], AA[9]</a>,10,12), the abundance of grace sanctifying Christ's soul flows from the very union of the Word, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14</a>: "We saw His glory . . . as it were of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." For it has been shown above + ( + <a id="TP_Q34_A1-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q33_A2.html">Q[33], AA[2]</a>,3) that in the first instant of conception, Christ's body was both animated and assumed by the Word of + God. Consequently, in the first instant of His conception, Christ had the fulness of grace sanctifying His body and His soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The order set down by the Apostle in this passage refers to those who by advancing attain to the spiritual state. But the + mystery of the Incarnation is considered as a condescension of the fulness of the Godhead into human nature rather than as + the promotion of human nature, already existing, as it were, to the Godhead. Therefore in the man Christ there was perfection + of spiritual life from the very beginning. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To be sanctified is to be made holy. Now something is made not only from its contrary, but also from that which is opposite + to it, either by negation or by privation: thus white is made either from black or from not-white. We indeed from being sinners + are made holy: so that our sanctification is a cleansing from sin. Whereas Christ, as man, was made holy, because He was not + always thus sanctified by grace: yet He was not made holy from being a sinner, + because He never sinned; but He was made holy from not-holy as man, not indeed by privation, as though He were at some time + a man and not holy; but by negation---that is, when He was not man He had not human sanctity. Therefore at the same time He + was made man and a holy man. For this reason the angel said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.35" target="asv">Lk. 1:35</a>): "The Holy which shall be born of thee." Which words Gregory expounds as follows (Moral. xviii): "In order to show the distinction + between His holiness and + ours, it is declared that He shall be born holy. For we, though we are made holy, yet are not born holy, because by the mere + condition of a corruptible nature we are tied . . . But He alone is truly born holy who . . . was not conceived by the combining + of carnal union." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Father creates things through the Son, and the whole Trinity sanctifies men through the Man Christ, but not in the same + way. For the Word of God has the same power and operation as God the Father: hence the Father does not work through the Son + as an instrument, which is both mover and moved. Whereas the humanity of Christ is as the instrument of the Godhead, as stated + above ( + <a id="TP_Q34_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A1.html">Q[7], A[1]</a>, ad 3; + <a id="TP_Q34_A1-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html"> Q[8], + A[1] + </a>, ad 1). Therefore Christ's humanity is both sanctified and sanctifier. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q34_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q34_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ as man had the use of free-will in the first instant of His conception?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ as man had not the use of free-will in the first instant of His conception. For a thing is, before + it acts or operates. Now the use of free-will is an operation. Since, therefore, Christ's soul began to exist in the first + instant of His conception, as was made clear above ( + <a id="TP_Q34_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q33_A2.html">Q[33], A[2]</a>), it seems impossible that He should have the use of free-will in the first instant of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the use of free-will consists in choice. But choice presupposes the deliberation of counsel: for the Philosopher + says (Ethic. iii) that choice is "the desire of what has been previously the object of deliberation." Therefore it seems impossible + that Christ should have had the use of free-will in the first instant of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the free-will is "a faculty of the will and reason," as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q34_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q83_A2.html">FP, Q[83], A[2]</a>, OBJ[2]: consequently the use of free-will is an act of the will and the reason or intellect. But the act of the intellect + presupposes an act of the senses; and this cannot exist without proper disposition of the organs---a condition which would + seem impossible in the first instant of Christ's conception. Therefore it seems that Christ could + not have the use of free-will at the first instant of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in his book on the Trinity (Gregory: Regist. ix, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">Ep. 61</a>): "As soon as the Word entered the womb, while retaining the reality of His Nature, He was made flesh, and a perfect man." + But a perfect man has the use of free-will. Therefore Christ had the use of free-will in the first instant of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q34_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, spiritual perfection was becoming to the human nature which Christ took, which perfection He attained not by making progress, + but by receiving it from the very first. Now ultimate perfection does not consist in power or habit, but in operation; wherefore + it is said (De Anima ii, text. 5) that operation is a "second act." We must, therefore, say that in the first instant of His + conception Christ had that + operation of the soul which can be had in an instant. And such is the operation of the will and intellect, in which the use + of free-will consists. For the operation of the intellect and will is sudden and instantaneous, much more, indeed, than corporeal + vision; inasmuch as to understand, to will, and to feel, are not movements that may be described as "acts of an imperfect + being," which attains perfection successively, but are "the acts of an already perfect being," as is said, De Anima iii, + text. 28. We must therefore say that Christ had the use of free-will in the first instant of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Existence precedes action by nature, but not in time; but at the same time the agent has perfect existence, and begins to + act unless it is hindered. Thus fire, as soon as it is generated, begins to give heat and light. The action of heating, however, + is not terminated in an instant, but continues for a time; whereas the action of giving light is perfected in an instant. + And such an operation is the use of free-will, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As soon as counsel or deliberation is ended, there may be choice. But those who need the deliberation of counsel, as soon + as this comes to an end are certain of what ought to be chosen: and consequently they choose at once. From this it is clear + that the deliberation of counsel does not of necessity precede choice save for the purpose of inquiring into what is uncertain. + But Christ, in the first instant of His conception, had the fulness of + sanctifying grace, and in like manner the fulness of known truth; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14</a>: "Full of grace and truth." Wherefore, as being possessed of certainty about all things, He could choose at once in an instant. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's intellect, in regard to His infused knowledge, could understand without turning to phantasms, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q34_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q11_A2.html">Q[11], A[2]</a>). Consequently His intellect and will could act without any action of the senses. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p10"> Nevertheless it was possible for Him, in the first instant of His conception, to have an operation of the senses: especially + as to the sense of touch, which the infant can exercise in the womb even before it has received the rational soul, as is said, + De Gener. Animal. ii, 3,4. Wherefore, since Christ had the rational soul in the first instant of His conception, through His + body being already fashioned and endowed with sensible organs, much more was it possible for Him to + exercise the sense of touch in that same instant. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q34_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q34_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ could merit in the first instant of His conception?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ could not merit in the first instant of His conception. For the free-will bears the same relation + to merit as to demerit. But the devil could not sin in the first instant of his creation, as was shown in the + <a id="TP_Q34_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q63_A5.html">FP, Q[63], A[5]</a>. Therefore neither could Christ's soul merit in the first instant of its creation---that is, in the first instant of Christ's + conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which man has in the first instant of his conception seems to be natural to him: for it is in this that his + natural generation is terminated. But we do not merit by what is natural to us, as is clear from what has been said in the + + <a id="TP_Q34_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q109_A5.html">FS, Q[109], A[5]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q34_A3-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q114_A2.html">FS, Q[114], A[2]</a>. Therefore it seems that the use of free-will, which Christ as man had in the first instant of His conception, was not + meritorious. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which a man has once merited he makes, in a way, his own: consequently it seems that he cannot merit the same + thing again: for no one merits what is already his. If, therefore, Christ merited in the first instant of His conception, + it follows that afterwards He merited nothing. But this is evidently untrue. Therefore Christ did not merit in the first instant + of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine [*Paterius, Expos. Vet. et Nov. Test. super + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.40" target="asv">Ex. 40</a>] says: "Increase of merit was absolutely impossible to the soul of Christ." But increase of merit would have been possible + had He not merited in the first instant of His conception. Therefore Christ merited in the first instant of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q34_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, Christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of His conception. Now, sanctification is twofold: that of adults who + are sanctified in consideration of their own act; and that of infants who are sanctified in consideration of, not their own + act of faith, but that of their parents or of the Church. The former sanctification is more perfect than the latter: just + as act is more perfect than habit; and "that + which is by itself, than that which is by another" [*Aristotle, Phys. viii]. Since, therefore, the sanctification of Christ + was most perfect, because He was so sanctified that He might sanctify others; consequently He was sanctified by reason of + His own movement of the free-will towards God. Which movement, indeed, of the free-will is meritorious. Consequently, Christ + did merit in the first instant of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Free-will does not bear the same relation to good as to evil: for to good it is related of itself, and naturally; whereas + to evil it is related as to a defect, and beside nature. Now, as the Philosopher says (De Coelo ii, text. 18): "That which + is beside nature is subsequent to that which is according to nature; because that which is beside nature is an exception to + nature." Therefore the free-will of a creature can be moved to good meritoriously in + the first instant of its creation, but not to evil sinfully; provided, however, its nature be unimpaired. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That which man has at the first moment of his creation, in the ordinary course of nature, is natural to him. but nothing + hinders a creature from receiving from God a gift of grace at the very beginning of its creation. In this way did Christ's + soul in the first instant of its creation receive grace by which it could merit. And for this reason is that grace, by way + of a certain likeness, said to be natural to this Man, as explained by Augustine + (Enchiridion xl). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Nothing prevents the same thing belonging to someone from several causes. And thus it is that Christ was able by subsequent + actions and sufferings to merit the glory of immortality, which He also merited in the first instant of His conception: not, + indeed, so that it became thereby more due to Him than before, but so that it was due to Him from more causes than before. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q34_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q34_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ was a perfect comprehensor in the first instant of His conception?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was not a perfect comprehensor in the first instant of His conception. For merit precedes reward, + as fault precedes punishment. But Christ merited in the first instant of His conception, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q34_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Since, therefore, the state of comprehension is the principal reward, it seems that Christ was not a comprehensor in the + first instant of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.26" target="asv">Lk. 24:26</a>): "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" But glory belongs to the state of comprehension. + Therefore Christ was not in the state of comprehension in the first instant of His conception, when as yet He had not suffered. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what befits neither man nor angel seems proper to God; and therefore is not becoming to Christ as man. But to be + always in the state of beatitude befits neither man nor angel: for if they had been created in beatitude, they would not have + sinned afterwards. Therefore Christ, as man, was not in the state of beatitude in the first instant of His conception. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.64.5" target="asv">Ps. 64:5</a>): "Blessed is he whom Thou hast chosen, end taken to Thee"; which words, according to the gloss, refer to Christ's human + nature, which "was taken by the Word of God unto the unity of Person." But human nature was taken by the Word of God in the + first instant of His conception. Therefore, in the first instant of His conception, Christ, as man, was in the state of beatitude; + which is to be a comprehensor. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As appears from what was said above + <a id="TP_Q34_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, it was unbecoming that in His conception Christ should receive merely habitual grace without the act. Now, He received grace + "not by measure" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q34_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.3.34" target="asv">Jn. 3:34</a>), as stated above (Q[7], A[11]). But the grace of the "wayfarer," being short of that of the "comprehensor," is in less measure + than that of the comprehensor. Wherefore it is manifest that in the first instant of His conception Christ + received not only as much grace as comprehensors have, but also greater than that which they all have. And because that grace + was not without its act, it follows that He was a comprehensor in act, seeing God in His Essence more clearly than other creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q34_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q19_A3.html">Q[19], A[3]</a>), Christ did not merit the glory of the soul, in respect of which He is said to have been a comprehensor, but the glory of + the body, to which He came through His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p8"> Wherefore the reply to the Second Objection is clear.</p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Since Christ was both God and man, He had, even in His humanity, something more than other creatures---namely, that He was + in the state of beatitude from the very beginning. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q34_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q33_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q35" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q35-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S NATIVITY (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q35-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p2"> After considering Christ's conception, we must treat of His nativity. First, as to the nativity itself; secondly, as to His + manifestation after birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p3"> Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p4"> (1) Whether nativity regards the nature or the person?</p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p5"> (2) Whether another, besides His eternal, birth should be attributed to Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p6"> (3) Whether the Blessed Virgin is His Mother in respect of His temporal birth?</p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p7"> (4) Whether she ought to be called the Mother of God?</p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p8"> (5) Whether Christ is the Son of God the Father and of the Virgin Mother in respect of two filiations?</p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p9"> (6) Of the mode of the Nativity;</p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p10"> (7) Of its place;</p> + <p id="TP_Q35-p11"> (8) Of the time of the Nativity.</p> + <div id="TP_Q35_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q35_A1-p0.1">Whether nativity regards the nature rather than the person?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that nativity regards the nature rather than the person. For Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum): + "The eternal Divine Nature could not be conceived and born of human nature, except in a true human nature." Consequently it + becomes the Divine Nature to be conceived and born by reason of the human nature. Much more, therefore, does it regard human + nature itself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), "nature" is so denominated from "nativity." But things are denominated + from one another by reason of some likeness. Therefore it seems that nativity regards the nature rather than the person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, properly speaking, that is born which begins to exist by nativity. But Christ's Person did not begin to exist by + His nativity, whereas His human nature did. Therefore it seems that the nativity properly regards the nature, and not the + person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Nativity regards the hypostasis, not the nature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Nativity can be attributed to someone in two ways: first, as to its subject; secondly, as to its terminus. To him that is + born it is attributed as to its subject: and this, properly speaking, is the hypostasis, not the nature. For since to be born + is to be generated; as a thing is generated in order for it to be, so is a thing born in order for it to be. Now, to be, properly + speaking, belongs to that which subsists; since a form that does not subsist is said + to be only inasmuch as by it something is: and whereas person or hypostasis designates something as subsisting, nature designates + form, whereby something subsists. Consequently, nativity is attributed to the person or hypostasis as to the proper subject + of being born, but not to the nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p7"> But to the nature nativity is attributed as to its terminus. For the terminus of generation and of every nativity is the + form. Now, nature designates something as a form: wherefore nativity is said to be "the road to nature," as the Philosopher + states (Phys. ii): for the purpose of nature is terminated in the form or nature of the species. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> On account of the identity of nature and hypostasis in God, nature fs sometimes put instead of person or hypostasis. And + in this sense Augustine says that the Divine Nature was conceived and born, inasmuch as the Person of the Son was conceived + and born in the human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> No movement or change is denominated from the subject moved, but from the terminus of the movement, whence the subject has + its species. For this reason nativity is not denominated from the person born, but from nature, which is the terminus of nativity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Nature, properly speaking, does not begin to exist: rather is it the person that begins to exist in some nature. Because, + as stated above, nature designates that by which something is; whereas person designates something as having subsistent being. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A1-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q35_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q35_A2-p0.1">Whether a temporal nativity should be attributed to Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that temporal nativity is not to be attributed to Christ. For "to be born is a certain movement of a thing + that did not exist before it was born, which movement procures for it the benefit of existence" [*Cf. Augustine, De Unit. + Trin. xii]. But Christ was from all eternity. Therefore He could not be born in time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is perfect in itself needs not to be born. But the Person of the Son of God was perfect from eternity. Therefore + He needs not to be born in time. Therefore it seems that He had no temporal birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, properly speaking, nativity regards the person. But in Christ there is only one person. Therefore in Christ there + is but one nativity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, what is born by two nativities is born twice. But this proposition is false; "Christ was born twice": because the + nativity whereby He was born of the Father suffers no interruption; since it is eternal. Whereas interruption is required + to warrant the use of the adverb "twice": for a man is said to run twice whose running is interrupted. Therefore it seems + that we should not admit a double nativity in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "We confess two nativities in Christ: one of the Father---eternal; and one which occurred + in these latter times for our sake." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q35_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q35_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, nature is compared to nativity, as the terminus to movement or change. Now, movement is diversified according to the diversity + of its termini, as the Philosopher shows (Phys. v). But, in Christ there is a twofold nature: one which He received of the + Father from eternity, the other which He received from His Mother in time. Therefore we must needs attribute to Christ a twofold + nativity: one by which He was born + of the Father from all eternity; one by which He was born of His Mother in time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This was the argument of a certain heretic, Felician, and is solved thus by Augustine (Contra Felic. xii). "Let us suppose," + says he, "as many maintain, that in the world there is a universal soul, which, by its ineffable movement, so gives life to + all seed, that it is not compounded with things begotten, but bestows life that they may be begotten. Without doubt, when + this soul reaches the womb, being intent on fashioning the passible matter to its + own purpose, it unites itself to the personality thereof, though manifestly it is not of the same substance; and thus of the + active soul and passive matter, one man is made out of two substances. And so we confess that the soul is born from out the + womb; but not as though, before birth, it was nothing at all in itself. Thus, then, but in a way much more sublime, the Son + of God was born as man, just as the soul is held to be born together with the body: not as though they both made one + substance, but that from both, one person results. Yet we do not say that the Son of God began thus to exist: lest it be thought + that His Divinity is temporal. Nor do we acknowledge the flesh of the Son of God to have been from eternity: lest it be thought + that He took, not a true human body, but some resemblance thereof." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is thus solved by Cyril in an epistle [*Cf. Acta Concil. Ephes., p. 1, cap. viii]: + "We do not say that the Son of God had need, for His own sake, of a second nativity, after that which is from the Father: + for it is foolish and a mark of ignorance to say that He who is from all eternity, and co-eternal with the Father, needs to + begin again to exist. But because for us and for our salvation, uniting the human + nature to His Person, He became the child of a woman, for this reason do we say that He was born in the flesh." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Nativity regards the person as its subject, the nature as its terminus. Now, it is possible for several transformations to + be in the same subject: yet must they be diversified in respect of their termini. But we do not say this as though the eternal + nativity were a transformation or a movement, but because it is designated by way of a transformation or movement. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ can be said to have been born twice in respect of His two nativities. For just as he is said to run twice who runs + at two different times, so can He be said to be born twice who is born once from eternity and once in time: because eternity + and time differ much more than two different times, although each signifies a measure of duration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q35_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q35_A3-p0.1">Whether the Blessed Virgin can be called Christ's Mother in respect of His temporal nativity?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called Christ's Mother in respect of His temporal nativity. For, as stated + above ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q32_A4.html">Q[32], A[4]</a>), the Blessed Virgin Mary did not cooperate actively in begetting Christ, but merely supplied the matter. But this does not + seem sufficient to make her His Mother: otherwise wood might be called the mother of the bed or bench. Therefore it seems + that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called the Mother + of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ was born miraculously of the Blessed Virgin. But a miraculous begetting does not suffice for motherhood or + sonship: for we do not speak of Eve as being the daughter of Adam. Therefore neither should Christ be called the Son of the + Blessed Virgin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, motherhood seems to imply partial separation of the semen. But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii), "Christ's + body was formed, not by a seminal process, but by the operation of the Holy Ghost." Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin + should not be called the Mother of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.18" target="asv">Mat. 1:18</a>): "The generation of Christ was in this wise. When His Mother Mary was espoused to Joseph," etc. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The Blessed Virgin Mary is in truth and by nature the Mother of Christ. For, as we have said above ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q5_A2.html">Q[5], A[2]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q35_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q31_A5.html"> Q[31], A[5]</a>), Christ's body was not brought down from heaven, as the heretic Valentine maintained, but was taken from the Virgin Mother, + and formed from her purest blood. And this is all that is required for motherhood, as has been made clear above ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A3-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q31_A5.html">Q[31], A[5]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q35_A3-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q32_A4.html"> Q[32], A[4]</a>). Therefore the Blessed Virgin is truly Christ's Mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q32_A3.html">Q[32], A[3]</a>), not every generation implies fatherhood or motherhood and sonship, but only the generation of living things. Consequently + when inanimate things are made from some matter, the relationship of motherhood and sonship does not follow from this, but + only in the generation of living things, which is properly called nativity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "The temporal nativity by which Christ was born for our salvation is, in a way, natural, + since a Man was born of a woman, and after the due lapse of time from His conception: but it is also supernatural, because + He was begotten, not of seed, but of the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin, above the law of conception." Thus, then, on the + part of the mother, this nativity was natural, but on the part of the operation + of the Holy Ghost it was supernatural. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is the true and natural Mother of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q31_A5.html">Q[31], A[5]</a>, ad 3; + <a id="TP_Q35_A3-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q32_A4.html"> Q[32], A[4]</a>), the resolution of the woman's semen is not necessary for conception; neither, therefore, is it required for motherhood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q35_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q35_A4-p0.1">Whether the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God. For in the Divine mysteries we should not make + any assertion that is not taken from Holy Scripture. But we read nowhere in Holy Scripture that she is the mother or parent + of God, but that she is the "mother of Christ" or of "the Child," as may be seen from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.18" target="asv"> Mat. 1:18.</a> Therefore we should not say that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ is called God in respect of His Divine Nature. But the Divine Nature did not first originate from the Virgin. + Therefore the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the word "God" is predicated in common of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is Mother + of God it seems to follow that she was the Mother of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which cannot be allowed. Therefore the Blessed + Virgin should not be called Mother of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> In the chapters of Cyril, approved in the Council of Ephesus (P. 1, Cap. xxvi), we read: "If anyone confess not that the + Emmanuel is truly God, and that for this reason the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, since she begot of her flesh the Word + of God made flesh, let him be anathema." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A1.html">Q[16], A[1]</a>), every word that signifies a nature in the concrete can stand for any hypostasis of that nature. Now, since the union of + the Incarnation took place in the hypostasis, as above stated ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A4-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A3.html">Q[2], A[3]</a>), it is manifest that this word "God" can stand for the hypostasis, having a human and a Divine nature. Therefore whatever + belongs to the Divine and to the human nature can be attributed + to that Person: both when a word is employed to stand for it, signifying the Divine Nature, and when a word is used signifying + the human nature. Now, conception and birth are attributed to the person and hypostasis in respect of that nature in which + it is conceived and born. Since, therefore, the human nature was taken by the Divine Person in the very beginning of the conception, + as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A4-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q33_A3.html">Q[33], A[3]</a>), it follows that it can be truly said that God was conceived + and born of the Virgin. Now from this is a woman called a man's mother, that she conceived him and gave birth to him. Therefore + the Blessed Virgin is truly called the Mother of God. For the only way in which it could be denied that the Blessed Virgin + is the Mother of God would be either if the humanity were first subject to conception and birth, before this man were the + Son of God, as Photinus said; or if the humanity were not assumed unto unity of the Person or hypostasis of the Word of God, + as Nestorius maintained. But both of these are erroneous. Therefore it is heretical to deny that the Blessed Virgin is the + Mother of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is solved by saying that, although we do not find it said expressly in Scripture + that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, yet we do find it expressly said in Scripture that "Jesus Christ is true God," + as may be seen + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.5.20" target="asv">1 Jn. 5:20, </a> and that the Blessed Virgin is the "Mother of Jesus Christ," which is clearly expressed + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.18" target="asv"> Mat. 1:18.</a> Therefore, from the words of Scripture + it follows of necessity that she is the Mother of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p8"> Again, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.5" target="asv">Rom. 9:5</a>) that Christ is of the Jews "according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever." But He is not of the + Jews except through the Blessed Virgin. Therefore He who is "above all things, God blessed for ever," is truly born of the + Blessed Virgin as of His Mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a letter against Nestorius [*Cf. Acta Conc. Ephes., p. 1, cap. ii], answers + it thus: "Just as when a man's soul is born with its body, they are considered as one being: and if anyone wish to say that + the mother of the flesh is not the mother of the soul, he says too much. Something like this may be perceived in the generation + of Christ. For the Word of God was born of the substance of God the Father: + but because He took flesh, we must of necessity confess that in the flesh He was born of a woman." Consequently we must say + that the Blessed Virgin is called the Mother of God, not as though she were the Mother of the Godhead, but because she is + the mother, according to His human nature, of the Person who has both the divine and the human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the name "God" is common to the three Persons, yet sometimes it stands for the Person of the Father alone, sometimes + only for the Person of the Son or of the Holy Ghost, as stated above (Q[16], A[1]; + <a id="TP_Q35_A4-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q39_A4.html">FP, Q[39], A[4]</a>). So that when we say, "The Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God," this word "God" stands only for the incarnate Person of + the Son. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q35_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q35_A5-p0.1">Whether there are two filiations in Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there are two filiations in Christ. For nativity is the cause of filiation. But in Christ there are two + nativities. Therefore in Christ there are also two filiations. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, filiation, which is said of a man as being the son of someone, his father or his mother, depends, in a way, on him: + because the very being of a relation consists "in being referred to another"; wherefore if one of two relatives be destroyed, + the other is destroyed also. But the eternal filiation by which Christ is the Son of God the Father depends not on His Mother, + because nothing eternal depends on what is temporal. Therefore Christ is not His + Mother's Son by temporal filiation. Either, therefore, He is not her Son at all, which is in contradiction to what has been + said above ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q35_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,4), or He must needs be her Son by some other temporal filiation. Therefore in Christ there are two filiations. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, one of two relatives enters the definition of the other; hence it is clear that of two relatives, one is specified + from the other. But one and the same cannot be in diverse species. Therefore it seems impossible that one and the same relation + be referred to extremes which are altogether diverse. But Christ is said to be the Son of the Eternal Father and a temporal + mother, who are terms altogether diverse. Therefore it seems that Christ cannot, by the + same relation, be called the Son of the Father and of His Mother Therefore in Christ there are two filiations. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii), things pertaining to the nature are multiple in Christ; but not those things that + pertain to the Person. But filiation belongs especially to the Person, since it is a personal property, as appears from what + was said in the + <a id="TP_Q35_A5-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q32_A3.html">FP, Q[32], A[3]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q35_A5-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q40_A2.html">FP, Q[40], A[2]</a>. Therefore there is but one filiation in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> opinions differ on this question. For some, considering only the cause of filiation, which is nativity, put two filiations + in Christ, just as there are two nativities. On the contrary, others, considering only the subject of filiation, which is + the person or hypostasis, put only one filiation in Christ, just as there is but one hypostasis or person. Because the unity + or plurality of a relation is considered in respect, not of its terms, but of its cause or + of its subject. For if it were considered in respect of its terms, every man would of necessity have in himself two filiations---one + in reference to his father, and another in reference to his mother. But if we consider the question aright, we shall see that + every man bears but one relation to both his father and his mother, on account of the unity of the cause thereof. For man + is born by one birth of both father and mother: whence he bears but one relation to both. The same is said of one + master who teaches many disciples the same doctrine, and of one lord who governs many subjects by the same power. But if there + be various causes specifically diverse, it seems that in consequence the relations differ in species: wherefore nothing hinders + several such relations being in the same subject. Thus if a man teach grammar to some and logic to others, his teaching is + of a different kind in one case and in the other; and therefore one and the same man may have different relations as the + master of different disciples, or of the same disciples in regard to diverse doctrines. Sometimes, however, it happens that + a man bears a relation to several in respect of various causes, but of the same species: thus a father may have several sons + by several acts of generation. Wherefore the + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p7"> paternity cannot differ specifically, since the acts of generation are specifically the same. And because several forms of + the same species cannot at the same time be in the same subject, it is impossible for several paternities to be in a man who + is the father of several sons by natural generation. But it would not be so were he the father of one son by natural generation + and of another by adoption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p8"> Now, it is manifest that Christ was not born by one and the same nativity, of the Father from eternity, and of His Mother + in time: indeed, these two nativities differ specifically. Wherefore, as to this, we must say that there are various filiations, + one temporal and the other eternal. Since, however, the subject of filiation is neither the nature nor part of the nature, + but the person or hypostasis alone; and since in Christ there is no other hypostasis or person than the + eternal, there can be no other filiation in Christ but that which is in the eternal hypostasis. Now, every relation which + is predicated of God from time does not put something real in the eternal God, but only something according to our way of + thinking, as we have said in the + <a id="TP_Q35_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q13_A7.html">FP, Q[13], A[7]</a>. Therefore the filiation by which Christ is referred to His Mother cannot be a real relation, but only a relation of reason. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p9"> Consequently each opinion is true to a certain extent. For if we consider the adequate causes of filiation, we must needs + say that there are two filiations in respect of the twofold nativity. But if we consider the subject of filiation, which can + only be the eternal suppositum, then no other than the eternal filiation in Christ is a real relation. Nevertheless, He has + the relation of Son in regard to His Mother, because it is implied in the relation of motherhood to Christ. Thus + God is called Lord by a relation which is implied in the real relation by which the creature is subject to God. And although + lordship is not a real relation in God, yet is He really Lord through the real subjection of the creature to Him. In the same + way Christ is really the Son of the Virgin Mother through the real relation of her motherhood to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Temporal nativity would cause a real temporal filiation in Christ if there were in Him a subject capable of such filiation. + But this cannot be; since the eternal suppositum cannot be receptive of a temporal relation, as stated above. Nor can it be + said that it is receptive of temporal filiation by reason of the human nature, just as it is receptive of the temporal nativity; + because human nature would need in some way to be the subject of filiation, + just as in a way it is the subject of nativity; for since an Ethiopian is said to be white by reason of his teeth, it must + be that his teeth are the subject of whiteness. But human nature can nowise be the subject of filiation, because this relation + regards directly the person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Eternal filiation does not depend on a temporal mother, but together with this eternal filiation we understand a certain + temporal relation dependent on the mother, in respect of which relation Christ is called the Son of His Mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> One and being are mutually consequent, as is said Metaph. iv. Therefore, just as it happens that in one of the extremes of + a relation there is something real, whereas in the other there is not something real, but merely a certain aspect, as the + Philosopher observes of knowledge and the thing known; so also it happens that on the part of one extreme there is one relation, + whereas on the part of the other there are many. Thus in man on the part of his + parents there is a twofold relation, the one of paternity, the other of motherhood, which are specifically diverse, inasmuch + as the father is the principle of generation in one way, and the mother in another (whereas if many be the principle of one + action and in the same way---for instance, if many. together draw a ship along---there would be one and the same relation + in all of them); but on the part of the child there is but one filiation in reality, though there be two in aspect, + corresponding to the two relations in the parents, as considered by the intellect. And thus in one way there is only one real + filiation in Christ, which is in respect of the Eternal Father: yet there is another temporal relation in regard to His temporal + mother. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A5-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q35_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q35_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was not born without His Mother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of our + first parents, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.17" target="asv"> Gn. 2:17</a>: "In what day soever ye shall eat, ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die"; so were the pains of childbirth, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.3.16" target="asv"> Gn. 3:16</a>: "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." But Christ was willing to undergo death. Therefore for the same + reason it seems that His birth should have been with pain. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But Christ ended His life in pain, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.4" target="asv"> Is. 53:4</a>: "Surely . . . He hath carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity was not without the pains of childbirth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour [*Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were present + at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the mother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed + Virgin suffered pain in giving birth to her Child. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. [*Supposititious]), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all + pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above ( + <a id="TP_Q35_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q28_A2.html">Q[28], A[2]</a>, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the + passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much + joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.35.1" target="asv"> Is. 35:1,2</a>: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.3.16" target="asv">Gn. 3:16</a>) after the words, "in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children," the following are added: "and thou shalt be under thy husband's + power." But, as Augustine says (Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [*Supposititious]), from this sentence we must exclude the Virgin-Mother + of God; who, "because she conceived Christ without the defilement of sin, and + without the stain of sexual mingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without violation of her virginal integrity, + without detriment to the purity of her maidenhood." Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His own spontaneous desire, + in order to atone for us, not as a necessary result of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As "by His death" Christ "destroyed our death" [*Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time], so by His pains He freed us from our + pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the mother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone + for our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer in giving birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> We are told ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.7" target="asv">Lk. 2:7</a>) that the Blessed Virgin herself "wrapped up in swaddling clothes" the Child whom she had brought forth, "and laid Him in + a manger." Consequently the narrative of this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says (Adv. Helvid. iv): + "No midwife was there, no officious women interfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,' says he, + 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a + manger.'" These words prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q35_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q35_A7-p0.1">Whether Christ should have been born in Bethlehem?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have been born in Bethlehem. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.2.3" target="asv">Is. 2:3</a>): "The law shall come forth from Sion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem." But Christ is truly the Word of God. Therefore + He should have come into the world at Jerusalem. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.2.23" target="asv">Mat. 2:23</a>) that it is written of Christ that "He shall be called a Nazarene"; which is taken from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.11.1" target="asv"> Is. 11:1</a>: "A flower shall rise up out of his root"; for "Nazareth" is interpreted "a flower." But a man is named especially from the + place of his birth. Therefore it seems that He should have been born in Nazareth, where also He was conceived and brought + up. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, for this was our Lord born into the world, that He might make known the true faith. according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.18.37" target="asv"> Jn. 18:37</a>: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth." But this would have + been easier if He had been born in the city of Rome, which at that time ruled the world; whence Paul, writing to the Romans + (1:8) says: "Your faith is spoken of in the whole world." Therefore it seems + that He should not have been born in Bethlehem. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mic.5.2" target="asv">Mic. 5:2</a>): "And thou, Bethlehem, Ephrata . . . out of thee shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be the ruler in Israel." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for two reasons. First, because "He was made . . . of the seed of David according to + the flesh," as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.3" target="asv">Rom. 1:3</a>); to whom also was a special promise made concerning Christ; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiKgdms.23.1" target="asv">2 Kings 23:1</a>: "The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob . . . said." Therefore He willed to be born + at Bethlehem, where David was born, in order that by + the very birthplace the promise made to David might be shown to be fulfilled. The Evangelist points this out by saying: "Because + He was of the house and of the family of David." Secondly, because, as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang.): "Bethlehem is interpreted + 'the house of bread.' It is Christ Himself who said, 'I am the living Bread which came down from heaven.'" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As David was born in Bethlehem, so also did he choose Jerusalem to set up his throne there, and to build there the Temple + of God, so that Jerusalem was at the same time a royal and a priestly city. Now, Christ's priesthood and kingdom were "consummated" + principally in His Passion. Therefore it was becoming that He should choose Bethlehem for His Birthplace and Jerusalem for + the scene of His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p8"> At the same time, too, He put to silence the vain boasting of men who take pride in being born in great cities, where also + they desire especially to receive honor. Christ, on the contrary, willed to be born in a mean city, and to suffer reproach + in a great city. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ wished "to flower" by His holy life, not in His carnal birth. Therefore He wished to be fostered and brought up at + Nazareth. But He wished to be born at Bethlehem away from home; because, as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang.), through the + human nature which He had taken, He was born, as it were, in a foreign place---foreign not to His power, but to His Nature. + And, again, as Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.7" target="asv"> Lk. 2:7</a>: "In order that He who found + no room at the inn might prepare many mansions for us in His Father's house." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to a sermon in the Council of Ephesus [*P. iii, cap. ix]: "If He had chosen the great city of Rome, the change + in the world would be ascribed to the influence of her citizens. If He had been the son of the Emperor, His benefits would + have been attributed to the latter's power. But that we might acknowledge the work of God in the transformation of the whole + earth, He chose a poor mother and a birthplace poorer still." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p11"> "But the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound the strong" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.27" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:27</a>). And therefore, in order the more to show His power, He set up the head of His Church in Rome itself, which was the head + of the world, in sign of His complete victory, in order that from that city the faith might spread throughout the world; according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A7-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.26.5" target="asv">Is. 26:5,6</a>: "The high city He shall lay low . . . the feet of the poor," i.e. of Christ, "shall tread it + down; the steps of the needy," i.e. of the apostles Peter and Paul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A7-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q35_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q35_A8-p0.1">Whether Christ was born at a fitting time?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was not born at a fitting time. Because Christ came in order to restore liberty to His own. But + He was born at a time of subjection---namely, when the whole world, as it were, tributary to Augustus, was being enrolled, + at his command as Luke relates (2:1). Therefore it seems that Christ was not born at a fitting time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ were not made to the Gentiles; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.4" target="asv"> Rom. 9:4</a>: "To whom belong . . . the promises." But Christ was born during the reign of a foreigner, as appears from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.2.1" target="asv"> Mat. 2:1</a>: "When Jesus was born in the days of King Herod." Therefore it seems that He was not born at a fitting time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the time of Christ's presence on earth is compared to the day, because He is the "Light of the world"; wherefore + He says Himself ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.9.4" target="asv">Jn. 9:4</a>): "I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it is day." But in summer the days are longer than in winter. Therefore, + since He was born in the depth of winter, eight days before the Kalends of January, it seems that He was not born at a fitting + time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv">Gal. 4:4</a>): "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There is this difference between Christ and other men, that, whereas they are born subject to the restrictions of time, Christ, + as Lord and Maker of all time, chose a time in which to be born, just as He chose a mother and a birthplace. And since "what + is of God is well ordered" and becomingly arranged, it follows that Christ was born at a most fitting time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ came in order to bring us back from a state of bondage to a state of liberty. And therefore, as He took our mortal + nature in order to restore us to life, so, as Bede says (Super Luc. ii, 4,5), "He deigned to take flesh at such a time that, + shortly after His birth, He would be enrolled in Caesar's census, and thus submit Himself to bondage for the sake of our liberty." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p8"> Moreover, at that time, when the whole world lived under one ruler, peace abounded on the earth. Therefore it was a fitting + time for the birth of Christ, for "He is our peace, who hath made both one," as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.2.14" target="asv">Eph. 2:14</a>). Wherefore Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.2.4" target="asv"> Is. 2:4</a>: "If we search the page of ancient history, we shall find that throughout the whole world there was discord until the twenty-eighth + year of Augustus Caesar: but when our Lord + was born, all war ceased"; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.2.4" target="asv"> Is. 2:4</a>: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p9"> Again, it was fitting that Christ should be born while the world was governed by one ruler, because "He came to gather His + own [Vulg.: 'the children of God'] together in one" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.11.52" target="asv">Jn. 11:52</a>), that there might be "one fold and one shepherd" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.10.16" target="asv">Jn. 10:16</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ wished to be born during the reign of a foreigner, that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.49.10" target="asv">Gn. 49:10</a>): "The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till He come that is to be sent." Because, + as Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus Imperf., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), as long as the Jewish "people was + governed by Jewish kings, however wicked, prophets were sent for their + healing. But now that the Law of God is under the power of a wicked king, Christ is born; because a grave and hopeless disease + demanded a more skilful physician." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As says the author of the book De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., "Christ wished to be born, when the light of day begins to increase + in length," so as to show that He came in order that man might come nearer to the Divine Light, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q35_A8-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.79" target="asv"> Lk. 1:79</a>: "To enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p12"> In like manner He chose to be born in the rough winter season, that He might begin from then to suffer in body for us.</p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q35_A8-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q34_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q36" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q36-p0.1">OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE NEWLY BORN CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q36-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36-p2"> We must now consider the manifestation of the newly born Christ: concerning which there are eight points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q36-p3"> (1) Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?</p> + <p id="TP_Q36-p4"> (2) Whether it should have been made known to some?</p> + <p id="TP_Q36-p5"> (3) To whom should it have been made known?</p> + <p id="TP_Q36-p6"> (4) Whether He should have made Himself known, or should He rather have been manifested by others?</p> + <p id="TP_Q36-p7"> (5) By what other means should it have been made known?</p> + <p id="TP_Q36-p8"> (6) Of the order of these manifestations;</p> + <p id="TP_Q36-p9"> (7) Of the star by means of which His birth was made known;</p> + <p id="TP_Q36-p10"> (8) of the adoration of the Magi, who were informed of Christ's nativity by means of the star.</p> + <div id="TP_Q36_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q36_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's birth should have been made known to all. Because fulfilment should correspond to promise. Now, + the promise of Christ's coming is thus expressed ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.49.3" target="asv">Ps. 49:3</a>): "God shall come manifestly. But He came by His birth in the flesh." Therefore it seems that His birth should have been + made known to the whole world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.15" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:15</a>): "Christ came into this world to save sinners." But this is not effected save in as far as the grace of Christ is made known + to them; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Titus.2.11" target="asv"> Titus 2:11,12</a>: "The grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men, instructing us, that denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we + should live soberly, and justly, and godly in this world." Therefore it seems that Christ's birth + should have been made known to all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God is most especially inclined to mercy; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.144.9" target="asv"> Ps. 144:9</a>: "His tender mercies are over all His works." But in His second coming, when He will "judge justices" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.70.3" target="asv">Ps. 70:3</a>), He will come before the eyes of all; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.27" target="asv"> Mat. 24:27</a>: "As lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be." + Much more, therefore, should + His first coming, when He was born into the world according to the flesh, have been made known to all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.45.15" target="asv">Is. 45:15</a>): "Thou art a hidden God, the Holy [Vulg.: 'the God] of Israel, the Saviour." And, again ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.43.3" target="asv">Is. 43:3</a>): "His look was, as it were, hidden and despised." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was unfitting that Christ's birth should be made known to all men without distinction. First, because this would have + been a hindrance to the redemption of man, which was accomplished by means of the Cross; for, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.8" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:8</a>): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p7"> Secondly, because this would have lessened the merit of faith, which He came to offer men as the way to righteousness. according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.22" target="asv"> Rom. 3:22</a>: "The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ." For if, when Christ was born, His birth had been made known to all by evident + signs, the very nature of faith would have been destroyed, since it is "the evidence of things that appear not," as stated, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.1" target="asv"> Heb. 11:1.</a> + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p8"> Thirdly, because thus the reality of His human nature would have come into doubt. Whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum + cxxxvii): "If He had not passed through the different stages of age from babyhood to youth, had neither eaten nor slept, would + He not have strengthened an erroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that He had become true man? And while + He is doing all things wondrously, would He have taken away that which He accomplished in mercy?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> According to the gloss, the words quoted must be understood of Christ's coming as judge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All men were to be instructed unto salvation, concerning the grace of God our Saviour, not at the very time of His birth, + but afterwards, in due time, after He had "wrought salvation in the midst of the earth" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.73.12" target="asv">Ps. 73:12</a>). Wherefore after His Passion and Resurrection, He said to His disciples ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv">Mat. 28:19</a>): "Going . . . teach ye all nations." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> For judgment to be passed, the authority of the judge needs to be known: and for this reason it behooves that the coming + of Christ unto judgment should be manifest. But His first coming was unto the salvation of all, which is by faith that is + of things not seen. And therefore it was fitting that His first coming should be hidden. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A1-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q36_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q36_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to some?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been made known to anyone. For, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), it befitted + the salvation of mankind that Christ's first coming should be hidden. But Christ came to save all; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.4.10" target="asv">1 Tim. 4:10</a>: "Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful." Therefore Christ's birth should not have been made known to + anyone. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, before Christ was born, His future birth was made known to the Blessed Virgin and Joseph. Therefore it was not necessary + that it should be made known to others after His birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, no wise man makes known that from which arise disturbance and harm to others. But, when Christ's birth was made + known, disturbance arose: for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.2.3" target="asv">Mat. 2:3</a>) that "King Herod, hearing" of Christ's birth, "was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." Moreover, this brought harm to + others; because it was the occasion of Herod's killing "all the male children that were in Bethlehem . . . from two years + old and under." Therefore + it seems unfitting for Christ's birth to have been made known to anyone. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Christ's birth would have been profitable to none if it had been hidden from all. But it behooved Christ's birth to be profitable: + else He were born in vain. Therefore it seems that Christ's birth should have been made known to some. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv">Rom. 13:1</a>) "what is of God is well ordered." Now it belongs to the order of Divine wisdom that God's gifts and the secrets of His wisdom + are not bestowed on all equally, but to some immediately, through whom they are made known to others. Wherefore, with regard + to the mystery of the Resurrection it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.40" target="asv">Acts 10:40,41</a>): "God . . . gave" Christ rising again "to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to + witnesses pre-ordained by God." Consequently, that His birth might be consistent with this, it should have been made known, + not to all, but to some, through whom it could be made known to others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As it would have been prejudicial to the salvation of mankind if God's birth had been made known to all men, so also would + it have been if none had been informed of it. Because in either case faith is destroyed, whether a thing be perfectly manifest, + or whether it be entirely unknown, so that no one can hear it from another; for "faith cometh by hearing" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.17" target="asv">Rom. 10:17</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Mary and Joseph needed to be instructed concerning Christ's birth before He was born, because it devolved on them to show + reverence to the child conceived in the womb, and to serve Him even before He was born. But their testimony, being of a domestic + character, would have aroused suspicion in regard to Christ's greatness: and so it behooved it to be made known to others, + whose testimony could not be suspect. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The very disturbance that arose when it was known that Christ was born was becoming to His birth. First, because thus the + heavenly dignity of Christ is made manifest. Wherefore Gregory says (Hom. x in Evang.): "After the birth of the King of heaven, + the earthly king is troubled: doubtless because earthly grandeur is covered with confusion when the heavenly majesty is revealed." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p10"> Secondly, thereby the judicial power of Christ was foreshadowed. Thus Augustine says in a sermon (30 de Temp.) on the Epiphany: + "What will He be like in the judgment-seat; since from His cradle He struck terror into the heart of a proud king?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p11"> Thirdly, because thus the overthrow of the devil's kingdom was foreshadowed. For, as Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Epiphany + (Serm. v [*Opus Imperfectum in Matth., Hom. ii, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom]): "Herod was not so much troubled + in himself as the devil in Herod. For Herod thought Him to be a man, but the devil thought Him to be God. Each feared a successor + to his kingdom: the devil, a heavenly successor; Herod, an earthly successor." But their fear was + needless: since Christ had not come to set up an earthly kingdom, as Pope Leo says, addressing himself to Herod: "Thy palace + cannot hold Christ: nor is the Lord of the world content with the paltry power of thy scepter." That the Jews were troubled, + who, on the contrary, should have rejoiced, was either because, as Chrysostom says, "wicked men could not rejoice at the coming + of the Holy one," or because they wished to court favor with Herod, whom they feared; for "the populace is inclined to + favor too much those whose cruelty it endures." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p12"> And that the children were slain by Herod was not harmful to them, but profitable. For Augustine says in a sermon on the + Epiphany (66 de Diversis): "It cannot be questioned that Christ, who came to set man free, rewarded those who were slain for + Him; since, while hanging on the cross, He prayed for those who were putting Him to death." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A2-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q36_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q36_A3-p0.1">Whether those to whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably chosen?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that those to whom Christ's birth was made known were not suitably chosen. For our Lord ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.5" target="asv">Mat. 10:5</a>) commanded His disciples, "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles," so that He might be made known to the Jews before the + Gentiles. Therefore it seems that much less should Christ's birth have been at once revealed to the Gentiles who "came from + the east," as stated + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.2.1" target="asv"> Mat. 2:1.</a> + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the revelation of Divine truth should be made especially to the friends of God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Job.37" target="asv">Job 37</a> [Vulg.: + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Job.36.33" target="asv"> Job 36:33</a>]: "He sheweth His friend concerning it." But the Magi seem to be God's foes; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.31" target="asv">Lev. 19:31</a>): "Go not aside after wizards [magi], neither ask anything of soothsayers." Therefore Christ's birth should not have been + made known to the Magi. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ came in order to set free the whole world from the power of the devil; whence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.1.11" target="asv">Malachi 1:11</a>): "From the rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great among the Gentiles." Therefore He should have been + made known, not only to those who dwelt in the east, but also to some from all parts of the world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, all the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of Christ. But the sacraments of the Old Law were dispensed through + the ministry of the legal priesthood. Therefore it seems that Christ's birth should have been made known rather to the priests + in the Temple than to the shepherds in the fields. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, Christ was born of a Virgin-Mother, and was as yet a little child. It was therefore more suitable that He should + be made known to youths and virgins than to old and married people or to widows, such as Simeon and Anna. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.13.18" target="asv">Jn. 13:18</a>): "I know whom I have chosen." But what is done by God's wisdom is done becomingly. Therefore those to whom Christ's birth + was made known were suitably chosen. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Salvation, which was to be accomplished by Christ, concerns all sorts and conditions of men: because, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3.11" target="asv">Col. 3:11</a>), in Christ "there is neither male nor female, [*These words are in reality from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.28" target="asv"> Gal. 3:28</a>] neither Gentile nor Jew . . . bond nor free," and so forth. And in order that this might be foreshadowed in Christ's birth, + He was made known to men of all conditions. Because, as Augustine says in a sermon on the + Epiphany (32 de Temp.), "the shepherds were Israelites, the Magi were Gentiles. The former were nigh to Him, the latter far + from Him. Both hastened to Him together as to the cornerstone." There was also another point of contrast: for the Magi were + wise and powerful; the shepherds simple and lowly. He was also made known to the righteous as Simeon and Anna; and to sinners, + as the Magi. He was made known both to men, and to women---namely, to Anna---so as to show no condition of men to be + excluded from Christ's redemption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> That manifestation of Christ's birth was a kind of foretaste of the full manifestation which was to come. And as in the later + manifestation the first announcement of the grace of Christ was made by Him and His Apostles to the Jews and afterwards to + the Gentiles, so the first to come to Christ were the shepherds, who were the first-fruits of the Jews, as being near to Him; + and afterwards came the Magi from afar, who were "the first-fruits of the + Gentiles," as Augustine says (Serm. 30 de Temp. cc.). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Serm. 30 de Temp.): "As unskilfulness predominates in the rustic manners of + the shepherd, so ungodliness abounds in the profane rites of the Magi. Yet did this Corner-Stone draw both to Itself; inasmuch + as He came 'to choose the foolish things that He might confound the wise,' and 'not to call the just, but sinners,'" so that + "the proud might not boast, nor the weak despair." Nevertheless, there are those + who say that these Magi were not wizards, but wise astronomers, who are called Magi among the Persians or Chaldees. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Chrysostom says [*Hom. ii in Matth. in the Opus Imperf., among the supposititious works of Chrysostom]: "The Magi came + from the east, because the first beginning of faith came from the land where the day is born; since faith is the light of + the soul." Or, "because all who come to Christ come from Him and through Him": whence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Zech.6.12" target="asv">Zech. 6:12</a>): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name." Now, they are said to come from the + east literally, either because, as some say, they came from the farthest parts of the east, or because they came from the + neighboring parts of Judea that lie to the east of the region inhabited by the Jews. Yet it is to be believed that certain + signs of Christ's birth appeared also in other parts of the world: thus, at Rome the river flowed with oil [*Eusebius, Chronic. + II, Olymp. 185]; and in Spain three suns were seen, which gradually merged into one [*Cf. Eusebius, Chronic. II, Olymp. + 184]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Chrysostom observes (Theophylact., Enarr. in Luc. ii, 8), the angel who announced Christ's birth did not go to Jerusalem, + nor did he seek the Scribes and Pharisees, for they were corrupted, and full of ill-will. But the shepherds were single-minded, + and were like the patriarchs and Moses in their mode of life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p13"> Moreover, these shepherds were types of the Doctors of the Church, to whom are revealed the mysteries of Christ that were + hidden from the Jews. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As Ambrose says (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A3-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.25" target="asv"> Lk. 2:25</a>): "It was right that our Lord's birth should be attested not only by the shepherds, but also by people advanced in age and + virtue": whose testimony is rendered the more credible by reason of their righteousness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p15"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A3-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q36_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q36_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ Himself should have made His birth know?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should have Himself made His birth known. For "a direct cause is always of greater power than an + indirect cause," as is stated Phys. viii. But Christ made His birth known through others---for instance, to the shepherds + through the angels, and to the Magi through the star. Much more, therefore, should He Himself have made His birth known. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.20.32" target="asv">Ecclus. 20:32</a>): "Wisdom that is hid and treasure that is not seen; what profit is there in them both?" But Christ had, to perfection, the + treasure of wisdom and grace from the beginning of His conception. Therefore, unless He had made the fulness of these gifts + known by words and deeds, wisdom and grace would have been given Him to no purpose. But this is unreasonable: because "God + and nature do nothing without a + purpose" (De Coelo i). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, we read in the book De Infantia Salvatoris that in His infancy Christ worked many miracles. It seems therefore that + He did Himself make His birth known. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Pope Leo says (Serm. xxxiv) that the Magi found the "infant Jesus in no way different from the generality of human infants." + But other infants do not make themselves known. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should Himself make His birth known. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's birth was ordered unto man's salvation, which is by faith. But saving faith confesses Christ's Godhead and humanity. + It behooved, therefore, Christ's birth to be made known in such a way that the proof of His Godhead should not be prejudicial + to faith in His human nature. But this took place while Christ presented a likeness of human weakness, and yet, by means of + God's creatures, He showed the power of the Godhead in Himself. Therefore Christ made + His birth known, not by Himself, but by means of certain other creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By the way of generation and movement we must of necessity come to the imperfect before the perfect. And therefore Christ + was made known first through other creatures, and afterwards He Himself manifested Himself perfectly. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although hidden wisdom is useless, yet there is no need for a wise man to make himself known at all times, but at a suitable + time; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.20.6" target="asv">Ecclus. 20:6</a>): "There is one that holdeth his peace because he knoweth not what to say: and there is another that holdeth his peace, knowing + the proper time." Hence the wisdom given to Christ was not useless, because at a suitable time He manifested Himself. And + the very fact that He + was hidden at a suitable time is a sign of wisdom. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The book De Infantia Salvatoris is apocryphal. Moreover, Chrysostom (Hom. xxi super Joan.) says that Christ worked no miracles + before changing the water into wine, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.2.11" target="asv"> Jn. 2:11</a>: "'This beginning of miracles did Jesus.' For if He had worked miracles at an early age, there would have been no need for + anyone else to manifest Him to the Israelites; whereas John the Baptist says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A4-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.31" target="asv">Jn. 1:31</a>): 'That He may be + made manifest in Israel; therefore am I come baptizing with water.' Moreover, it was fitting that He should not begin to work + miracles at an early age. For people would have thought the Incarnation to be unreal, and, out of sheer spite, would have + crucified Him before the proper time." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q36_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q36_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ's birth should have been manifested by means of the angels and the star?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been manifested by means of the angels. For angels are spiritual substances, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.103.4" target="asv"> Ps. 103:4</a>: "Who maketh His [Vulg.: 'makest Thy'] angels, spirits." But Christ's birth was in the flesh, and not in His spiritual substance. + Therefore it should not have been manifested by means of angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the righteous are more akin to the angels than to any other, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.33.8" target="asv"> Ps. 33:8</a>: "The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them." But Christ's birth was not + announced to the righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, through the angels. Therefore neither should it have been announced to the + shepherds by means of the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it seems that neither ought it to have been announced to the Magi by means of the star. For this seems to favor + the error of those who think that man's birth is influenced by the stars. But occasions of sin should be taken away from man. + Therefore it was not fitting that Christ's birth should be announced by a star. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a sign should be certain, in order that something be made known thereby. But a star does not seem to be a certain + sign of Christ's birth. Therefore Christ's birth was not suitably announced by a star. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.4" target="asv">Dt. 32:4</a>): "The works of God are perfect." But this manifestation is the work of God. Therefore it was accomplished by means of suitable + signs. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As knowledge is imparted through a syllogism from something which we know better, so knowledge given by signs must be conveyed + through things which are familiar to those to whom the knowledge is imparted. Now, it is clear that the righteous have, through + the spirit of prophecy, a certain familiarity with the interior instinct of the Holy Ghost, and are wont to be taught thereby, + without the guidance of sensible signs. Whereas others, occupied with material + things, are led through the domain of the senses to that of the intellect. The Jews, however, were accustomed to receive Divine + answers through the angels; through whom they also received the Law, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.7.53" target="asv"> Acts 7:53</a>: "You [Vulg.: 'who'] . . . have received the Law by the disposition of angels." And the Gentiles, especially astrologers, + were wont to observe the course of the stars. And therefore Christ's birth was made known to the righteous, viz. Simeon and + Anna, by the + interior instinct of the Holy Ghost, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.26" target="asv"> Lk. 2:26</a>: "He had received an answer from the Holy Ghost that he should not see death before he had seen the Christ of the Lord." + But to the shepherds and Magi, as being occupied with material things, Christ's birth was made known by means of visible apparitions. + And since this birth was not only earthly, but also, in a way, heavenly, to both (shepherds and Magi) it is revealed through + heavenly signs: for, as Augustine says + in a sermon on the Epiphany (cciv): "The angels inhabit, and the stars adorn, the heavens: by both, therefore, do the 'heavens + show forth the glory of God.'" Moreover, it was not without reason that Christ's birth was made known, by means of angels, + to the shepherds, who, being Jews, were accustomed to frequent apparitions of the angels: whereas it was revealed by means + of a star to the Magi, who were wont to consider the heavenly bodies. Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.): "Our + Lord deigned to call them through things to which they were accustomed." There is also another reason. For, as Gregory says + (Hom. x in Evang.): "To the Jews, as rational beings, it was fitting that a rational animal [*Cf. + <a id="TP_Q36_A5-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q51_A1.html">FP, Q[51], A[1]</a>, ad 2]," viz. an angel, "should preach. Whereas the Gentiles, who were unable to come to the knowledge of God through the + reason, were led to God, not by words, but by signs. And as our Lord, when He was able to speak, was announced by + heralds who spoke, so before He could speak He was manifested by speechless elements." Again, there is yet another reason. + For, as Augustine [*Pope Leo] says in a sermon on the Epiphany: "To Abraham was promised an innumerable progeny, begotten, + not of carnal propagation, but of the fruitfulness of faith. For this reason it is compared to the multitude of stars; that + a heavenly progeny might be hoped for." Wherefore the Gentiles, "who are thus designated by the stars, are by the rising of + a new + star stimulated" to seek Christ, through whom they are made the seed of Abraham. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> That which of itself is hidden needs to be manifested, but not that which in itself is manifest. Now, the flesh of Him who + was born was manifest, whereas the Godhead was hidden. And therefore it was fitting that this birth should be made known by + angels, who are the ministers of God. Wherefore also a certain "brightness" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.9" target="asv">Lk. 2:9</a>) accompanied the angelic apparition, to indicate that He who was just born was the "Brightness of" the + Father's "glory." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The righteous did not need the visible apparition of the angel; on account of their perfection the interior instinct of the + Holy Ghost was enough for them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The star which manifested Christ's birth removed all occasion of error. For, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "No astrologer + has ever so far connected the stars with man's fate at the time of his birth as to assert that one of the stars, at the birth + of any man, left its orbit and made its way to him who was just born": as happened in the case of the star which made known + the birth of Christ. Consequently this does not corroborate the error of + those who "think there is a connection between man's birth and the course of the stars, for they do not hold that the course + of the stars can be changed at a man's birth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p11"> In the same sense Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.): "It is not an astronomer's business to know from the stars those who + are born, but to tell the future from the hour of a man's birth: whereas the Magi did not know the time of the birth, so as + to conclude therefrom some knowledge of the future; rather was it the other way about." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Chrysostom relates (Hom. ii in Matth.) that, according to some apocryphal books, a certain tribe in the far east near the + ocean was in the possession of a document written by Seth, referring to this star and to the presents to be offered: which + tribe watched attentively for the rising of this star, twelve men being appointed to take observations, who at stated times + repaired to the summit of a mountain with faithful assiduity: whence they subsequently + perceived the star containing the figure of a small child, and above it the form of a cross. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p13"> Or we may say, as may be read in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. lxiii, that "these Magi followed the tradition of + Balaam," who said, "'A star shall rise out of Jacob.' Wherefore observing this star to be a stranger to the system of this + world, they gathered that it was the one foretold by Balaam to indicate the King of the Jews." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p14"> Or again, it may be said with Augustine, in a sermon on the Epiphany (ccclxxiv), that "the Magi had received a revelation + through the angels" that the star was a sign of the birth of Christ: and he thinks it probable that these were "good angels; + since in adoring Christ they were seeking for salvation." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p15"> Or with Pope Leo, in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxiv), that "besides the outward form which aroused the attention of their + corporeal eyes, a more brilliant ray enlightened their minds with the light of faith." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p16"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A5-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q36_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q36_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ's birth was made known in a becoming order?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's birth was made known in an unbecoming order. For Christ's birth should have been made known to + them first who were nearest to Christ, and who longed for Him most; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.6.14" target="asv">Wis. 6:14</a>: "She preventeth them that covet her, so that she first showeth herself unto them." But the righteous were nearest to Christ + by faith, and longed most for His coming; whence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.25" target="asv">Lk. 2:25</a>) of Simeon that "he was just + and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel." Therefore Christ's birth should have been made known to Simeon before + the shepherds and Magi. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Magi were the "first-fruits of the Gentiles," who were to believe in Christ. But first the "fulness of the Gentiles + . . . come in" unto faith, and afterwards "all Israel" shall "be saved," as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.25" target="asv">Rom. 11:25</a>). Therefore Christ's birth should have been made known to the Magi before the shepherds. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.2.16" target="asv">Mat. 2:16</a>) that "Herod killed all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and + under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired from the wise men": so that it seems that the Magi were two + years in coming to Christ after His birth. It was therefore unbecoming that Christ should be made known to the Gentiles so + long after His birth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.2.21" target="asv">Dan. 2:21</a>): "He changes time and ages." Consequently the time of the manifestation of Christ's birth seems to have been arranged in + a suitable order. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's birth was first made known to the shepherds on the very day that He was born. For, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.8" target="asv">Lk. 2:8</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.15" target="asv">15</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.16" target="asv">16</a>): "There were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night-watches over their flock . . . And it came to + pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven they [Vulg.: 'the shepherds'] said one to another: Let us go over to + Bethlehem . . . and they came with haste." Second in order were the + Magi, who came to Christ on the thirteenth day after His birth, on which day is kept the feast of the Epiphany. For if they + had come after a year, or even two years, they would not have found Him in Bethlehem, since it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.39" target="asv">Lk. 2:39</a>) that "after they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord"---that is to say, after they had offered up + the Child Jesus in the Temple---"they returned into Galilee, to their city"---namely, "Nazareth." In the third place, + it was made known in the Temple to the righteous on the fortieth day after His birth, as related by Luke (2:22). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p7"> The reason of this order is that the shepherds represent the apostles and other believers of the Jews, to whom the faith + of Christ was made known first; among whom there were "not many mighty, not many noble," as we read + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.26" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:26.</a> Secondly, the faith of Christ came to the "fulness of the Gentiles"; and this is foreshadowed in the Magi. Thirdly it came + to the fulness of the Jews, which is foreshadowed in the righteous. Wherefore also Christ was manifested + to them in the Jewish Temple. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.30" target="asv">Rom. 9:30,31</a>): "Israel, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice": but the Gentiles, "who followed not + after justice," forestalled the generality of the Jews in the justice which is of faith. As a figure of this, Simeon, "who + was waiting for the consolation of Israel," was the last to know Christ born: and he was preceded by the Magi and the shepherds, + who did not await the + coming of Christ with such longing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the "fulness of the Gentiles came in" unto faith before the fulness of the Jews, yet the first-fruits of the Jews + preceded the first-fruits of the Gentiles in faith. For this reason the birth of Christ was made known to the shepherds before + the Magi. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There are two opinions about the apparition of the star seen by the Magi. For Chrysostom (Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus Imperf. + in Matth., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), and Augustine in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxi, cxxxii), say that the star + was seen by the Magi during the two years that preceded the birth of Christ: and then, having first considered the matter + and prepared themselves for the journey, they came from the farthest east to Christ, + arriving on the thirteenth day after His birth. Wherefore Herod, immediately after the departure of the Magi, "perceiving + that He was deluded by them," commanded the male children to be killed "from two years old and under," being doubtful lest + Christ were already born when the star appeared, according as he had heard from the Magi. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p11"> But others say that the star first appeared when Christ was born, and that the Magi set off as soon as they saw the star, + and accomplished a journey of very great length in thirteen days, owing partly to the Divine assistance, and partly to the + fleetness of the dromedaries. And I say this on the supposition that they came from the far east. But others, again, say that + they came from a neighboring country, whence also was Balaam, to whose teaching they were heirs; and they are + said to have come from the east, because their country was to the east of the country of the Jews. In this case Herod killed + the babes, not as soon as the Magi departed, but two years after: and that either because he is said to have gone to Rome + in the meanwhile on account of an accusation brought against him, or because he was troubled at some imminent peril, and for + the time being desisted from his anxiety to slay the child, or because he may have thought that the Magi, "being deceived + by + the illusory appearance of the star, and not finding the child, as they had expected to, were ashamed to return to him": as + Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii). And the reason why he killed not only those who were two years old, but also the younger + children, would be, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Innocents, because he feared lest a child whom the stars obey, might + make himself appear older or younger. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A6-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q36_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q36_A7-p0.1">Whether the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly system?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly system. For Augustine says in a sermon on + the Epiphany (cxxii): "While God yet clings to the breast, and suffers Himself to be wrapped in humble swaddling clothes, + suddenly a new star shines forth in the heavens." Therefore the star which appeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly system. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cci): "Christ was made known to the shepherds by angels, to the Magi + by a star. A heavenly tongue speaks to both, because the tongue of the prophets spoke no longer." But the angels who appeared + to the shepherds were really angels from heaven. Therefore also the star which appeared to the Magi was really a star from + the heavens. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, stars which are not in the heavens but in the air are called comets, which do not appear at the birth of kings, + but rather are signs of their approaching death. But this star was a sign of the King's birth: wherefore the Magi said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A7-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.2.2" target="asv">Mat. 2:2</a>): "Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east." Therefore it seems that it was a star + from the heavens. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): "It was not one of those stars which since the beginning of the creation observe the course + appointed to them by the Creator; but this star was a stranger to the heavens, and made its appearance at the strange sight + of a virgin in childbirth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.), it is clear, for many reasons, that the star which appeared to the Magi did not belong + to the heavenly system. First, because no other star approaches from the same quarter as this star, whose course was from + north to south, these being the relative positions of Persia, whence the Magi came, and Judea. Secondly, from the time [at + which it was seen]. For it appeared not only at night, but also at midday: and no star can + do this, not even the moon. Thirdly, because it was visible at one time and hidden at another. For when they entered Jerusalem + it hid itself: then, when they had left Herod, it showed itself again. Fourthly, because its movement was not continuous, + but when the Magi had to continue their journey the star moved on; when they had to stop the star stood still; as happened + to the pillar of a cloud in the desert. Fifthly, because it indicated the virginal Birth, not by remaining aloft, but by coming + down below. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.2.9" target="asv">Mat. 2:9</a>) that "the star which they had seen in the east went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was." Whence + it is evident that the words of the Magi, "We have seen His star in the east," are to be taken as meaning, not that when they + were in the east the star appeared over the country of Judea, but that when they saw the star it was in the east, and that + it preceded them into Judea (although this is considered doubtful + by some). But it could not have indicated the house distinctly, unless it were near the earth. And, as he [Chrysostom] observes, + this does not seem fitting to a star, but "of some power endowed with reason." Consequently "it seems that this was some invisible + force made visible under the form of a star." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p7"> Wherefore some say that, as the Holy Ghost, after our Lord's Baptism, came down on Him under the form of a dove, so did He + appear to the Magi under the form of a star. While others say that the angel who, under a human form, appeared to the shepherds, + under the form of a star, appeared to the Magi. But it seems more probable that it was a newly created star, not in the heavens, + but in the air near the earth, and that its movement varied according to God's will. Wherefore Pope + Leo says in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxi): "A star of unusual brightness appeared to the three Magi in the east, which, + through being more brilliant and more beautiful than the other stars, drew men's gaze and attention: so that they understood + at once that such an unwonted event could not be devoid of purpose." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In Holy Scripture the air is sometimes called the heavens---for instance, "The birds of the heavens [Douay: 'air'] and the + fishes of the sea." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The angels of heaven, by reason of their very office, come down to us, being "sent to minister." But the stars of heaven + do not change their position. Wherefore there is no comparison. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the star did not follow the course of the heavenly stars, so neither did it follow the course of the comets, which neither + appear during the daytime nor vary their customary course. Nevertheless in its signification it has something in common with + the comets. Because the heavenly kingdom of Christ "shall break in pieces, and shall consume all the kingdoms" of the earth, + "and itself shall stand for ever" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A7-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.2.44" target="asv">Dan. 2:44</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A7-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q36_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q36_A8-p0.1">Whether it was becoming that the Magi should come to adore Christ and pay homage to Him?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was unbecoming that the Magi should come to adore Christ and pay homage to Him. For reverence is due + to a king from his subjects. But the Magi did not belong to the kingdom of the Jews. Therefore, since they knew by seeing + the star that He that was born was the "King of the Jews," it seems unbecoming that they should come to adore Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it seems absurd during the reign of one king to proclaim a stranger. But in Judea Herod was reigning. Therefore + it was foolish of the Magi to proclaim the birth of a king. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a heavenly sign is more certain than a human sign. But the Magi had come to Judea from the east, under the guidance + of a heavenly sign. Therefore it was foolish of them to seek human guidance besides that of the star, saying: "Where is He + that is born King of the Jews?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the offering of gifts and the homage of adoration are not due save to kings already reigning. But the Magi did not + find Christ resplendent with kingly grandeur. Therefore it was unbecoming for them to offer Him gifts and homage. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.60.3" target="asv">Is. 60:3</a>): "[The Gentiles] shall walk in the light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising." But those who walk in the Divine light + do not err. Therefore the Magi were right in offering homage to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[3], ad 1), the Magi are the "first-fruits of the Gentiles" that believed in Christ; because their faith + was a presage of the faith and devotion of the nations who were to come to Christ from afar. And therefore, as the devotion + and faith of the nations is without any error through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, so also we must believe that the + Magi, inspired by the Holy Ghost, did wisely in paying homage to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cc.): "Though many kings of the Jews had been born and died, none of them + did the Magi seek to adore. And so they who came from a distant foreign land to a kingdom that was entirely strange to them, + had no idea of showing such great homage to such a king as the Jews were wont to have. But they had learnt that such a King + was born that by adoring Him they might be sure of obtaining from Him the salvation + which is of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By proclaiming [Christ King] the Magi foreshadowed the constancy of the Gentiles in confessing Christ even until death. Whence + Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth.) that, while they thought of the King who was to come, the Magi feared not the king who + was actually present. They had not yet seen Christ, and they were already prepared to die for Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cc.): "The star which led the Magi to the place where the Divine Infant was + with His Virgin-Mother could bring them to the town of Bethlehem, in which Christ was born. Yet it hid itself until the Jews + also bore testimony of the city in which Christ was to be born: so that, being encouraged by a twofold witness," as Pope Leo + says (Serm. xxxiv), "they might seek with more ardent faith Him, whom both the + brightness of the star and the authority of prophecy revealed." Thus they "proclaim" that Christ is born, and "inquire where; + they believe and ask, as it were, betokening those who walk by faith and desire to see," as Augustine says in a sermon on + the Epiphany (cxcix). But the Jews, by indicating to them the place of Christ's birth, "are like the carpenters who built + the Ark of Noe, who provided others with the means of escape, and themselves perished in the flood. Those who asked, heard + and + went their way: the teachers spoke and stayed where they were; like the milestones that point out the way but walk not" (Augustine, + Serm. cclxxiii). It was also by God's will that, when they no longer saw the star, the Magi, by human instinct, went to Jerusalem, + to seek in the royal city the new-born King, in order that Christ's birth might be publicly proclaimed first in Jerusalem, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q36_A8-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.2.3" target="asv"> Is. 2:3</a>: "The Law shall come forth from Sion, and the Word of the Lord from + Jerusalem"; and also "in order that by the zeal of the Magi who came from afar, the indolence of the Jews who lived near at + hand, might be proved worthy of condemnation" (Remig., Hom. in Matth. ii, 1). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "If the Magi had come in search of an + earthly King, they would have been disconcerted at finding that they had taken the trouble to come such a long way for nothing. + Consequently they would have neither adored nor offered gifts. But since they sought a heavenly King, though they found in + Him no signs of royal pre-eminence, yet, content with the testimony of the star + alone, they adored: for they saw a man, and they acknowledged a God." Moreover, they offer gifts in keeping with Christ's + greatness: "gold, as to the great King; they offer up incense as to God, because it is used in the Divine Sacrifice; and myrrh, + which is used in embalming the bodies of the dead, is offered as to Him who is to die for the salvation of all" (Gregory, + Hom. x in Evang.). And hereby, as Gregory says (Hom. x in Evang.), we are taught to offer gold, "which signifies wisdom, to + the + new-born King, by the luster of our wisdom in His sight." We offer God incense, "which signifies fervor in prayer, if our + constant prayers mount up to God with an odor of sweetness"; and we offer myrrh, "which signifies mortification of the flesh, + if we mortify the ill-deeds of the flesh by refraining from them." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q36_A8-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q35_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q37" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q37-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S CIRCUMCISION, AND OF THE OTHER LEGAL OBSERVANCES ACCOMPLISHED IN REGARD TO THE CHILD CHRIST (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q37-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q37-p2"> We must now consider Christ's circumcision. And since the circumcision is a kind of profession of observing the Law, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.3" target="asv"> Gal. 5:3</a>: "I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to do the whole Law," we shall have at the same time + to inquire about the other legal observances accomplished in regard to the Child Christ. Therefore there are four points of + inquiry: + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37-p3"> (1) His circumcision;</p> + <p id="TP_Q37-p4"> (2) The imposition of His name;</p> + <p id="TP_Q37-p5"> (3) His presentation;</p> + <p id="TP_Q37-p6"> (4) His Mother's purification.</p> + <div id="TP_Q37_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q37_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ should have been circumcised?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have been circumcised. For on the advent of the reality, the figure ceases. But circumcision + was prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant concerning his posterity, as may be seen from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.17" target="asv">Gn. 17</a>. Now this covenant was fulfilled in Christ's birth. Therefore circumcision should have ceased at once. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "every action of Christ is a lesson to us" [*Innoc. III, Serm. xxii de Temp.]; wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.15" target="asv">Jn. 3:15</a>): "I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also." But we ought not to be circumcised; according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.2" target="asv"> Gal. 5:2</a>: "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." Therefore it seems that neither should Christ have been circumcised. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of original sin. But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above + ( + <a id="TP_Q37_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A3.html">Q[14], A[3]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q37_A1-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A1.html"> Q[15], A[1]</a>). Therefore Christ should not have been circumcised. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.21" target="asv">Lk. 2:21</a>): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> For several reasons Christ ought to have been circumcised. First, in order to prove the reality of His human nature, in contradiction + to the Manicheans, who said that He had an imaginary body: and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that Christ's body + was consubstantial with His Godhead; and in contradiction to Valentine, who said that Christ brought His body from heaven. + Secondly, in order to show His approval of circumcision, which God had + instituted of old. Thirdly, in order to prove that He was descended from Abraham, who had received the commandment of circumcision + as a sign of his faith in Him. Fourthly, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving Him, if He were uncircumcised. + Fifthly, "in order by His example to exhort us to be obedient" [*Bede, Hom. x in Evang.]. Wherefore He was circumcised on + the eighth day according to the prescription of the Law ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.12.3" target="asv">Lev. 12:3</a>). Sixthly, "that He + who had come in the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was wont to be healed." Seventhly, + that by taking on Himself the burden of the Law, He might set others free therefrom, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv"> Gal. 4:4,5</a>: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin in the member of generation, signified "the passing away of the old generation" + [*Athanasius, De Sabb. et Circumcis.]: from the decrepitude of which we are freed by Christ's Passion. Consequently this figure + was not completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in His Passion, until which time the circumcision retained its virtue + and status. Therefore it behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of + Abraham before His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet of obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in + fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time. Because "there is a time and opportunity for every business" + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.8.6" target="asv">Eccl 8:6</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p9"> Moreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.), "as we died when He died, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, + so were we circumcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal circumcision." And this is what the Apostle + says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.11" target="asv">Col. 2:11</a>): "In whom," [i.e. Christ] "you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, + but in the circumcision of" our Lord Jesus "Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our death, which is the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in order to + deliver us from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto sin, so also He took upon Himself circumcision, which was a + remedy against original sin, whereas He contracted no original sin, in order to deliver us from the yoke of the Law, and to + accomplish a spiritual circumcision in us---in order, that is to say, that, by taking + upon Himself the shadow, He might accomplish the reality. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A1-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q37_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q37_A2-p0.1">Whether His name was suitably given to Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to Christ. For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic foretelling. + But the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.7.14" target="asv">Is. 7:14</a>): "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.8.3" target="asv">Is. 8:3</a>): "Call His name, Hasten to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the prey"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.9.6" target="asv">Is. 9:6</a>): "His name + shall be called Wonderful, Counselor God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p2.4" href="./asv.html#Zech.6.12" target="asv">Zech. 6:12</a>): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name." Thus it was unsuitable that His name should be called Jesus. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.62.2" target="asv">Is. 62:2</a>): "Thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named [Vulg.: 'shall name']." But the name Jesus + is not a new name, but was given to several in the Old Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.29" target="asv">Lk. 3:29</a>), "Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His name to be called Jesus." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the name Jesus signifies "salvation"; as is clear from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.1.21" target="asv"> Mat. 1:21</a>: "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins." But salvation + through Christ was accomplished not only in the circumcision, but also in uncircumcision, as is declared by the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv">Rom. 4:11,12</a>). Therefore this name was not suitably given to Christ at His circumcision. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p5"> On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.21" target="asv">Lk. 2:21</a>): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, His name was called Jesus." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This is clear in the names of genera and species, as stated Metaph. iv: "Since + a name is but an expression of the definition" which designates a thing's proper nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p7"> Now, the names of individual men are always taken from some property of the men to whom they are given. Either in regard + to time; thus men are named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in respect of some blood relation; thus a son + is named after his father or some other relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist wished to call him "by his father's + name Zachary," not by the name John, because "there" was "none of" his "kindred that" was "called by this + name," as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.59" target="asv">Lk. 1:59-61</a>. Or, again, from some occurrence; thus Joseph "called the name of" the "first-born Manasses, saying: God hath made me to + forget all my labors" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.41.51" target="asv">Gn. 41:51</a>). Or, again, from some quality of the person who receives the name; thus it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Gen.25.25" target="asv">Gn. 25:25</a>) that "he that came forth first was red and hairy like a skin; and his name was called Esau," which is interpreted "red." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p8"> But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.17.5" target="asv">Gn. 17:5</a>): "Thou shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of many nations": and it was said to Peter ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.18" target="asv">Mat. 16:18</a>): "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." Since, therefore, this prerogative of grace was bestowed on + the Man Christ that through Him all men might be saved, therefore He + was becomingly named Jesus, i.e. Saviour: the angel having foretold this name not only to His Mother, but also to Joseph, + who was to be his foster-father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus, which means "salvation." For the name "Emmanuel, which being interpreted + is 'God with us,'" designates the cause of salvation, which is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of + the Son of God, the result of which union was that "God is with us." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p10"> When it was said, "Call his name, Hasten to take away," etc., these words indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, + whose spoils He took away, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.15" target="asv"> Col. 2:15</a>: "Despoiling the principalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p11"> When it was said, "His name shall be called Wonderful," etc., the way and term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch + as "by the wonderful counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the inheritance of the life to come," in which the + children of God will enjoy "perfect peace" under "God their Prince." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p12"> When it was said, "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name," reference is made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery + of the Incarnation, by reason of which "to the righteous a light is risen up in darkness" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.111.4" target="asv">Ps. 111:4</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The name Jesus could be suitable for some other reason to those who lived before Christ---for instance, because they were + saviours in a particular and temporal sense. But in the sense of spiritual and universal salvation, this name is proper to + Christ, and thus it is called a "new" name. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As is related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.17" target="asv">Gn. 17</a>, Abraham received from God and at the same time both his name and the commandment of circumcision. For this reason it was + customary among the Jews to name children on the very day of circumcision, as though before being circumcised they had not + as yet perfect existence: just as now also children receive their names in Baptism. Wherefore on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A2-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.4.3" target="asv"> Prov. 4:3, </a> "I was my father's son, tender, and as an only son in the + sight of my mother," the gloss says: "Why does Solomon call himself an only son in the sight of his mother, when Scripture + testifies that he had an elder brother of the same mother, unless it be that the latter died unnamed soon after birth?" Therefore + it was that Christ received His name at the time of His circumcision. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p15"></p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A2-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q37_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q37_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ was becomingly presented in the temple?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was unbecomingly presented in the Temple. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.13.2" target="asv">Ex. 13:2</a>): "Sanctify unto Me every first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel." But Christ came forth from the + closed womb of the Virgin; and thus He did not open His Mother's womb. Therefore Christ was not bound by this law to be presented + in the Temple. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which is always in one's presence cannot be presented to one. But Christ's humanity was always in God's presence + in the highest degree, as being always united to Him in unity of person. Therefore there was no need for Him to be presented + to the Lord. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ is the principal victim, to whom all the victims of the old Law are referred, as the figure to the reality. + But a victim should not be offered up for a victim. Therefore it was not fitting that another victim should be offered up + for Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, among the legal victims the principal was the lamb, which was a "continual sacrifice" [Vulg.: 'holocaust'], as is + stated + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Num.28.6" target="asv">Num. 28:6</a>: for which reason Christ is also called "the Lamb---Behold the Lamb of God" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.29" target="asv">Jn. 1: 29</a>). It was therefore more fitting that a lamb should be offered for Christ than "a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p6"> On the contrary is the authority of Scripture which relates this as having taken place ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.22" target="asv">Lk. 2:22</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q37_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q37_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, Christ wished to be "made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv">Gal. 4:4,5</a>), and that the "justification of the Law might be" spiritually "fulfilled" in His members. Now, the Law contained a twofold + precept touching the children born. one was a general precept which affected all---namely, that "when the days of the mother's + purification were expired," a + sacrifice was to be offered either "for a son or for a daughter," as laid down + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Lev.12.6" target="asv"> Lev. 12:6.</a> And this sacrifice was for the expiation of the sin in which the child was conceived and born; and also for a certain consecration + of the child, because it was then presented in the Temple for the first time. Wherefore one offering was made as a holocaust + and another for sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p8"> The other was a special precept in the law concerning the first-born of "both man and beast": for the Lord claimed for Himself + all the first-born in Israel, because, in order to deliver the Israelites, He "slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, + both men and cattle" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.12" target="asv">Ex. 12:12</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.13" target="asv">13</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.29" target="asv">29</a>), the first-born of Israel being saved; which law is set down + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p8.4" href="./asv.html#Exod.13" target="asv">Ex. 13</a>. Here also was Christ foreshadowed, who is "the First-born amongst many brethren" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p8.5" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv">Rom. + 8:29 + </a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p9"> Therefore, since Christ was born of a woman and was her first-born, and since He wished to be "made under the Law," the Evangelist + Luke shows that both these precepts were fulfilled in His regard. First, as to that which concerns the first-born, when he + says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.22" target="asv">Lk. 2:22,23</a>): "They carried Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord: as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male opening + the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.'" Secondly, as to the + general precept which concerned all, when he says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.24" target="asv">Lk. 2:24</a>): "And to offer a sacrifice according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Gregory of Nyssa says (De Occursu Dom.): "It seems that this precept of the Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone in + a special manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, + opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual union, in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained + inviolate." Consequently the words "opening the womb" imply that nothing + hitherto had entered or gone forth therefrom. Again, for a special reason is it written "'a male,' because He contracted nothing + of the woman's sin": and in a singular way "is He called 'holy,' because He felt no contagion of earthly corruption, whose + birth was wondrously immaculate" (Ambrose, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.23" target="asv"> Lk. 2:23</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the Son of God "became man, and was circumcised in the flesh, not for His own sake, but that He might make us to be God's + through grace, and that we might be circumcised in the spirit; so, again, for our sake He was presented to the Lord, that + we may learn to offer ourselves to God" [*Athanasius, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.23" target="asv"> Lk. 2:23</a>]. And this was done after His circumcision, in order to show that "no one who is not circumcised from vice is worthy of + Divine regard" [*Bede, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.23" target="asv"> Lk. 2:23</a>]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> For this very reason He wished the legal victims to be offered for Him who was the true Victim, in order that the figure + might be united to and confirmed by the reality, against those who denied that in the Gospel Christ preached the God of the + Law. "For we must not think," says Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.) "that the good God subjected His Son to the enemy's law, which + He Himself had not given." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The law of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.12.6" target="asv">Lev. 12:6</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.12.8" target="asv">8</a> "commanded those who could, to offer, for a son or a daughter, a lamb and also a turtle dove or a pigeon: but those who were + unable to offer a lamb were commanded to offer two turtle doves or two young pigeons" [*Bede, Hom. xv in Purif.]. "And so + the Lord, who, 'being rich, became poor for our [Vulg.: 'your'] sakes, that through His poverty we [you] might be rich," as + is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p13.3" href="./asv.html#iiCor.8.9" target="asv">2 Cor. 8:9</a>, "wished the + poor man's victim to be offered for Him" just as in His birth He was "wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger" [*Bede + on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A3-p13.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.1" target="asv">Lk. 1</a>]. Nevertheless, these birds have a figurative sense. For the turtle dove, being a loquacious bird, represents the preaching + and confession of faith; and because it is a chaste animal, it signifies chastity; and being a solitary animal, it signifies + contemplation. The pigeon is a gentle and simple animal, and therefore signifies gentleness and simplicity. It is + also a gregarious animal; wherefore it signifies the active life. Consequently this sacrifice signified the perfection of + Christ and His members. Again, "both these animals, by the plaintiveness of their song, represented the mourning of the saints + in this life: but the turtle dove, being solitary, signifies the tears of prayer; whereas the pigeon, being gregarious, signifies + the public prayers of the Church" [*Bede, Hom. xv in Purif.]. Lastly, two of each of these animals are offered, to show + that holiness should be not only in the soul, but also in the body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A3-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q37_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q37_A4-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that the Mother of God should go to the temple to be purified?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was unfitting for the Mother of God to go to the Temple to be purified. For purification presupposes + uncleanness. But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin, as stated above (QQ[27],28). Therefore she should not have + gone to the Temple to be purified. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.12.2" target="asv">Lev. 12:2-4</a>): "If a woman, having received seed, shall bear a man-child, she shall be unclean seven days"; and consequently she is forbidden + "to enter into the sanctuary until the days of her purification be fulfilled." But the Blessed Virgin brought forth a male + child without receiving the seed of man. Therefore she had no need to come to the Temple to be purified. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, purification from uncleanness is accomplished by grace alone. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace; + rather, indeed, did she have the very Author of grace with her. Therefore it was not fitting that the Blessed Virgin should + come to the Temple to be purified. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p5"> On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, where it is stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.2.22" target="asv">Lk. 2:22</a>) that "the days of" Mary's "purification were accomplished according to the law of Moses." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As the fulness of grace flowed from Christ on to His Mother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her Son in + humility: for "God giveth grace to the humble," as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q37_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.4.6" target="asv"> James 4:6.</a> And therefore, just as Christ, though not subject to the Law, wished, nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other + burdens of the Law, in order to give an example of humility and obedience; and in order to show His approval of the Law; + and, again, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for calumniating Him: for the same reasons He wished His Mother + also to fulfil the prescriptions of the Law, to which, nevertheless, she was not subject. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness, yet she wished to fulfil the observance of purification, not because she + needed it, but on account of the precept of the Law. Thus the Evangelist says pointedly that the days of her purification + "according to the Law" were accomplished; for she needed no purification in herself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Moses seems to have chosen his words in order to exclude uncleanness from the Mother of God, who was with child "without + receiving seed." It is therefore clear that she was not bound to fulfil that precept, but fulfilled the observance of purification + of her own accord, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacraments of the Law did not cleanse from the uncleanness of sin which is accomplished by grace, but they foreshadowed + this purification: for they cleansed by a kind of carnal purification, from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity, as + stated in the + <a id="TP_Q37_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A5.html">FS, Q[102], A[5]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q37_A4-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q103_A2.html">FS, Q[103], A[2]</a>. But the Blessed Virgin contracted neither uncleanness, and consequently did not need to be purified. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q37_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q36_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q38" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q38-p0.1">OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q38-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38-p2"> We now proceed to consider the baptism wherewith Christ was baptized. And since Christ was baptized with the baptism of John, + we shall consider (1) the baptism of John in general; (2) the baptizing of Christ. In regard to the former there are six points + of inquiry: + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38-p3"> (1) Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?</p> + <p id="TP_Q38-p4"> (2) Whether that baptism was from God?</p> + <p id="TP_Q38-p5"> (3) Whether it conferred grace?</p> + <p id="TP_Q38-p6"> (4) Whether others besides Christ should have received that baptism?</p> + <p id="TP_Q38-p7"> (5) Whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized?</p> + <p id="TP_Q38-p8"> (6) Whether those who received John's baptism had afterwards to receive Christ's baptism?</p> + <div id="TP_Q38_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q38_A1-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not fitting that John should baptize. For every sacramental rite belongs to some law. But John + did not introduce a new law. Therefore it was not fitting that he should introduce the new rite of baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, John "was sent by God . . . for a witness" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.6" target="asv">Jn. 1:6,7</a>) as a prophet; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.76" target="asv"> Lk. 1:76</a>: "Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest." But the prophets who lived before Christ did not introduce any + new rite, but persuaded men to observe the rites of the Law. as is clearly stated + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A1-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Mal.4.4" target="asv"> Malachi 4:4</a>: "Remember the law of Moses My servant." Therefore neither should John have + introduced a new rite of baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, when there is too much of anything, nothing should be added to it. But the Jews observed a superfluity of baptisms; + for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.7.3" target="asv">Mk. 7:3,4</a>) that "the Pharisees and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands . . . and when they come from the market, + unless they be washed, they eat not; and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings + of cups and of pots, and of brazen + vessels, and of beds." Therefore it was unfitting that John should baptize. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p5"> On the contrary is the authority of Scripture ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.5" target="asv">Mat. 3:5,6</a>), which, after stating the holiness of John, adds many went out to him, "and were baptized in the Jordan." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting for John to baptize, for four reasons: first, it was necessary for Christ to be baptized by John, in order + that He might sanctify baptism; as Augustine observes, super Joan. (Tract. xiii in Joan.). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p7"> Secondly, that Christ might be manifested. Whence John himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.31" target="asv">Jn. 1:31</a>): "That He," i.e. Christ, "may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water." For he announced Christ + to the crowds that gathered around him; which was thus done much more easily than if he had gone in search of each individual, + as Chrysostom observes, commenting on St. John (Hom. x in Matth.). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p8"> Thirdly, that by his baptism he might accustom men to the baptism of Christ; wherefore Gregory says in a homily (Hom. vii + in Evang.) that therefore did John baptize, "that, being consistent with his office of precursor, as he had preceded our Lord + in birth, so he might also by baptizing precede Him who was about to baptize." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p9"> Fourthly, that by persuading men to do penance, he might prepare men to receive worthily the baptism of Christ. Wherefore + Bede [*Cf. Scot. Erig. in Joan. iii, 24] says that "the baptism of John was as profitable before the baptism of Christ, as + instruction in the faith profits the catechumens not yet baptized. For just as he preached penance, and foretold the baptism + of Christ, and drew men to the knowledge of the Truth that hath appeared to the world, so do the ministers of the + Church, after instructing men, chide them for their sins, and lastly promise them forgiveness in the baptism of Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The baptism of John was not a sacrament properly so called [per se], but a kind of sacramental, preparatory to the baptism + of Christ. Consequently, in a way, it belonged to the law of Christ, but not to the law of Moses. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> John was not only a prophet, but "more than a prophet," as stated + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.9" target="asv"> Mat. 11:9</a>: for he was the term of the Law and the beginning of the Gospel. Therefore it was in his province to lead men, both by word + and deed, to the law of Christ rather than to the observance of the Old Law. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those baptisms of the Pharisees were vain, being ordered merely unto carnal cleanliness. But the baptism of John was ordered + unto spiritual cleanliness, since it led men to do penance, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q38_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q38_A2-p0.1">Whether the baptism of John was from God?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the baptism of John was not from God. For nothing sacramental that is from God is named after a mere man: + thus the baptism of the New Law is not named after Peter or Paul, but after Christ. But that baptism is named after John, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.25" target="asv"> Mat. 21:25</a>: "The baptism of John . . . was it from heaven or from men?" Therefore the baptism of John was not from God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every doctrine that proceeds from God anew is confirmed by some signs: thus the Lord ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.4" target="asv">Ex. 4</a>) gave Moses the power of working signs; and it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.3" target="asv">Heb. 2:3,4</a>) that our faith "having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him, God also bearing + them witness by signs and wonders." But it is written of John the Baptist ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A2-p3.3" href="./asv.html#John.10.41" target="asv">Jn. 10:41</a>) that "John did no sign." Therefore it seems + that the baptism wherewith he baptized was not from God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, those sacraments which are instituted by God are contained in certain precepts of Holy Scripture. But there is no + precept of Holy Writ commanding the baptism of John. Therefore it seems that it was not from God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.33" target="asv">Jn. 1:33</a>): "He who sent me to baptize with water said to me: 'He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit,'" etc. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Two things may be considered in the baptism of John---namely, the rite of baptism and the effect of baptism. The rite of + baptism was not from men, but from God, who by an interior revelation of the Holy Ghost sent John to baptize. But the effect + of that baptism was from man, because it effected nothing that man could not accomplish. Wherefore it was not from God alone, + except in as far as God works in man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By the baptism of the New Law men are baptized inwardly by the Holy Ghost, and this is accomplished by God alone. But by + the baptism of John the body alone was cleansed by the water. Wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.11" target="asv">Mat. 3:11</a>): "I baptize you in water; but . . . He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost." For this reason the baptism of John was named + after him, because it effected nothing that he did not accomplish. But the baptism of the New + Law is not named after the minister thereof, because he does not accomplish its principal effect, which is the inward cleansing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The whole teaching and work of John was ordered unto Christ, who, by many miracles confirmed both His own teaching and that + of John. But if John had worked signs, men would have paid equal attention to John and to Christ. Wherefore, in order that + men might pay greater attention to Christ, it was not given to John to work a sign. Yet when the Jews asked him why he baptized, + he confirmed his office by the authority of Scripture, saying: "I am the voice + of one crying in the wilderness," etc. as related, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.23" target="asv"> Jn. 1:23 </a>(cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.40.3" target="asv"> Is. 40:3</a>). Moreover, the very austerity of his life was a commendation of his office, because, as Chrysostom says, commenting on Matthew + (Hom. x in Matth.), "it was wonderful to witness such endurance in a human body." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The baptism of John was intended by God to last only for a short time, for the reasons given above + <a id="TP_Q38_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q38_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore it was not the subject of a general commandment set down in Sacred Writ, but of a certain interior revelation + of the Holy Ghost, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q38_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q38_A3-p0.1">Whether grace was given in the baptism of John?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that grace was given in the baptism of John. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.4" target="asv">Mk. 1:4</a>): "John was in the desert baptizing and preaching the baptism of penance unto remission of sins." But penance and remission + of sins are the effect of grace. Therefore the baptism of John conferred grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those who were about to be baptized by John "confessed their sins," as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.6" target="asv"> Mat. 3:6 </a>and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.5" target="asv"> Mk. 1:5.</a> But the confession of sins is ordered to their remission, which is effected by grace. Therefore grace was conferred in the + baptism of John. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the baptism of John was more akin than circumcision to the baptism of Christ. But original sin was remitted through + circumcision: because, as Bede says (Hom. x in Circumcis.), "under the Law, circumcision brought the same saving aid to heal + the wound of original sin as baptism is wont to bring now that grace is revealed." Much more, therefore, did the baptism of + John effect the remission of sins, which cannot be accomplished without grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.11" target="asv">Mat. 3:11</a>): "I indeed baptize you in water unto penance." Which words Gregory thus expounds in a certain homily (Hom. vii in Evang.): + "John baptized, not in the Spirit, but in water: because he could not forgive sins." But grace is given by the Holy Ghost, + and by means thereof sins are taken away. Therefore the baptism of John did not confer grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[2], ad 2), the whole teaching and work of John was in preparation for Christ: just as it is the duty of + the servant and of the under-craftsman to prepare the matter for the form which is accomplished by the head-craftsman. Now + grace was to be conferred on men through Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.17" target="asv"> Jn. 1:17</a>: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Therefore the baptism of John did not confer grace, but only prepared the way + for grace; and this in three ways: first, by John's teaching, which led men to faith in Christ; secondly, by accustoming men + to the rite of Christ's baptism; thirdly, by penance, preparing men to receive the effect of Christ's baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In these words, as Bede says (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.4" target="asv"> Mk. 1:4</a>), a twofold baptism of penance may be understood. one is that which John conferred by baptizing, which is called "a baptism + of penance," etc., by reason of its inducing men to do penance, and of its being a kind of protestation by which men avowed + their purpose of doing penance. The other is the baptism of Christ, by which sins are remitted, and which John could not give, + but only preach, + saying: "He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p8"> Or it may be said that he preached the "baptism of penance," i.e. which induced men to do penance, which penance leads men + on to "the remission of sins." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p9"> Or again, it may be said with Jerome [*Another author on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1" target="asv">Mk. 1</a> (inter op. Hier.)] that "by the baptism of Christ grace is given, by which sins are remitted gratis; and that what is accomplished + by the bridegroom is begun by the bridesman," i.e. by John. Consequently it is said that "he baptized and preached the baptism + of penance unto remission of sins," not as though he accomplished this himself, but because he began it by preparing the way + for it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That confession of sins was not made unto the remission of sins, to be realized immediately through the baptism of John, + but to be obtained through subsequent penance and through the baptism of Christ, for which that penance was a preparation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original sin. Whereas the baptism of John was not instituted for this purpose, + but was merely in preparation for the baptism of Christ, as stated above; whereas the sacraments attain their effect through + the force of their institution. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A3-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q38_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q38_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ alone should have been baptized with the baptism of John. For, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q38_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q38_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, "the reason why John baptized was that Christ might receive baptism," as Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii). But + what is proper to Christ should not be applicable to others. Therefore no others should have received that baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever is baptized either receives something from the baptism or confers something on the baptism. But no one could + receive anything from the baptism of John, because thereby grace was not conferred, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q38_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q38_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. On the other hand, no one could confer anything on baptism save Christ, who "sanctified the waters by the touch of His most + pure flesh" [*Mag. Sent. iv, 3]. Therefore it seems that Christ alone should have + been baptized with the baptism of John. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if others were baptized with that baptism, this was only in order that they might be prepared for the baptism of + Christ: and thus it would seem fitting that the baptism of John should be conferred on all, old and young, Gentile and Jew, + just as the baptism of Christ. But we do not read that either children or Gentiles were baptized by the latter; for it is + written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.5" target="asv">Mk. 1:5</a>) that "there went out to him . . . all they of Jerusalem, + and were baptized by him." Therefore it seems that Christ alone should have been baptized by John. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.21" target="asv">Lk. 3:21</a>): "It came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> For two reasons it behooved others besides Christ to be baptized with the baptism of John. First, as Augustine says (Super + Joan., Tract. iv, v), "if Christ alone had been baptized with the baptism of John, some would have said that John's baptism, + with which Christ was baptized, was more excellent than that of Christ, with which others are baptized." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p7"> Secondly, because, as above stated, it behooved others to be prepared by John's baptism for the baptism of Christ.</p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The baptism of John was instituted not only that Christ might be baptized, but also for other reasons, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q38_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q38_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. And yet, even if it were instituted merely in order that Christ might be baptized therewith, it was still necessary for + others to receive this baptism, in order to avoid the objection mentioned above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Others who approached to be baptized by John could not, indeed, confer anything on his baptism: yet neither did they receive + anything therefrom, save only the sign of penance. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This was the baptism of "penance," for which children were not suited; wherefore they were not baptized therewith. But to + bring the nations into the way of salvation was reserved to Christ alone, who is the "expectation of the nations," as we read + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.49.10" target="asv"> Gn. 49:10.</a> Indeed, Christ forbade the apostles to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles before His Passion and Resurrection. Much less fitting, + therefore, was it for the Gentiles to be + baptized by John. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q38_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q38_A5-p0.1">Whether John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that John's baptism should have ceased after Christ was baptized. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.31" target="asv">Jn. 1:31</a>): "That He may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water." But when Christ had been baptized, He + was made sufficiently manifest, both by the testimony of John and by the dove coming down upon Him, and again by the voice + of the Father bearing witness to Him. Therefore it seems that John's baptism should not + have endured thereafter. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. iv): "Christ was baptized, and John's baptism ceased to avail." Therefore it + seems that, after Christ's baptism, John should not have continued to baptize. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, John's baptism prepared the way for Christ's. But Christ's baptism began as soon as He had been baptized; because + "by the touch of His most pure flesh He endowed the waters with a regenerating virtue," as Bede asserts (Mag. Sent. iv, 3). + Therefore it seems that John's baptism ceased when Christ had been baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.22" target="asv">Jn. 3:22,23</a>): "Jesus . . . came into the land of Judea . . . and baptized: and John also was baptizing." But Christ did not baptize before + being baptized. Therefore it seems that John continued to baptize after Christ had been baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was not fitting for the baptism of John to cease when Christ had been baptized. First, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. + xxix in Joan.), "if John had ceased to baptize" when Christ had been baptized, "men would think that he was moved by jealousy + or anger." Secondly, if he had ceased to baptize when Christ baptized, "he would have given His disciples a motive for yet + greater envy." Thirdly, because, by continuing to baptize, "he sent his hearers to + Christ" (Hom. xxix in Joan.). Fourthly, because, as Bede [*Scot. Erig. Comment. in Joan.] says, "there still remained a shadow + of the Old Law: nor should the forerunner withdraw until the truth be made manifest." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When Christ was baptized, He was not as yet fully manifested: consequently there was still need for John to continue baptizing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The baptism of John ceased after Christ had been baptized, not immediately, but when the former was cast into prison. Thus + Chrysostom says (Hom. xxix in Joan.): "I consider that John's death was allowed to take place, and that Christ's preaching + began in a great measure after John had died, so that the undivided allegiance of the multitude was transferred to Christ, + and there was no further motive for the divergence of opinions concerning both of + them." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> John's baptism prepared the way not only for Christ to be baptized, but also for others to approach to Christ's baptism: + and this did not take place as soon as Christ was baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q38_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q38_A6-p0.1">Whether those who had been baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized with the baptism of Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. For + John was not less than the apostles, since of him is it written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.11" target="asv">Mat. 11:11</a>): "There hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist." But those who were baptized by + the apostles were not baptized again, but only received the imposition of hands; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.8.16" target="asv">Acts + 8:16,17 + </a>) that some were "only baptized" by Philip "in the name of the Lord Jesus": then the apostles---namely, Peter and John---"laid + their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized by John had + not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the apostles were baptized with John's baptism, since some of them were his disciples, as is clear from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.37" target="asv"> Jn. 1:37.</a> But the apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism of Christ: for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p3.2" href="./asv.html#John.4.2" target="asv">Jn. 4:2</a>) that "Jesus did not baptize, but His disciples." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with John's baptism + had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, he who is baptized is less than he who baptizes. But we are not told that John himself was baptized with the baptism + of Christ. Therefore much less did those who had been baptized by John need to receive the baptism of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.19.1" target="asv">Acts 19:1-5</a>) that "Paul . . . found certain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they + said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who + said: In John's baptism." Wherefore "they were" again "baptized in the name of our [Vulg.: 'the'] Lord Jesus Christ." Hence + it seems that they needed to be + baptized again, because they did not know of the Holy Ghost: as Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Joel.2.28" target="asv"> Joel 2:28 </a>and in an epistle (lxix De Viro unius uxoris), and likewise Ambrose (De Spiritu Sancto). But some were baptized with John's + baptism who had full knowledge of the Trinity. Therefore these had no need to be baptized again with Christ's baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.8" target="asv"> Rom. 10:8, </a> "This is the word of faith, which we preach," the gloss of Augustine says: "Whence this virtue in the water, that it touches + the body and cleanses the heart, save by the efficacy of the word, not because it is uttered, but because it is believed?" + Whence it is clear that the virtue of baptism depends on faith. But the form of John's baptism signified the faith in which + we are baptized; for Paul says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.19.4" target="asv">Acts + 19:4 + </a>): "John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in Him who was to come after him---that + is to say, in Jesus." Therefore it seems that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had no need to be baptized again + with the baptism of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): "Those who were baptized with John's baptism needed to be baptized with the baptism + of our Lord." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> According to the opinion of the Master (Sent. iv, D, 2), "those who had been baptized by John without knowing of the existence + of the Holy Ghost, and who based their hopes on his baptism, were afterwards baptized with the baptism of Christ: but those + who did not base their hope on John's baptism, and who believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were not baptized afterwards, + but received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands made over them by the + apostles." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p9"> And this, indeed, is true as to the first part, and is confirmed by many authorities. But as to the second part, the assertion + is altogether unreasonable. First, because John's baptism neither conferred grace nor imprinted a character, but was merely + "in water," as he says himself ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.11" target="asv">Mat. 3:11</a>). Wherefore the faith or hope which the person baptized had in Christ could not supply this defect. Secondly, because, when + in a sacrament, that is omitted which belongs of necessity to the + sacrament, not only must the omission be supplied, but the whole must be entirely renewed. Now, it belongs of necessity to + Christ's baptism that it be given not only in water, but also in the Holy Ghost, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>: "Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Wherefore in the case of those + who had been baptized with John's baptism in water only, not merely had the omission to be supplied by giving them the Holy + Ghost by the imposition + of hands, but they had to be baptized wholly anew "in water and the Holy Ghost." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): "After John, baptism was administered, and the reason why was because he gave + not Christ's baptism, but his own . . . That which Peter gave . . . and if any were given by Judas, that was Christ's. And + therefore if Judas baptized anyone, yet were they not rebaptized . . . For the baptism corresponds with him by whose authority + it is given, not with him by whose ministry it is given." For the same reason those + who were baptized by the deacon Philip, who gave the baptism of Christ, were not baptized again, but received the imposition + of hands by the apostles, just as those who are baptized by priests are confirmed by bishops. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says to Seleucianus (Ep. cclxv), "we deem that Christ's disciples were baptized either with John's baptism, + as some maintain, or with Christ's baptism, which is more probable. For He would not fail to administer baptism so as to have + baptized servants through whom He baptized others, since He did not fail in His humble service to wash their feet." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "Since, when John said, 'I ought to be + baptized by Thee,' Christ answered, 'Suffer it to be so now': it follows that afterwards Christ did baptize John." Moreover, + he asserts that "this is distinctly set down in some of the apocryphal books." At any rate, it is certain, as Jerome says + on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q38_A6-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.13" target="asv"> Mat. 3:13, </a> that, "as Christ was baptized in water by John, so + had John to be baptized in the Spirit by Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The reason why these persons were baptized after being baptized by John was not only because they knew not of the Holy Ghost, + but also because they had not received the baptism of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), our sacraments are signs of present grace, whereas the sacraments of the Old Law were + signs of future grace. Wherefore the very fact that John baptized in the name of one who was to come, shows that he did not + give the baptism of Christ, which is a sacrament of the New Law. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p15"></p> + <p id="TP_Q38_A6-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q37_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q39" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q39-p0.1">OF THE BAPTIZING OF CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q39-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39-p2"> We have now to consider the baptizing of Christ, concerning which there are eight points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q39-p3"> (1) Whether Christ should have been baptized?</p> + <p id="TP_Q39-p4"> (2) Whether He should have been baptized with the baptism of John?</p> + <p id="TP_Q39-p5"> (3) Of the time when He was baptized;</p> + <p id="TP_Q39-p6"> (4) Of the place;</p> + <p id="TP_Q39-p7"> (5) Of the heavens being opened unto Him;</p> + <p id="TP_Q39-p8"> (6) Of the apparition of the Holy Ghost under the form of a dove;</p> + <p id="TP_Q39-p9"> (7) Whether that dove was a real animal?</p> + <p id="TP_Q39-p10"> (8) Of the voice of the Father witnessing unto Him.</p> + <div id="TP_Q39_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q39_A1-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that Christ should be baptized?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized. For to be baptized is to be washed. But it was not fitting + for Christ to be washed, since there was no uncleanness in Him. Therefore it seems unfitting for Christ to be baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ was circumcised in order to fulfil the law. But baptism was not prescribed by the law. Therefore He should + not have been baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the first mover in every genus is unmoved in regard to that movement; thus the heaven, which is the first cause + of alteration, is unalterable. But Christ is the first principle of baptism, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.33" target="asv"> Jn. 1:33</a>: "He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." Therefore it was unfitting + for Christ to be baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.13" target="asv">Mat. 3:13</a>) that "Jesus cometh from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, because, as Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.21" target="asv"> Lk. 3:21</a>: "Our Lord was baptized because He wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by the flesh + of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of baptism"; and, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.), "that He + might bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be baptized afterwards." Secondly, as Chrysostom + says (Hom. iv in Matth.), "although Christ was not a sinner, yet did He take a sinful nature and 'the likeness of sinful flesh.' + Wherefore, though He needed not baptism for His own sake, yet carnal nature in others had need thereof." And, as Gregory Nazianzen + says (Orat. xxxix) "Christ was baptized that He might plunge the old Adam entirely in the water." Thirdly, He wished to be + baptized, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxvi), "because He wished to do what He had commanded all + to do." And this is what He means by saying: "So it becometh us to fulfil all justice" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.15" target="asv">Mat. 3:15</a>). For, as Ambrose says (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.21" target="asv"> Lk. 3:21</a>), "this is justice, to do first thyself that which thou wishest another to do, and so encourage others by thy example." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ was baptized, not that He might be cleansed, but that He might cleanse, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It was fitting that Christ should not only fulfil what was prescribed by the Old Law, but also begin what appertained to + the New Law. Therefore He wished not only to be circumcised, but also to be baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ is the first principle of baptism's spiritual effect. Unto this He was not baptized, but only in water. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q39_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q39_A2-p0.1">Whether it was fitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was unfitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism. For John's baptism was the "baptism of + penance." But penance is unbecoming to Christ, since He had no sin. Therefore it seems that He should not have been baptized + with John's baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, John's baptism, as Chrysostom says (Hom. de Bapt. Christi), "was a mean between the baptism of the Jews and that + of Christ." But "the mean savors of the nature of the extremes" (Aristotle, De Partib. Animal.). Since, therefore, Christ + was not baptized with the Jewish baptism, nor yet with His own, on the same grounds He should not have been baptized with + the baptism of John. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whatever is best in human things should be ascribed to Christ. But John's baptism does not hold the first place + among baptisms. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized with John's baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.13" target="asv">Mat. 3:13</a>) that "Jesus cometh to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii): "After being baptized, the Lord baptized, not with that baptism wherewith He + was baptized." Wherefore, since He Himself baptized with His own baptism, it follows that He was not baptized with His own, + but with John's baptism. And this was befitting: first, because John's baptism was peculiar in this, that he baptized, not + in the Spirit, but only "in water"; while Christ did not need spiritual baptism, since He + was filled with the grace of the Holy Ghost from the beginning of His conception, as we have made clear above ( + <a id="TP_Q39_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A1.html">Q[34], A[1]</a>). And this is the reason given by Chrysostom (Hom. de Bapt. Christi). Secondly, as Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.9" target="asv"> Mk. 1:9, </a> He was baptized with the baptism of John, that, "by being thus baptized, He might show His approval of John's baptism." Thirdly, + as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), "by going to John to be baptized by him, He sanctified + baptism." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q39_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q39_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, Christ wished to be baptized in order by His example to lead us to baptism. And so, in order that He might lead us thereto + more efficaciously, He wished to be baptized with a baptism which He clearly needed not, that men who needed it might approach + unto it. Wherefore Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.21" target="asv"> Lk. 3:21</a>: "Let none decline the laver of grace, since Christ did not refuse the laver of + penance." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely figurative, whereas John's baptism, in a measure, was real, inasmuch + as it induced men to refrain from sin; but Christ's baptism is efficacious unto the remission of sin and the conferring of + grace. Now Christ needed neither the remission of sin, which was not in Him, nor the bestowal of grace, with which He was + filled. Moreover, since He is "the Truth," it was not fitting that He should receive that + which was no more than a figure. Consequently it was more fitting that He should receive the intermediate baptism than one + of the extremes. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism is a spiritual remedy. Now, the more perfect a thing is, the less remedy does it need. Consequently, from the very + fact that Christ is most perfect, it follows that it was fitting that He should not receive the most perfect baptism: just + as one who is healthy does not need a strong medicine. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q39_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q39_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ was baptized at a fitting time?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was baptized at an unfitting time. For Christ was baptized in order that He might lead others to + baptism by His example. But it is commendable that the faithful of Christ should be baptized, not merely before their thirtieth + year, but even in infancy. Therefore it seems that Christ should not have been baptized at the age of thirty. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we do not read that Christ taught or worked miracles before being baptized. But it would have been more profitable + to the world if He had taught for a longer time, beginning at the age of twenty, or even before. Therefore it seems that Christ, + who came for man's profit, should have been baptized before His thirtieth year. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sign of wisdom infused by God should have been especially manifest in Christ. But in the case of Daniel this + was manifested at the time of his boyhood; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.13.45" target="asv"> Dan. 13:45</a>: "The Lord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy, whose name was Daniel." Much more, therefore, should Christ have been + baptized or have taught in His boyhood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, John's baptism was ordered to that of Christ as to its end. But "the end is first in intention and last in execution." + Therefore He should have been baptized by John either before all the others, or after them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.21" target="asv">Lk. 3:21</a>): "It came to pass, when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying;" and further on ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.23" target="asv">Lk. 3:23</a>): "And Jesus Himself was beginning about the age of thirty years." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ was fittingly baptized in His thirtieth year. First, because Christ was baptized as though for the reason that He + was about forthwith to begin to teach and preach: for which purpose perfect age is required, such as is the age of thirty. + Thus we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.41.46" target="asv">Gn. 41:46</a>) that "Joseph was thirty" years old when he undertook the government of Egypt. In like manner we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iiKgdms.5.4" target="asv">2 Kings 5:4</a>) that "David was thirty years old when + he began to reign." Again, Ezechiel began to prophesy in "his thirtieth year," as we read + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A3-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Ezek.1.1" target="asv"> Ezech. 1:1.</a> + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p8"> Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. x in Matth.), "the law was about to pass away after Christ's baptism: wherefore + Christ came to be baptized at this age which admits of all sins; in order that by His observing the law, no one might say + that because He Himself could not fulfil it, He did away with it." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p9"> Thirdly, because by Christ's being baptized at the perfect age, we are given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect + men, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.13" target="asv"> Eph. 4:13</a>: "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure + of the age of the fulness of Christ." Hence the very property of the number seems to point to this. For thirty is product + of three and ten: and by the number three is implied faith in + the Trinity, while ten signifies the fulfilment of the commandments of the Law: in which two things the perfection of Christian + life consists. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xl), Christ was baptized, not "as though He needed to be cleansed, or as though some peril + threatened Him if He delayed to be baptized. But no small danger besets any other man who departs from this life without being + clothed with the garment of incorruptibility"---namely, grace. And though it be a good thing to remain clean after baptism, + "yet is it still better," as he says, "to be slightly sullied now and then than + to be altogether deprived of grace." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The profit which accrues to men from Christ is chiefly through faith and humility: to both of which He conduced by beginning + to teach not in His boyhood or youth, but at the perfect age. To faith, because in this manner His human nature is shown to + be real, by its making bodily progress with the advance of time; and lest this progress should be deemed imaginary, He did + not wish to show His wisdom and power before His body had reached the perfect age: + to humility, lest anyone should presume to govern or teach others before attaining to perfect age. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ was set before men as an example to all. Wherefore it behooved that to be shown forth in Him, which is becoming to + all according to the common law---namely, that He should teach after reaching the perfect age. But, as Gregory Nazianzen says + (Orat. xxxix), that which seldom occurs is not the law of the Church; as "neither does one swallow make the spring." For by + special dispensation, in accordance with the ruling of Divine wisdom, it has been + granted to some, contrary to the common law, to exercise the functions of governing or teaching. such as Solomon, Daniel, + and Jeremias. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It was not fitting that Christ should be baptized by John either before or after all others. Because, as Chrysostom says + (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]), for this was Christ baptized, "that He might confirm the + preaching and the baptism of John, and that John might bear witness to Him." Now, men would not have had faith in John's testimony + except after many had been baptized by him. Consequently it was not fitting that + John should baptize Him before baptizing anyone else. In like manner, neither was it fitting that he should baptize Him last. + For as he (Chrysostom) says in the same passage: "As the light of the sun does not wait for the setting of the morning star, + but comes forth while the latter is still above the horizon, and by its brilliance dims its shining: so Christ did not wait + till John had run his course, but appeared while he was yet teaching and baptizing." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A3-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q39_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q39_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ should have been baptized in the Jordan?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have been baptized in the Jordan. For the reality should correspond to the figure. But + baptism was prefigured in the crossing of the Red Sea, where the Egyptians were drowned, just as our sins are blotted out + in baptism. Therefore it seems that Christ should rather have been baptized in the sea than in the river Jordan. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "Jordan" is interpreted a "going down." But by baptism a man goes up rather than down: wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.16" target="asv">Mat. 3:16</a>) that "Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up [Douay: 'out'] from the water." Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ should + be baptized in the Jordan. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, while the children of Israel were crossing, the waters of the Jordan "were turned back," as it is related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Josh.4" target="asv">Jos. 4</a>, and as it is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A4-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.113.3" target="asv"> Ps. 113:3,5.</a> But those who are baptized go forward, not back. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.9" target="asv">Mk. 1:9</a>) that "Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was through the river Jordan that the children of Israel entered into the land of promise. Now, this is the prerogative + of Christ's baptism over all other baptisms: that it is the entrance to the kingdom of God, which is signified by the land + of promise; wherefore it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.5" target="asv">Jn. 3:5</a>): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To this also is to be + referred the dividing of the + water of the Jordan by Elias, who was to be snatched up into heaven in a fiery chariot, as it is related 4 Kings 2: because, + to wit, the approach to heaven is laid open by the fire of the Holy Ghost, to those who pass through the waters of baptism. + Therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The crossing of the Red Sea foreshadowed baptism in this---that baptism washes away sin: whereas the crossing of the Jordan + foreshadows it in this---that it opens the gate to the heavenly kingdom: and this is the principal effect of baptism, and + accomplished through Christ alone. And therefore it was fitting that Christ should be baptized in the Jordan rather than in + the sea. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In baptism we "go up" by advancing in grace: for which we need to "go down" by humility, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.4.6" target="asv"> James 4:6</a>: "He giveth grace to the humble." And to this "going down" must the name of the Jordan be referred. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says in a sermon for the Epiphany (x): "As of yore the waters of the Jordan were held back, so now, when Christ + was baptized, the torrent of sin was held back." Or else this may signify that against the downward flow of the waters the + river of blessings flowed upwards. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q39_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q39_A5-p0.1">Whether the heavens should have been opened unto Christ at His baptism?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the heavens should not have been opened unto Christ at His baptism. For the heavens should be opened unto + one who needs to enter heaven, by reason of his being out of heaven. But Christ was always in heaven, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.13" target="asv"> Jn. 3:13</a>: "The Son of Man who is in heaven." Therefore it seems that the heavens should not have been opened unto Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the opening of the heavens is understood either in a corporal or in a spiritual sense. But it cannot be understood + in a corporal sense: because the heavenly bodies are impassible and indissoluble, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Job.37.18" target="asv"> Job 37:18</a>: "Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with Him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass." In like manner neither + can it be understood in a spiritual sense, because the heavens were not previously + closed to the eyes of the Son of God. Therefore it seems unbecoming to say that when Christ was baptized "the heavens were + opened." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, heaven was opened to the faithful through Christ's Passion, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.19" target="asv"> Heb. 10:19</a>: "We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ." Wherefore not even those + who were baptized with Christ's baptism, and died before His Passion, could enter heaven. Therefore the heavens should have + been opened when Christ was suffering rather than when He was baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.21" target="asv">Lk. 3:21</a>): "Jesus being baptized and praying, heaven was opened." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q39_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q39_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[38], A[1]), Christ wished to be baptized in order to consecrate the baptism wherewith we were to be baptized. And therefore + it behooved those things to be shown forth which belong to the efficacy of our baptism: concerning which efficacy three points + are to be considered. First, the principal power from which it is derived; and this, indeed, is a heavenly power. For which + reason, when Christ was baptized, + heaven was opened, to show that in future the heavenly power would sanctify baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p7"> Secondly, the faith of the Church and of the person baptized conduces to the efficacy of baptism: wherefore those who are + baptized make a profession of faith, and baptism is called the "sacrament of faith." Now by faith we gaze on heavenly things, + which surpass the senses and human reason. And in order to signify this, the heavens were opened when Christ was baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p8"> Thirdly, because the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was opened to us by the baptism of Christ in a special manner, which + entrance had been closed to the first man through sin. Hence, when Christ was baptized, the heavens were opened, to show that + the way to heaven is open to the baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p9"> Now after baptism man needs to pray continually, in order to enter heaven: for though sins are remitted through baptism, + there still remain the fomes of sin assailing us from within, and the world and the devils assailing us from without. And + therefore it is said pointedly ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.21" target="asv">Lk. 3:21</a>) that "Jesus being baptized and praying, heaven was opened": because, to wit, the faithful after baptism stand in need of + prayer. Or else, that we may be led to understand that + the very fact that through baptism heaven is opened to believers is in virtue of the prayer of Christ. Hence it is said pointedly + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A5-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.16" target="asv">Mat. 3:16</a>) that "heaven was opened to Him"---that is, "to all for His sake." Thus, for example, the Emperor might say to one asking + a favor for another: "Behold, I grant this favor, not to him, but to thee"---that is, "to him for thy sake," as Chrysostom + says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> According to Chrysostom (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious Opus Imperfectum), as Christ was baptized for man's sake, + though He needed no baptism for His own sake, so the heavens were opened unto Him as man, whereas in respect of His Divine + Nature He was ever in heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A5-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.16" target="asv"> Mat. 3:16,17, </a> the heavens were opened to Christ when He was baptized, not by an unfolding of the elements, but by a spiritual vision: thus + does Ezechiel relate the opening of the heavens at the beginning of his book. And Chrysostom proves this (Hom. iv in Matth.; + from the supposititious Opus Imperfectum) by saying that "if the creature"---namely, heaven---"had been sundered he would + not have said, 'were opened to + Him,' since what is opened in a corporeal sense is open to all." Hence it is said expressly ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A5-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.10" target="asv">Mk. 1:10</a>) that Jesus "forthwith coming up out of the water, saw the heavens opened"; as though the opening of the heavens were to + be considered as seen by Christ. Some, indeed, refer this to the corporeal vision, and say that such a brilliant light shone + round about Christ when He was baptized, that the heavens seemed to be opened. It can also be referred to the imaginary vision, + in + which manner Ezechiel saw the heavens opened: since such a vision was formed in Christ's imagination by the Divine power and + by His rational will, so as to signify that the entrance to heaven is opened to men through baptism. Lastly, it can be referred + to intellectual vision: forasmuch as Christ, when He had sanctified baptism, saw that heaven was opened to men: nevertheless + He had seen before that this would be accomplished. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's Passion is the common cause of the opening of heaven to men. But it behooves this cause to be applied to each one, + in order that he enter heaven. And this is effected by baptism, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A5-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.3" target="asv"> Rom. 6:3</a>: "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in His death." Wherefore mention is made of the opening of the heavens + at His baptism rather than at His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p13"> Or, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious Opus Imperfectum): "When Christ was baptized, the heavens + were merely opened: but after He had vanquished the tyrant by the cross; since gates were no longer needed for a heaven which + thenceforth would be never closed, the angels said, not 'open the gates,' but 'Take them away.'" Thus Chrysostom gives us + to understand that the obstacles which had hitherto hindered the souls of the departed from entering into + heaven were entirely removed by the Passion: but at Christ's baptism they were opened, as though the way had been shown by + which men were to enter into heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A5-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q39_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q39_A6-p0.1">Whether it is fitting to say that when Christ was baptized the Holy Ghost came down on Him in the form of a dove?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not fitting to say that when Christ was baptized the Holy Ghost came down on Him in the form of + a dove. For the Holy Ghost dwells in man by grace. But the fulness of grace was in the Man-Christ from the beginning of His + conception, because He was the "Only-begotten of the Father," as is clear from what has been said above ( + <a id="TP_Q39_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A12.html">Q[7], A[12]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q39_A6-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A1.html"> Q[34], A[1]</a>). Therefore the Holy Ghost should not + have been sent to Him at His baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ is said to have "descended" into the world in the mystery of the Incarnation, when "He emptied Himself, taking + the form of a servant" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.7" target="asv">Phil. 2:7</a>). But the Holy Ghost did not become incarnate. Therefore it is unbecoming to say that the Holy Ghost "descended upon Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which is accomplished in our baptism should have been shown in Christ's baptism, as in an exemplar. But in + our baptism no visible mission of the Holy Ghost takes place. Therefore neither should a visible mission of the Holy Ghost + have taken place in Christ's baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Holy Ghost is poured forth on others through Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv"> Jn. 1:16</a>: "Of His fulness we all have received." But the Holy Ghost came down on the apostles in the form, not of a dove, but of fire. + Therefore neither should He have come down on Christ in the form of a dove, but in the form of fire. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.22" target="asv">Lk. 3:22</a>): "The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> What took place with respect to Christ in His baptism, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus + Imperfectum]), "is connected with the mystery accomplished in all who were to be baptized afterwards." Now, all those who + are baptized with the baptism of Christ receive the Holy Ghost, unless they approach unworthily; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.11" target="asv"> Mat. 3:11</a>: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost." Therefore it was fitting that + when our Lord was baptized the Holy Ghost should descend upon Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says (De Trin. xv): "It is most absurd to say that Christ received the Holy Ghost, when He was already thirty + years old: for when He came to be baptized, since He was without sin, therefore was He not without the Holy Ghost. For if + it is written of John that 'he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb,' what must we say of the Man-Christ, + whose conception in the flesh was not carnal, but spiritual? Therefore now," i.e. + at His baptism, "He deigned to foreshadow His body," i.e. the Church, "in which those who are baptized receive the Holy Ghost + in a special manner." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Trin. ii), the Holy Ghost is said to have descended on Christ in a bodily shape, as a dove, not because + the very substance of the Holy Ghost was seen, for He is invisible: nor as though that visible creature were assumed into + the unity of the Divine Person; since it is not said that the Holy Ghost was the dove, as it is said that the Son of God is + man by reason of the union. Nor, again, was the Holy Ghost seen under the form of a + dove, after the manner in which John saw the slain Lamb in the Apocalypse (5:6): "For the latter vision took place in the + spirit through spiritual images of bodies; whereas no one ever doubted that this dove was seen by the eyes of the body." Nor, + again, did the Holy Ghost appear under the form of a dove in the sense in which it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:4</a>): "'Now, the rock was Christ': for the latter had already a created existence, and through the manner of its action was called + by the name of Christ, whom it signified: whereas this dove came suddenly into existence, to fulfil the purpose of its signification, + and afterwards ceased to exist, like the flame which appeared in the bush to Moses." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p10"> Hence the Holy Ghost is said to have descended upon Christ, not by reason of His being united to the dove: but either because + the dove itself signified the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it "descended" when it came upon Him; or, again, by reason of the spiritual + grace, which is poured out by God, so as to descend, as it were, on the creature, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.17" target="asv"> James 1:17</a>: "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth.): "At the beginning of all spiritual transactions sensible visions appear, for the + sake of them who cannot conceive at all an incorporeal nature . . . so that, though afterwards no such thing occur, they may + shape their faith according to that which has occurred once for all." And therefore the Holy Ghost descended visibly, under + a bodily shape, on Christ at His baptism, in order that we may believe Him to + descend invisibly on all those who are baptized. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The Holy Ghost appeared over Christ at His baptism, under the form of a dove, for four reasons. First, on account of the + disposition required in the one baptized---namely, that he approach in good faith: since! as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.1.5" target="asv">Wis. 1:5</a>): "The holy spirit of discipline will flee from the deceitful." For the dove is an animal of a simple character, void of + cunning and deceit: whence it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.16" target="asv">Mat. 10:16</a>): "Be ye simple as + doves." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p13"> Secondly, in order to designate the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, which are signified by the properties of the dove. For + the dove dwells beside the running stream, in order that, on perceiving the hawk, it may plunge in and escape. This refers + to the gift of wisdom, whereby the saints dwell beside the running waters of Holy Scripture, in order to escape the assaults + of the devil. Again, the dove prefers the more choice seeds. This refers to the gift of knowledge, whereby the + saints make choice of sound doctrines, with which they nourish themselves. Further, the dove feeds the brood of other birds. + This refers to the gift of counsel, with which the saints, by teaching and example, feed men who have been the brood, i.e. + imitators, of the devil. Again, the dove tears not with its beak. This refers to the gift of understanding, wherewith the + saints do not rend sound doctrines, as heretics do. Again, the dove has no gall. This refers to the gift of piety, by reason + of + which the saints are free from unreasonable anger. Again, the dove builds its nest in the cleft of a rock. This refers to + the gift of fortitude, wherewith the saints build their nest, i.e. take refuge and hope, in the death wounds of Christ, who + is the Rock of strength. Lastly, the dove has a plaintive song. This refers to the gift of fear, wherewith the saints delight + in bewailing sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p14"> Thirdly, the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove on account of the proper effect of baptism, which is the remission + of sins and reconciliation with God: for the dove is a gentle creature. Wherefore, as Chrysostom says, (Hom. xii in Matth.), + "at the Deluge this creature appeared bearing an olive branch, and publishing the tidings of the universal peace of the whole + world: and now again the dove appears at the baptism, pointing to our Deliverer." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p15"> Fourthly, the Holy Ghost appeared over our Lord at His baptism in the form of a dove, in order to designate the common effect + of baptism---namely, the building up of the unity of the Church. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.25" target="asv">Eph. 5:25-27</a>): "Christ delivered Himself up . . . that He might present . . . to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, + or any such thing . . . cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." Therefore it was fitting that the + Holy Ghost should appear at the baptism under the form of a dove, which is a creature both loving and gregarious. Wherefore + also it is said of the Church ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A6-p15.2" href="./asv.html#Song.6.8" target="asv">Cant 6:8</a>): "One is my dove." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p16"> But on the apostles the Holy Ghost descended under the form of fire, for two reasons. First, to show with what fervor their + hearts were to be moved, so as to preach Christ everywhere, though surrounded by opposition. And therefore He appeared as + a fiery tongue. Hence Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. vi): Our Lord "manifests" the Holy Ghost "visibly in two ways"---namely, + "by the dove corning upon the Lord when He was baptized; by fire, coming upon the disciples when they were + met together . . . In the former case simplicity is shown, in the latter fervor . . . We learn, then, from the dove, that + those who are sanctified by the Spirit should be without guile: and from the fire, that their simplicity should not be left + to wax cold. Nor let it disturb anyone that the tongues were cloven . . . in the dove recognize unity." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p17"> Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Gregory, Hom. xxx in Ev.): "Since sins had to be forgiven," which is effected in baptism, + "meekness was required"; this is shown by the dove: "but when we have obtained grace we must look forward to be judged"; and + this is signified by the fire. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p18"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A6-p19"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q39_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q39_A7-p0.1">Whether the dove in which the Holy Ghost appeared was real?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the dove in which the Holy Ghost appeared was not real. For that seems to be a mere apparition which appears + in its semblance. But it is stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A7-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.3.22" target="asv">Lk. 3:22</a>) that the "Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon Him." Therefore it was not a real dove, but a semblance + of a dove. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as "Nature does nothing useless, so neither does God" (De Coelo i). Now since this dove came merely "in order + to signify something and pass away," as Augustine says (De Trin. ii), a real dove would have been useless: because the semblance + of a dove was sufficient for that purpose. Therefore it was not a real dove. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the properties of a thing lead us to a knowledge of that thing. If, therefore, this were a real dove, its properties + would have signified the nature of the real animal, and not the effect of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that it was not + a real dove. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxii): "Nor do we say this as though we asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ alone had a + real body, and that the Holy Ghost appeared to men's eyes in a fallacious manner: but we say that both those bodies were real." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q39_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q5_A1.html">Q[5], A[1]</a>), it was unbecoming that the Son of God, who is the Truth of the Father, should make use of anything unreal; wherefore He + took, not an imaginary, but a real body. And since the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Truth, as appears from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A7-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.16.13" target="asv"> Jn. 16:13, </a> therefore He too made a real dove in which to appear, though He did not assume it into unity of person. Wherefore, after + the words quoted + above, Augustine adds: "Just as it behooved the Son of God not to deceive men, so it behooved the Holy Ghost not to deceive. + But it was easy for Almighty God, who created all creatures out of nothing, to frame the body of a real dove without the help + of other doves, just as it was easy for Him to form a true body in Mary's womb without the seed of a man: since the corporeal + creature obeys its Lord's command and will, both in the mother's womb in forming a man, and in the world itself in forming + a dove." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Holy Ghost is said to have descended in the shape or semblance of a dove, not in the sense that the dove was not real, + but in order to show that He did not appear in the form of His substance. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It was not superfluous to form a real dove, in which the Holy Ghost might appear, because by the very reality of the dove + the reality of the Holy Ghost and of His effects is signified. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The properties of the dove lead us to understand the dove's nature and the effects of the Holy Ghost in the same way. Because + from the very fact that the dove has such properties, it results that it signifies the Holy Ghost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A7-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q39_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q39_A8-p0.1">Whether it was becoming, when Christ was baptized that the Father's voice should be heard, bearing witness to the Son?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was unbecoming when Christ was baptized for the Father's voice to be heard bearing witness to the Son. + For the Son and the Holy Ghost, according as they have appeared visibly, are said to have been visibly sent. But it does not + become the Father to be sent, as Augustine makes it clear (De Trin. ii). Neither, therefore, (does it become Him) to appear. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the voice gives expression to the word conceived in the heart. But the Father is not the Word. Therefore He is unfittingly + manifested by a voice. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Man-Christ did not begin to be Son of God at His baptism, as some heretics have stated: but He was the Son of + God from the beginning of His conception. Therefore the Father's voice should have proclaimed Christ's Godhead at His nativity + rather than at His baptism. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.17" target="asv">Mat. 3:17</a>): "Behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q39_A8-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q39_A5.html">(A[5])</a>, that which is accomplished in our baptism should be manifested in Christ's baptism, which was the exemplar of ours. Now + the baptism which the faithful receive is hallowed by the invocation and the power of the Trinity; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A8-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv"> Mat. 28:19</a>: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Wherefore, + as Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A8-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.16" target="asv">Mat. + 3:16,17 + </a>: "The mystery of the Trinity is shown forth in Christ's baptism. our Lord Himself is baptized in His human nature; the Holy + Ghost descended in the shape of a dove: the Father's voice is heard bearing witness to the Son." Therefore it was becoming + that in that baptism the Father should be manifested by a voice. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The visible mission adds something to the apparition, to wit, the authority of the sender. Therefore the Son and the Holy + Ghost who are from another, are said not only to appear, but also to be sent visibly. But the Father, who is not from another, + can appear indeed, but cannot be sent visibly. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Father is manifested by the voice, only as producing the voice or speaking by it. And since it is proper to the Father + to produce the Word---that is, to utter or to speak---therefore was it most becoming that the Father should be manifested + by a voice, because the voice designates the word. Wherefore the very voice to which the Father gave utterance bore witness + to the Sonship of the Word. And just as the form of the dove, in which the Holy Ghost + was made manifest, is not the Nature of the Holy Ghost, nor is the form of man in which the Son Himself was manifested, the + very Nature of the Son of God, so neither does the voice belong to the Nature of the Word or of the Father who spoke. Hence + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A8-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.37" target="asv">Jn. 5:37</a>) our Lord says: "Neither have you heard His," i.e. the Father's, "voice at any time, nor seen His shape." By which words, + as Chrysostom says (Hom. xl in Joan.), "He gradually leads them to the knowledge of the + philosophical truth, and shows them that God has neither voice nor shape, but is above all such forms and utterances." And + just as the whole Trinity made both the dove and the human nature assumed by Christ, so also they formed the voice: yet the + Father alone as speaking is manifested by the voice, just as the Son alone assumed human nature, and the Holy Ghost alone + is manifested in the dove, as Augustine [*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum] makes evident. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It was becoming that Christ's Godhead should not be proclaimed to all in His nativity, but rather that It should be hidden + while He was subject to the defects of infancy. But when He attained to the perfect age, when the time came for Him to teach, + to work miracles, and to draw men to Himself then did it behoove His Godhead to be attested from on high by the Father's testimony, + so that His teaching might become the more credible. Hence He says + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A8-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.37" target="asv">Jn. 5:37</a>): "The Father Himself who sent Me, hath given testimony of Me." And specially at the time of baptism, by which men are born + again into adopted sons of God; since God's sons by adoption are made to be like unto His natural Son, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q39_A8-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv"> Rom. 8:29</a>: "Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son." Hence Hilary says (Super Matth. + ii) that when Jesus was baptized, the Holy Ghost descended on Him, and the + Father's voice was heard saying: "'This is My beloved Son,' that we might know, from what was accomplished in Christ, that + after being washed in the waters of baptism the Holy Ghost comes down upon us from on high, and that the Father's voice declares + us to have become the adopted sons of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q39_A8-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q38_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q40" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q40-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S MANNER OF LIFE (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q40-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40-p2"> Having considered those things which relate to Christ's entrance into the world, or to His beginning, it remains for us to + consider those that relate to the process of His life. And we must consider (1) His manner of life; (2) His temptation; (3) + His doctrine; (4) His miracles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40-p3"> Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q40-p4"> (1) Whether Christ should have led a solitary life, or have associated with men?</p> + <p id="TP_Q40-p5"> (2) Whether He should have led an austere life as regards food, drink, and clothing? Or should He have conformed Himself + to others in these respects? + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40-p6"> (3) Whether He should have adopted a lowly state of life, or one of wealth and honor?</p> + <p id="TP_Q40-p7"> (4) Whether He should have lived in conformity with the Law?</p> + <div id="TP_Q40_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q40_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ should have associated with men, or led a solitary life?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have associated with men, but should have led a solitary life. For it behooved Christ + to show by His manner of life not only that He was man, but also that He was God. But it is not becoming that God should associate + with men, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.2.11" target="asv">Dan. 2:11</a>): "Except the gods, whose conversation is not with men"; and the Philosopher says (Polit. i) that he who lives alone is "either + a beast"---that is, if + he do this from being wild---"or a god," if his motive be the contemplation of truth. Therefore it seems that it was not becoming + for Christ to associate with men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, while He lived in mortal flesh, it behooved Christ to lead a most perfect life. But the most perfect is the contemplative + life, as we have stated in the + <a id="TP_Q40_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q182_A1.html">SS, Q[182], AA[1]</a>,2. Now, solitude is most suitable to the contemplative life; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Hos.2.14" target="asv"> Osee 2:14</a>: "I will lead her into the wilderness, and I will speak to her heart." Therefore it seems that Christ should have led a solitary + life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's manner of life should have been uniform: because it should always have given evidence of that which is + best. But at times Christ avoided the crowd and sought lonely places: hence Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.1" target="asv"> Matth. 5:1</a>], commenting on Matthew, says: "We read that our Lord had three places of refuge: the ship, the mountain, the desert; to + one or other of which He betook Himself whenever he was harassed by the crowd." + Therefore He ought always to have led a solitary life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Bar.3.38" target="asv">Baruch 3:38</a>): "Afterwards He was seen upon earth and conversed with men." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's manner of life had to be in keeping with the end of His Incarnation, by reason of which He came into the world. + Now He came into the world, first, that He might publish the truth. thus He says Himself ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.18.37" target="asv">Jn. 18:37</a>): "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth." Hence it was fitting + not that He should hide Himself by leading a solitary life, but that He should appear openly + and preach in public. Wherefore ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.42" target="asv">Lk. 4:42,43</a>) He says to those who wished to stay Him: "To other cities also I must preach the kingdom of God: for therefore am I sent." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p7"> Secondly, He came in order to free men from sin; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.15" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:15</a>: "Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners." And hence, as Chrysostom says, "although Christ might, while staying + in the same place, have drawn all men to Himself, to hear His preaching, yet He did not do so; thus giving us the example + to go about and seek those who perish, like the shepherd in his search of the lost sheep, and the physician in his attendance + on the sick." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p8"> Thirdly, He came that by Him "we might have access to God," as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.2" target="asv">Rom. 5:2</a>). And thus it was fitting that He should give men confidence in approaching Him by associating familiarly with them. Wherefore + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.10" target="asv">Mat. 9:10</a>): "It came to pass as He was sitting . . . in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with Jesus + and His disciples." On which Jerome comments as follows: "They had seen the + publican who had been converted from a sinful to a better life: and consequently they did not despair of their own salvation." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ wished to make His Godhead known through His human nature. And therefore, since it is proper to man to do so, He associated + with men, at the same time manifesting His Godhead to all, by preaching and working miracles, and by leading among men a blameless + and righteous life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated in the + <a id="TP_Q40_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q182_A1.html">SS, Q[182], A[1]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q40_A1-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q188_A6.html">SS, Q[188], A[6]</a>, the contemplative life is, absolutely speaking, more perfect than the active life, because the latter is taken up with bodily + actions: yet that form of active life in which a man, by preaching and teaching, delivers to others the fruits of his contemplation, + is more perfect than the life that stops at contemplation, because such a life is built on + an abundance of contemplation, and consequently such was the life chosen by Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's action is our instruction. And therefore, in order to teach preachers that they ought not to be for ever before + the public, our Lord withdrew Himself sometimes from the crowd. We are told of three reasons for His doing this. First, for + the rest of the body: hence ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.6.31" target="asv">Mk. 6:31</a>) it is stated that our Lord said to His disciples: "Come apart into a desert place, and rest a little. For there were many + coming and going: and they had not so much as + time to eat." But sometimes it was for the sake of prayer; thus it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.12" target="asv">Lk. 6:12</a>): "It came to pass in those days, that He went out into a mountain to pray; and He passed the whole night in the prayer of + God." On this Ambrose remarks that "by His example He instructs us in the precepts of virtue." And sometimes He did so in + order to teach us to avoid the favor of men. Wherefore Chrysostom, commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A1-p11.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.1" target="asv"> Mat. 5:1, </a> Jesus, "seeing the multitude, went + up into a mountain," says: "By sitting not in the city and in the market-place, but on a mountain and in a place of solitude, + He taught us to do nothing for show, and to withdraw from the crowd, especially when we have to discourse of needful things." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A1-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q40_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q40_A2-p0.1">Whether it was becoming that Christ should lead an austere life in this world?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was becoming that Christ should lead an austere life in this world. For Christ preached the perfection + of life much more than John did. But John led an austere life in order that he might persuade men by his example to embrace + a perfect life; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.4" target="asv">Mat. 3:4</a>) that "the same John had his garment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins: and his meat was locusts and + wild honey"; on which + Chrysostom comments as follows (Hom. x): "It was a marvelous and strange thing to behold such austerity in a human frame: + which thing also particularly attracted the Jews." Therefore it seems that an austere life was much more becoming to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, abstinence is ordained to continency; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.4.10" target="asv">Osee 4:10</a>): "They shall eat and shall not be filled; they have committed fornication, and have not ceased." But Christ both observed + continency in Himself and proposed it to be observed by others when He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.12" target="asv">Mat. 19:12</a>): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven: he that can take it let him take it." Therefore + it seems that Christ should + have observed an austere life both in Himself and in His disciples. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it seems absurd for a man to begin a stricter form of life and to return to an easier life: for one might quote + to his discredit that which is written, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.14.30" target="asv"> Lk. 14:30</a>: "This man began to build, and was not able to finish." Now Christ began a very strict life after His baptism, remaining + in the desert and fasting for "forty days and forty nights." Therefore it seems unbecoming that, after leading such a strict + life, He should return to + the common manner of living. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.19" target="asv">Mat. 11:19</a>): "The Son of Man came eating and drinking." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q40_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q40_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, it was in keeping with the end of the Incarnation that Christ should not lead a solitary life, but should associate with + men. Now it is most fitting that he who associates with others should conform to their manner of living; according to the + words of the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.22" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:22</a>): "I became all things to all men." And therefore it was most fitting that Christ should conform to others in the + matter of eating and drinking. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi) that "John is described as 'neither eating nor drinking,' + because he did not take the same food as the Jews. Therefore, unless our Lord had taken it, it would not be said of Him, in + contrast, 'eating and drinking.'" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In His manner of living our Lord gave an example of perfection as to all those things which of themselves relate to salvation. + Now abstinence in eating and drinking does not of itself relate to salvation, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.17" target="asv"> Rom. 14:17</a>: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink." And Augustine (De Qq. Evang. ii, qu. 11) explains + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.19" target="asv">Mat. 11:19</a>, "Wisdom is justified by her children," saying that this is because the holy apostles "understood + that the kingdom of God does not consist in eating and drinking, but in suffering indigence with equanimity," for they are + neither uplifted by affluence, nor distressed by want. Again (De Doctr. Christ. iii), he says that in all such things "it + is not making use of them, but the wantonness of the user, that is sinful." Now both these lives are lawful and praiseworthy---namely, + that a man withdraw from the society of other men and observe abstinence; and that he associate with other men and live + like them. And therefore our Lord wished to give men an example of either kind of life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p8"> As to John, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvii super Matth.), "he exhibited no more than his life and righteous conduct + . . . but Christ had the testimony also of miracles. Leaving, therefore, John to be illustrious by his fasting, He Himself + came the opposite way, both coming unto publicans' tables and eating and drinking." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as by abstinence other men acquire the power of self-restraint, so also Christ, in Himself and in those that are His, + subdued the flesh by the power of His Godhead. Wherefore, as we read + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.14" target="asv">Mat. 9:14</a>, the Pharisees and the disciples of John fasted, but not the disciples of Christ. On which Bede comments, saying that "John + drank neither wine nor strong drink: because abstinence is meritorious where the nature is weak. But why should our Lord, + whose + right by nature it is to forgive sins, avoid those whom He could make holier than such as abstain?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.), "that thou mightest learn how great a good is fasting, and how it is a shield + against the devil, and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting---for this cause did + He fast, not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us . . . And for this did He proceed no further than Moses and Elias, + lest His assumption of our flesh might seem incredible." The mystical meaning, as + Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Evang.), is that by Christ's example the number "forty" is observed in His fast, because the power + of the "decalogue is fulfilled throughout the four books of the Holy Gospel: since ten multiplied by four amounts to forty." + Or, because "we live in this mortal body composed of the four elements, and by its lusts we transgress the commandments of + the Lord, which are expressed in the decalogue." Or, according to Augustine (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 81): "To know the Creator and + the creature is the entire teaching of wisdom. The Creator is the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now the + creature is partly invisible, as the soul, to which the number three may be ascribed, for we are commanded to love God in + three ways, 'with our whole heart, our whole soul, and our whole mind'; and partly visible, as the body, to which the number + four is applicable on account of its being subject to heat, moisture, cold, and dryness. Hence if we multiply ten, which may + be + referred to the entire moral code, by four, which number may be applied to the body, because it is the body that executes + the law, the product is the number forty: in which," consequently, "the time during which we sigh and grieve is shown forth." + And yet there was no inconsistency in Christ's returning to the common manner of living, after fasting and (retiring into + the) desert. For it is becoming to that kind of life, which we hold Christ to have embraced, wherein a man delivers to others + the + fruits of his contemplation, that he devote himself first of all to contemplation, and that he afterwards come down to the + publicity of active life by associating with other men. Hence Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.2.18" target="asv"> Mk. 2:18</a>: "Christ fasted, that thou mightest not disobey the commandment; He ate with sinners, that thou mightest discern His sanctity + and acknowledge His power." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q40_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q40_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ should have led a life of poverty in this world?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have led a life of poverty in this world. Because Christ should have embraced the most + eligible form of life. But the most eligible form of life is that which is a mean between riches and poverty; for it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.30.8" target="asv">Prov. 30:8</a>): "Give me neither beggary nor riches; give me only the necessaries of life." Therefore Christ should have led a life, not + of poverty, but of moderation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, external wealth is ordained to bodily use as to food and raiment. But Christ conformed His manner of life to those + among whom He lived, in the matter of food and raiment. Therefore it seems that He should have observed the ordinary manner + of life as to riches and poverty, and have avoided extreme poverty. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ specially invited men to imitate His example of humility, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.29" target="asv"> Mat. 11:29</a>: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart." But humility is most commendable in the rich; thus it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.6.11" target="asv">1 Tim. 6:11</a>): "Charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded." Therefore it seems that Christ should not have chosen a life of + poverty. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.20" target="asv">Mat. 8:20</a>): "The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head": as though He were to say as Jerome observes: "Why desirest thou to follow + Me for the sake of riches and worldly gain, since I am so poor that I have not even the smallest dwelling-place, and I am + sheltered by a roof that is not Mine?" And on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.26" target="asv"> Mat. 17:26</a>: "That we may not scandalize them, go to the sea," Jerome says: "This incident, taken + literally, affords edification to those who hear it when they are told that our Lord was so poor that He had not the wherewithal + to pay the tax for Himself and His apostles." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting for Christ to lead a life of poverty in this world. First, because this was in keeping with the duty of preaching, + for which purpose He says that He came ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.38" target="asv">Mk. 1:38</a>): "Let us go into the neighboring towns and cities, that I may preach there also: for to this purpose am I come." Now in + order that the preachers of God's word may be able to give all their time to preaching, they must be wholly free from care + of worldly + matters: which is impossible for those who are possessed of wealth. Wherefore the Lord Himself, when sending the apostles + to preach, said to them ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.9" target="asv">Mat. 10:9</a>): "Do not possess gold nor silver." And the apostles ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.6.2" target="asv">Acts 6:2</a>) say: "It is not reasonable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p7"> Secondly, because just as He took upon Himself the death of the body in order to bestow spiritual life on us, so did He bear + bodily poverty, in order to enrich us spiritually, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.8.9" target="asv">2 Cor. 8:9</a>: "You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: that . . . He became poor for our [Vulg.: 'your'] sakes that through His poverty + we [Vulg.: 'you'] might be rich." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p8"> Thirdly, lest if He were rich His preaching might be ascribed to cupidity. Wherefore Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.9" target="asv"> Mat. 10:9, </a> that if the disciples had been possessed of wealth, "they had seemed to preach for gain, not for the salvation of mankind." + And the same reason applies to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p9"> Fourthly, that the more lowly He seemed by reason of His poverty, the greater might the power of His Godhead be shown to + be. Hence in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, c. ix) we read: "He chose all that was poor and despicable, all that + was of small account and hidden from the majority, that we might recognize His Godhead to have transformed the terrestrial + sphere. For this reason did He choose a poor maid for His Mother, a poorer birthplace; for this reason did He + live in want. Learn this from the manger." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid abundance of riches and beggary, in as far as these are occasions of sin: + since abundance of riches is an occasion for being proud; and beggary is an occasion of thieving and lying, or even of perjury. + But forasmuch as Christ was incapable of sin, He had not the same motive as Solomon for avoiding these things. Yet neither + is every kind of beggary an occasion of theft and perjury, as Solomon seems to add + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.30.8" target="asv">Prov. 30:8</a>); but only that which is involuntary, in order to avoid which, a man is guilty of theft and perjury. But voluntary poverty + is not open to this danger: and such was the poverty chosen by Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A man may feed and clothe himself in conformity with others, not only by possessing riches, but also by receiving the necessaries + of life from those who are rich. This is what happened in regard to Christ: for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.8.2" target="asv">Lk. 8:2,3</a>) that certain women followed Christ and "ministered unto Him of their substance." For, as Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A3-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.55" target="asv"> Mat. 27:55, </a> "It was a Jewish custom, nor was it thought wrong for women, + following the ancient tradition of their nation, out of their private means to provide their instructors with food and clothing. + But as this might give scandal to the heathens, Paul says that he gave it up": thus it was possible for them to be fed out + of a common fund, but not to possess wealth, without their duty of preaching being hindered by anxiety. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Humility is not much to be praised in one who is poor of necessity. But in one who, like Christ, is poor willingly, poverty + itself is a sign of very great humility. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A3-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q40_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q40_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ conformed His conduct to the Law?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law. For the Law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on the + Sabbath, since God "rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done." But He healed a man on the Sabbath, and + commanded him to take up his bed. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what Christ taught, that He also did, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.1" target="asv">Acts 1:1</a>: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He taught ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.11" target="asv">Mat. 15:11</a>) that "not" all "that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man": and this is contrary to the precept of the Law, which declared + that a man was made unclean by eating and touching certain animals, as stated + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Lev.11" target="asv">Lev. 11</a>. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His conduct to the Law. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, he who consents to anything is of the same mind as he who does it, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.32" target="asv"> Rom. 1:32</a>: "Not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them." But Christ, by excusing His disciples, consented + to their breaking the Law by plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath; as is related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.1" target="asv"> Mat. 12:1-8.</a> Therefore it seems that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.17" target="asv">Mat. 5:17</a>): "Do not think that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets." Commenting on these words, Chrysostom says: "He fulfilled + the Law . . . in one way, by transgressing none of the precepts of the Law; secondly, by justifying us through faith, which + the Law, in the letter, was unable to do." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the precepts of the Law. In token of this He wished even to be circumcised; + for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a man's purpose of keeping the Law, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.3" target="asv"> Gal. 5:3</a>: "I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p7"> And Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law, first, to show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly, that + by obeying the Law He might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own self, so as to show that it was ordained to Him. + Thirdly, to deprive the Jews of an excuse for slandering Him. Fourthly, in order to deliver men from subjection to the Law, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv"> Gal. 4:4,5</a>: "God sent His Son . . . made under the Law that He might redeem them + who were under the Law." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our Lord excuses Himself from any transgression of the Law in this matter, for three reasons. First, the precept of the hallowing + of the Sabbath forbids not Divine work, but human work: for though God ceased on the seventh day from the creation of new + creatures, yet He ever works by keeping and governing His creatures. Now that Christ wrought miracles was a Divine work: hence + He says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.17" target="asv">Jn. 5:17</a>): "My Father worketh until now; and I + work." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p9"> Secondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does not forbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore + He says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.13.15" target="asv">Lk. 13:15</a>): "Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath-day loose his ox or his ass from the manger, and lead them to water?" And farther + on ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.14.5" target="asv">Lk. 14:5</a>): "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit, and will not immediately draw him out on the Sabbath-day?" Now + it is manifest that the miraculous works done by + Christ related to health of body and soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p10"> Thirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the worship of God. Wherefore He says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.5" target="asv">Mat. 12:5</a>): "Have ye not read in the Law that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the Temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame?" + And ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p10.2" href="./asv.html#John.7.23" target="asv">Jn. 7:23</a>) it is written that a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath-day. Now when Christ commanded the paralytic to carry his + bed on the Sabbath-day, this pertained to the worship of God, i.e. + to the praise of God's power. And thus it is clear that He did not break the Sabbath: although the Jews threw this false accusation + in His face, saying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q40_A4-p10.3" href="./asv.html#John.9.16" target="asv">Jn. 9:16</a>): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the Sabbath." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By those words Christ wished to show that man is made unclean as to his soul, by the use of any sort of foods considered + not in their nature, but only in some signification. And that certain foods are in the Law called "unclean" is due to some + signification; whence Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi): "If a question be raised about swine and lambs, both are clean by + nature, since 'all God's creatures are good'; but by a certain signification lambs are + clean and swine unclean." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The disciples also, when, being hungry, they plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from transgressing + the Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as David did not transgress the Law when, through being compelled by hunger, + he ate the loaves which it was not lawful for him to eat. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q40_A4-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q39_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q41" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q41-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S TEMPTATION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q41-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q41-p2"> We have now to consider Christ's temptation, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q41-p3"> (1) Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted?</p> + <p id="TP_Q41-p4"> (2) Of the place;</p> + <p id="TP_Q41-p5"> (3) Of the time;</p> + <p id="TP_Q41-p6"> (4) Of the mode and order of the temptation.</p> + <div id="TP_Q41_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q41_A1-p0.1">Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not becoming for Christ to be tempted. For to tempt is to make an experiment, which is not done + save in regard to something unknown. But the power of Christ was known even to the demons; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.41" target="asv">Lk. 4:41</a>) that "He suffered them not to speak, for they knew that He was Christ." Therefore it seems that it was unbecoming for Christ + to be tempted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ was come in order to destroy the works of the devil, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.3.8" target="asv">1 Jn. 3:8</a>: "For this purpose the Son of God appeared, that He might destroy the works of the devil." But it is not for the same to + destroy the works of a certain one and to suffer them. Therefore it seems unbecoming that Christ should suffer Himself to + be tempted by the devil. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, temptation is from a threefold source---the flesh, the world, and the devil. But Christ was not tempted either by + the flesh or by the world. Therefore neither should He have been tempted by the devil. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.1" target="asv">Mat. 4:1</a>): "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ wished to be tempted; first that He might strengthen us against temptations. Hence Gregory says in a homily (xvi in + Evang.): "It was not unworthy of our Redeemer to wish to be tempted, who came also to be slain; in order that by His temptations + He might conquer our temptations, just as by His death He overcame our death." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p7"> Secondly, that we might be warned, so that none, however holy, may think himself safe or free from temptation. Wherefore + also He wished to be tempted after His baptism, because, as Hilary says (Super Matth., cap. iii.): "The temptations of the + devil assail those principally who are sanctified, for he desires, above all, to overcome the holy. Hence also it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.2" target="asv">Ecclus. 2</a>): Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for + temptation." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p8"> Thirdly, in order to give us an example: to teach us, to wit, how to overcome the temptations of the devil. Hence Augustine + says (De Trin. iv) that Christ "allowed Himself to be tempted" by the devil, "that He might be our Mediator in overcoming + temptations, not only by helping us, but also by giving us an example." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p9"> Fourthly, in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.4.15" target="asv">Heb. 4:15</a>): "We have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we are, + without sin." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was known to the demons only so far as He willed; not as the Author of eternal + life, but as the cause of certain temporal effects," from which they formed a certain conjecture that Christ was the Son of + God. But since they also observed in Him certain signs of human frailty, they did not know for certain that He was the Son + of God: wherefore (the devil) wished to tempt Him. This is implied by the words + of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.2" target="asv"> Mat. 4:2,3, </a> saying that, after "He was hungry, the tempter" came "to Him," because, as Hilary says (Super Matth., cap. iii), "Had not + Christ's weakness in hungering betrayed His human nature, the devil would not have dared to tempt Him." Moreover, this appears + from the very manner of the temptation, when he said: "If Thou be the Son of God." Which words Ambrose explains as follows + (In Luc. iv): "What means this way of addressing Him, save that, though he knew that the Son + of God was to come, yet he did not think that He had come in the weakness of the flesh?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, not by powerful deeds, but rather by suffering from him and his members, so + as to conquer the devil by righteousness, not by power; thus Augustine says (De Trin. xiii) that "the devil was to be overcome, + not by the power of God, but by righteousness." And therefore in regard to Christ's temptation we must consider what He did + of His own will and what He suffered from the devil. For that He allowed Himself + to be tempted was due to His own will. Wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.1" target="asv">Mat. 4:1</a>): "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil"; and Gregory (Hom. xvi in Evang.) says this is + to be understood of the Holy Ghost, to wit, that "thither did His Spirit lead Him, where the wicked spirit would find Him + and tempt Him." But He suffered from the devil in being "taken up" on to "the pinnacle of the Temple" and again "into a very + high mountain." Nor is it strange, + as Gregory observes, "that He allowed Himself to be taken by him on to a mountain, who allowed Himself to be crucified by + His members." And we understand Him to have been taken up by the devil, not, as it were, by force, but because, as Origen + says (Hom. xxi super Luc.), "He followed Him in the course of His temptation like a wrestler advancing of his own accord." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.4.15" target="asv">Heb. 4:15</a>), Christ wished to be "tempted in all things, without sin." Now temptation which comes from an enemy can be without sin: + because it comes about by merely outward suggestion. But temptation which comes from the flesh cannot be without sin, because + such a temptation is caused by pleasure and concupiscence; and, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix), "it is not without sin + that 'the flesh desireth against + the spirit.'" And hence Christ wished to be tempted by an enemy, but not by the flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q41_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q41_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ should have been tempted in the desert?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have been tempted in the desert. Because Christ wished to be tempted in order to give + us an example, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q41_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q41_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But an example should be set openly before those who are to follow it. Therefore He should not have been tempted in the + desert. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth.): "Then most especially does the devil assail by tempting us, when he sees us + alone. Thus did he tempt the woman in the beginning when he found her apart from her husband." Hence it seems that, by going + into the desert to be tempted, He exposed Himself to temptation. Since, therefore, His temptation is an example to us, it + seems that others too should take such steps as will lead them into temptation. And yet this + seems a dangerous thing to do, since rather should we avoid the occasion of being tempted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.5" target="asv"> Mat. 4:5, </a> Christ's second temptation is set down, in which "the devil took" Christ up "into the Holy City, and set Him upon the pinnacle + of the Temple": which is certainly not in the desert. Therefore He was not tempted in the desert only. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.13" target="asv">Mk. 1:13</a>) that Jesus "was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 2), Christ of His own free-will exposed Himself to be tempted by the devil, just as by His own + free-will He submitted to be killed by His members; else the devil would not have dared to approach Him. Now the devil prefers + to assail a man who is alone, for, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.4.12" target="asv">Eccles. 4:12</a>), "if a man prevail against one, two shall withstand him." And so it was that Christ went out into the desert, as to a field + of + battle, to be tempted there by the devil. Hence Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.1" target="asv"> Lk. 4:1, </a> that "Christ was led into the desert for the purpose of provoking the devil. For had he," i.e. the devil, "not fought, He," + i.e. Christ, "would not have conquered." He adds other reasons, saying that "Christ in doing this set forth the mystery of + Adam's delivery from exile," who had been expelled from paradise into the desert, and "set an example to us, by showing that + the devil envies those who strive + for better things." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ is set as an example to all through faith, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.2" target="asv"> Heb. 12:2</a>: "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith." Now faith, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.17" target="asv">Rom. 10:17</a>), "cometh by hearing," but not by seeing: nay, it is even said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A2-p7.3" href="./asv.html#John.20.29" target="asv">Jn. 20:29</a>): "Blessed are they that have not seen and have believed." And therefore, in order that Christ's temptation might be an example + to us, it behooved that + men should not see it, and it was enough that they should hear it related. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The occasions of temptation are twofold. one is on the part of man---for instance, when a man causes himself to be near to + sin by not avoiding the occasion of sinning. And such occasions of temptation should be avoided, as it is written of Lot ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.19.17" target="asv">Gn. 19:17</a>): "Neither stay thou in all the country about" Sodom. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p9"> Another occasion of temptation is on the part of the devil, who always "envies those who strive for better things," as Ambrose + says (In Luc. iv, 1). And such occasions of temptation are not to be avoided. Hence Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth. [*From + the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]): "Not only Christ was led into the desert by the Spirit, but all God's children that + have the Holy Ghost. For it is not enough for them to sit idle; the Holy Ghost urges them to endeavor to do + something great: which is for them to be in the desert from the devil's standpoint, for no unrighteousness, in which the devil + delights, is there. Again, every good work, compared to the flesh and the world, is the desert; because it is not according + to the will of the flesh and of the world." Now, there is no danger in giving the devil such an occasion of temptation; since + the help of the Holy Ghost, who is the Author of the perfect deed, is more powerful* than the assault of the envious + devil. [*All the codices read 'majus.' One of the earliest printed editions has 'magis,' which has much to commend it, since + St. Thomas is commenting the text quoted from St. Chrysostom. The translation would run thus: 'since rather is it (the temptation) + a help from the Holy Ghost, who,' etc.]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some say that all the temptations took place in the desert. Of these some say that Christ was led into the Holy City, not + really, but in an imaginary vision; while others say that the Holy City itself, i.e. Jerusalem, is called "a desert," because + it was deserted by God. But there is no need for this explanation. For Mark says that He was tempted in the desert by the + devil, but not that He was tempted in the desert only. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q41_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q41_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ's temptation should have taken place after His fast?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's temptation should not have taken place after His fast. For it has been said above ( + <a id="TP_Q41_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q40_A2.html">Q[40], A[2]</a>) that an austere mode of life was not becoming to Christ. But it savors of extreme austerity that He should have eaten nothing + for forty days and forty nights, for Gregory (Hom. xvi inn Evang.) explains the fact that "He fasted forty days and forty + nights," saying that "during that time He partook of no food + whatever." It seems, therefore, that He should not thus have fasted before His temptation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.13" target="asv">Mk. 1:13</a>) that "He was in the desert forty days and forty nights; and was tempted by Satan." Now, He fasted forty days and forty nights. + Therefore it seems that He was tempted by the devil, not after, but during, His fast. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, we read that Christ fasted but once. But He was tempted by the devil, not only once, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.13" target="asv">Lk. 4:13</a>) "that all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him for a time." As, therefore, He did not fast before the + second temptation, so neither should He have fasted before the first. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.2" target="asv">Mat. 4:2,3</a>): "When He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards He was hungry": and then "the tempter came to Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was becoming that Christ should wish to fast before His temptation. First, in order to give us an example. For since we + are all in urgent need of strengthening ourselves against temptation, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q41_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q41_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, by fasting before being tempted, He teaches us the need of fasting in order to equip ourselves against temptation. Hence + the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.5" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:5</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.7" target="asv">7</a>) reckons "fastings" together with the "armor of + justice." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p7"> Secondly, in order to show that the devil assails with temptations even those who fast, as likewise those who are given to + other good works. And so Christ's temptation took place after His fast, as also after His baptism. Hence since rather Chrysostom + says (Hom. xiii super Matth.): "To instruct thee how great a good is fasting, and how it is a most powerful shield against + the devil; and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting; for this + cause Christ fasted, not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p8"> Thirdly, because after the fast, hunger followed, which made the devil dare to approach Him, as already stated (A[1], ad + 1). Now, when "our Lord was hungry," says Hilary (Super Matth. iii), "it was not because He was overcome by want of food, + but because He abandoned His manhood to its nature. For the devil was to be conquered, not by God, but by the flesh." Wherefore + Chrysostom too says: "He proceeded no farther than Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might seem + incredible." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It was becoming for Christ not to adopt an extreme form of austere life in order to show Himself outwardly in conformity + with those to whom He preached. Now, no one should take up the office of preacher unless he be already cleansed and perfect + in virtue, according to what is said of Christ, that "Jesus began to do and to teach" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.1" target="asv">Acts 1:1</a>). Consequently, immediately after His baptism Christ adopted an austere form of life, in + order to teach us the need of taming the flesh before passing on to the office of preaching, according to the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.27" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:27</a>): "I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to others, I myself should become + a castaway." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> These words of Mark may be understood as meaning that "He was in the desert forty days and forty nights," and that He fasted + during that time: and the words, "and He was tempted by Satan," may be taken as referring, not to the time during which He + fasted, but to the time that followed: since Matthew says that "after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards + He was hungry," thus affording the devil a pretext for approaching Him. And so the + words that follow, and the angels ministered to Him, are to be taken in sequence, which is clear from the words of Matthew + (4:11): "Then the devil left Him," i.e. after the temptation, "and behold angels came and ministered to Him." And as to the + words inserted by Mark, "and He was with the beasts," according to Chrysostom (Hom. xiii in Matth.), they are set down in + order to describe the desert as being impassable to man and full of beasts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p11"> On the other hand, according to Bede's exposition of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.12" target="asv"> Mk. 1:12,13, </a> our Lord was tempted forty days and forty nights. But this is not to be understood of the visible temptations which are related + by Matthew and Luke, and occurred after the fast, but of certain other assaults which perhaps Christ suffered from the devil + during that time of His fast. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.13" target="asv"> Lk. 4:13, </a> the devil departed from Christ "for a time, because, later on, he returned, not to tempt Him, but to assail Him openly"---namely, + at the time of His Passion. Nevertheless, He seemed in this later assault to tempt Christ to dejection and hatred of His neighbor; + just as in the desert he had tempted Him to gluttonous pleasure and idolatrous contempt of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A3-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q41_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q41_A4-p0.1">Whether the mode and order of the temptation were becoming?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the mode and order of the temptation were unbecoming. For the devil tempts in order to induce us to sin. + But if Christ had assuaged His bodily hunger by changing the stones into bread, He would not have sinned; just as neither + did He sin when He multiplied the loaves, which was no less a miracle, in order to succor the hungry crowd. Therefore it seems + that this was nowise a temptation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a counselor is inconsistent if he persuades the contrary to what he intends. But when the devil set Christ on a + pinnacle of the Temple, he purposed to tempt Him to pride or vainglory. Therefore it was inconsistent to urge Him to cast + Himself thence: for this would be contrary to pride or vainglory, which always seeks to rise. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, one temptation should lead to one sin. But in the temptation on the mountain he counseled two sins---namely, covetousness + and idolatry. Therefore the mode of the temptation was unfitting. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, temptations are ordained to sin. But there are seven deadly sins, as we have stated in the + <a id="TP_Q41_A4-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q84_A4.html">FS, Q[84], A[4]</a>. But the tempter only deals with three, viz. gluttony, vainglory, and covetousness. Therefore the temptation seems to have + been incomplete. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, after overcoming all the vices, man is still tempted to pride or vainglory: since pride "worms itself in stealthily, + and destroys even good works," as Augustine says (Ep. ccxi). Therefore Matthew unfittingly gives the last place to the temptation + to covetousness on the mountain, and the second place to the temptation to vainglory in the Temple, especially since Luke + puts them in the reverse order. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.4" target="asv"> Mat. 4:4 </a>that "Christ purposed to overcome the devil by humility, not by might." Therefore He should not have repulsed him with a haughty + rebuke, saying: "Begone, Satan." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p8"> + <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the gospel narrative seems to be false. For it seems impossible that Christ could have been set on a pinnacle of + the Temple without being seen by others. Nor is there to be found a mountain so high that all the world can be seen from it, + so that all the kingdoms of the earth could be shown to Christ from its summit. It seems, therefore, that Christ's temptation + is unfittingly described. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p9"> On the contrary is the authority of Scripture.</p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p10"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The temptation which comes from the enemy takes the form of a suggestion, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Evang.). Now a suggestion + cannot be made to everybody in the same way; it must arise from those things towards which each one has an inclination. Consequently + the devil does not straight away tempt the spiritual man to grave sins, but he begins with lighter sins, so as gradually to + lead him to those of greater magnitude. Wherefore Gregory (Moral. xxxi), + expounding + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Job.39.25" target="asv"> Job 39:25, </a> "He smelleth the battle afar off, the encouraging of the captains and the shouting of the army," says: "The captains are + fittingly described as encouraging, and the army as shouting. Because vices begin by insinuating themselves into the mind + under some specious pretext: then they come on the mind in such numbers as to drag it into all sorts of folly, deafening it + with their bestial clamor." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p11"> Thus, too, did the devil set about the temptation of the first man. For at first he enticed his mind to consent to the eating + of the forbidden fruit, saying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.3.1" target="asv">Gn. 3:1</a>): "Why hath God commanded you that you should not eat of every tree of paradise?" Secondly [he tempted him] to vainglory + by saying: "Your eyes shall be opened." Thirdly, he led the temptation to the extreme height of pride, saying: "You shall + be as gods, knowing good and evil." This same order + did he observe in tempting Christ. For at first he tempted Him to that which men desire, however spiritual they may be---namely, + the support of the corporeal nature by food. Secondly, he advanced to that matter in which spiritual men are sometimes found + wanting, inasmuch as they do certain things for show, which pertains to vainglory. Thirdly, he led the temptation on to that + in which no spiritual men, but only carnal men, have a part---namely, to desire worldly riches and fame, to the extent + of holding God in contempt. And so in the first two temptations he said: "If Thou be the Son of God"; but not in the third, + which is inapplicable to spiritual men, who are sons of God by adoption, whereas it does apply to the two preceding temptations. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p12"> And Christ resisted these temptations by quoting the authority of the Law, not by enforcing His power, "so as to give more + honor to His human nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe of the human race was vanquished, not as + by God, but as by man"; as Pope Leo says (Serm. 1, De Quadrag. 3). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> To make use of what is needful for self-support is not the sin of gluttony; but if a man do anything inordinate out of the + desire for such support, it can pertain to the sin of gluttony. Now it is inordinate for a man who has human assistance at + his command to seek to obtain food miraculously for mere bodily support. Hence the Lord miraculously provided the children + of Israel with manna in the desert, where there was no means of obtaining food + otherwise. And in like fashion Christ miraculously provided the crowds with food in the desert, when there was no other means + of getting food. But in order to assuage His hunger, He could have done otherwise than work a miracle, as did John the Baptist, + according to Matthew (3:4); or He could have hastened to the neighboring country. Consequently the devil esteemed that if + Christ was a mere man, He would fall into sin by attempting to assuage His hunger by a miracle. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It often happens that a man seeks to derive glory from external humiliation, whereby he is exalted by reason of spiritual + good. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): "It must be noted that it is possible to boast not only of the + beauty and splendor of material things, but even of filthy squalor." And this is signified by the devil urging Christ to seek + spiritual glory by casting His body down. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is a sin to desire worldly riches and honors in an inordinate fashion. And the principal sign of this is when a man does + something wrong in order to acquire such things. And so the devil was not satisfied with instigating to a desire for riches + and honors, but he went so far as to tempt Christ, for the sake of gaining possession of these things, to fall down and adore + him, which is a very great crime, and against God. Nor does he say merely, "if + Thou wilt adore me," but he adds, "if, falling down"; because, as Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A4-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.5" target="asv"> Lk. 4:5</a>: "Ambition harbors yet another danger within itself: for, while seeking to rule, it will serve; it will bow in submission + that it may be crowned with honor; and the higher it aims, the lower it abases itself." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p16"> In like manner [the devil] in the preceding temptations tried to lead [Christ] from the desire of one sin to the commission + of another; thus from the desire of food he tried to lead Him to the vanity of the needless working of a miracle; and from + the desire of glory to tempt God by casting Himself headlong. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q41_A4-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.13" target="asv"> Lk. 4:13, </a> Scripture would not have said that "'all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him,' unless the matter of all + sins were included in the three temptations already related. For the causes of temptations are the causes of desires"---namely, + "lust of the flesh, hope of glory, eagerness for power." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It is not certain which happened first; whether the kingdoms of the earth were + first shown to Him, and afterwards He was set on the pinnacle of the Temple; or the latter first, and the former afterwards. + However, it matters not, provided it be made clear that all these things did take place." It may be that the Evangelists set + these things in different orders, because sometimes cupidity arises from + vainglory, sometimes the reverse happens. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p19"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> When Christ had suffered the wrong of being tempted by the devil saying, "If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself down," He + was not troubled, nor did He upbraid the devil. But when the devil usurped to himself the honor due to God, saying, "All these + things will I give Thee, if, falling down, Thou wilt adore me," He was exasperated, and repulsed him, saying, "Begone, Satan": + that we might learn from His example to bear bravely insults leveled at + ourselves, but not to allow ourselves so much as to listen to those which are aimed at God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p20"> + <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth.): "The devil set Him" (on a pinnacle of the Temple) "that He might be seen by all, whereas, + unawares to the devil, He acted in such sort that He was seen by none." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p21"> In regard to the words, "'He showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,' we are not to understand that + He saw the very kingdoms, with the cities and inhabitants, their gold and silver: but that the devil pointed out the quarters + in which each kingdom or city lay, and set forth to Him in words their glory and estate." Or, again, as Origen says (Hom. + xxx in Luc.), "he showed Him how, by means of the various vices, he was the lord of the world." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p22"></p> + <p id="TP_Q41_A4-p23"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q40_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q42" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q42-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S DOCTRINE (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q42-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q42-p2"> We have now to consider Christ's doctrine, about which there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q42-p3"> (1) Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews only, or to the Gentiles also?</p> + <p id="TP_Q42-p4"> (2) Whether in preaching He should have avoided the opposition of the Jews?</p> + <p id="TP_Q42-p5"> (3) Whether He should have preached in an open or in a hidden manner?</p> + <p id="TP_Q42-p6"> (4) Whether He should have preached by word only, or also by writing?</p> + <p id="TP_Q42-p7"> Concerning the time when He began to teach, we have spoken above when treating of His baptism ( + <a id="TP_Q42-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q29_A3.html">Q[29], A[3]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42-p8"></p> + <div id="TP_Q42_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q42_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ should have preached not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should have preached not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.49.6" target="asv">Is. 49:6</a>): "It is a small thing that thou shouldst be My servant to raise up the tribes of Israel [Vulg.: 'Jacob'] and to convert + the dregs of Jacob [Vulg.: 'Israel']: behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation + even to the farthest part of the earth." But Christ gave light and + salvation through His doctrine. Therefore it seems that it was "a small thing" that He preached to Jews alone, and not to + the Gentiles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.29" target="asv">Mat. 7:29</a>): "He was teaching them as one having power." Now the power of doctrine is made more manifest in the instruction of those + who, like the Gentiles, have received no tidings whatever; hence the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.15.20" target="asv">Rom. 15:20</a>): "I have so preached the [Vulg.: 'this'] gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." + Therefore much rather should Christ have + preached to the Gentiles than to the Jews. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is more useful to instruct many than one. But Christ instructed some individual Gentiles, such as the Samaritan + woman ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.4" target="asv">Jn. 4</a>) and the Chananaean woman ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.15" target="asv">Mat. 15</a>). Much more reason, therefore, was there for Christ to preach to the Gentiles in general. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.24" target="asv">Mat. 15:24</a>): "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel." And ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.15" target="asv">Rom. 10:15</a>) it is written: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" Therefore Christ should not have preached to the Gentiles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting that Christ's preaching, whether through Himself or through His apostles, should be directed at first to the + Jews alone. First, in order to show that by His coming the promises were fulfilled which had been made to the Jews of old, + and not to the Gentiles. Thus the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.15.8" target="asv">Rom. 15:8</a>): "I say that Christ . . . was minister of the circumcision," i.e. the apostle and preacher of the Jews, "for the truth of + God, to + confirm the promises made unto the fathers." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p7"> Secondly, in order to show that His coming was of God; because, as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv"> Rom. 13:1</a>: "Those things which are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: 'those that are, are ordained of God']" [*See Scriptural Index on + this passage]. Now the right order demanded that the doctrine of Christ should be made known first to the Jews, who, by believing + in and worshiping one God, were nearer to God, and that it should be transmitted through them to the Gentiles: just as in + the heavenly hierarchy the Divine enlightenment comes to the lower angels through the higher. Hence on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.24" target="asv">Mat. 15:24</a>, "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost in the house of Israel," Jerome says: "He does not mean by this that He was + not sent to the Gentiles, but that He was sent to the Jews first." And so we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.66.19" target="asv">Is. 66:19</a>): "I will send of them that shall be saved," i.e. of the Jews, "to the Gentiles . . . and they shall declare My glory unto + the Gentiles." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p8"> Thirdly, in order to deprive the Jews of ground for quibbling. Hence on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.5" target="asv"> Mat. 10:5, </a> "Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles." Jerome says: "It behooved Christ's coming to be announced to the Jews first, lest + they should have a valid excuse, and say that they had rejected our Lord because He had sent His apostles to the Gentiles + and Samaritans." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p9"> Fourthly, because it was through the triumph of the cross that Christ merited power and lordship over the Gentiles. Hence + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.2.26" target="asv">Apoc. 2:26</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.2.28" target="asv">28</a>): "He that shall overcome . . . I will give him power over the nations . . . as I also have received of My Father"; and that + because He became "obedient unto the death of the cross, God hath exalted Him . . . that in the name of Jesus every knee should + bow . . ." and that "every tongue should confess Him" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv">Phil. + 2:8-11 + </a>). Consequently He did not wish His doctrine to be preached to the Gentiles before His Passion: it was after His Passion that + He said to His disciples ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p9.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.19" target="asv">Mat. 28:19</a>): "Going, teach ye all nations." For this reason it was that when, shortly before His Passion, certain Gentiles wished to + see Jesus, He said: "Unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone: but if it die it bringeth + forth much fruit" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p9.5" href="./asv.html#John.12.20" target="asv">Jn. + 12:20-25 + </a>); and as Augustine says, commenting on this passage: "He called Himself the grain of wheat that must be mortified by the + unbelief of the Jews, multiplied by the faith of the nations." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ was given to be the light and salvation of the Gentiles through His disciples, whom He sent to preach to them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is a sign, not of lesser, but of greater power to do something by means of others rather than by oneself. And thus the + Divine power of Christ was specially shown in this, that He bestowed on the teaching of His disciples such a power that they + converted the Gentiles to Christ, although these had heard nothing of Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p12"> Now the power of Christ's teaching is to be considered in the miracles by which He confirmed His doctrine, in the efficacy + of His persuasion, and in the authority of His words, for He spoke as being Himself above the Law when He said: "But I say + to you" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.22" target="asv">Mat. 5:22,28,32,34,39,44</a>); and, again, in the force of His righteousness shown in His sinless manner of life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as it was unfitting that Christ should at the outset make His doctrine known to the Gentiles equally with the Jews, + in order that He might appear as being sent to the Jews, as to the first-born people; so neither was it fitting for Him to + neglect the Gentiles altogether, lest they should be deprived of the hope of salvation. For this reason certain individual + Gentiles were admitted, on account of the excellence of their faith and devotedness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A1-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q42_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q42_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews without offending them?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should have preached to the Jews without offending them. For, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. + xi): "In the Man Jesus Christ, a model of life is given us by the Son of God." But we should avoid offending not only the + faithful, but even unbelievers, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.32" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:32</a>: "Be without offense to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God." Therefore it seems that, in His teaching, + Christ should + also have avoided giving offense to the Jews. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no wise man should do anything that will hinder the result of his labor. Now through the disturbance which His teaching + occasioned among the Jews, it was deprived of its results; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.53" target="asv">Lk. 11:53,54</a>) that when our Lord reproved the Pharisees and Scribes, they "began vehemently to urge Him, end to oppress His mouth about + many things; lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch something from His mouth, that they might + accuse Him." It seems therefore unfitting that He should have given them offense by His teaching. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.1" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:1</a>): "An ancient man rebuke not; but entreat him as a father." But the priests and princes of the Jews were the elders of that + people. Therefore it seems that they should not have been rebuked with severity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It was foretold ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.8.14" target="asv">Is. 8:14</a>) that Christ would be "for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to the peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain + ones, by their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude, the preacher and the teacher should not fear to offend + those men, in order that he may insure the salvation of the multitude. Now the Scribes and Pharisees and the princes of the + Jews were by their malice a considerable hindrance to the salvation of the people, both + because they opposed themselves to Christ's doctrine, which was the only way to salvation, and because their evil ways corrupted + the morals of the people. For which reason our Lord, undeterred by their taking offense, publicly taught the truth which they + hated, and condemned their vices. Hence we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.12" target="asv">Mat. 15:12</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.14" target="asv">14</a>) that when the disciples of our Lord said: "Dost Thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?" + He answered: "Let them alone: they + are blind and leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A man ought so to avoid giving offense, as neither by wrong deed or word to be the occasion of anyone's downfall. "But if + scandal arise from truth, the scandal should be borne rather than the truth be set aside," as Gregory says (Hom. vii in Ezech.). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By publicly reproving the Scribes and Pharisees, Christ promoted rather than hindered the effect of His teaching. Because + when the people came to know the vices of those men, they were less inclined to be prejudiced against Christ by hearing what + was said of Him by the Scribes and Pharisees, who were ever withstanding His doctrine. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This saying of the Apostle is to be understood of those elders whose years are reckoned not only in age and authority, but + also in probity; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Num.11.16" target="asv"> Num. 11:16</a>: "Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of Israel, whom thou knowest to be ancients . . . of the people." But if by + sinning openly they turn the authority of their years into an instrument of wickedness, they should be rebuked openly and + severely, as also Daniel + says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Dan.13.52" target="asv">Dan. 13:52</a>): "O thou that art grown old in evil days," etc. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q42_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q42_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ should have taught all things openly?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have taught all things openly. For we read that He taught many things to His disciples + apart: as is seen clearly in the sermon at the Supper. Wherefore He said: "That which you heard in the ear in the chambers + shall be preached on the housetops" [*St. Thomas, probably quoting from memory, combines + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.27" target="asv"> Mat. 10:27 </a>with + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.12.3" target="asv"> Lk. 12:3</a>]. Therefore He did not teach all things openly. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the depths of wisdom should not be expounded save to the perfect, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:6</a>: "We speak wisdom among the perfect." Now Christ's doctrine contained the most profound wisdom. Therefore it should not have + been made known to the imperfect crowd. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it comes to the same, to hide the truth, whether by saying nothing or by making use of a language that is difficult + to understand. Now Christ, by speaking to the multitudes a language they would not understand, hid from them the truth that + He preached; since "without parables He did not speak to them" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.34" target="asv">Mat. 13:34</a>). In the same way, therefore, He could have hidden it from them by saying nothing at all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> He says Himself ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.18.20" target="asv">Jn. 18:20</a>): "In secret I have spoken nothing." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Anyone's doctrine may be hidden in three ways. First, on the part of the intention of the teacher, who does not wish to make + his doctrine known to many, but rather to hide it. And this may happen in two ways---sometimes through envy on the part of + the teacher, who desires to excel in his knowledge, wherefore he is unwilling to communicate it to others. But this was not + the case with Christ, in whose person the following words are spoken ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.7.13" target="asv">Wis. + 7:13 + </a>): "Which I have learned without guile, and communicate without envy, and her riches I hide not." But sometimes this happens + through the vileness of the things taught; thus Augustine says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.16.12" target="asv"> Jn. 16:12</a>: "There are some things so bad that no sort of human modesty can bear them." Wherefore of heretical doctrine it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Prov.9.17" target="asv">Prov. 9:17</a>): "Stolen waters are sweeter." Now, Christ's doctrine is "not of error nor of uncleanness" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p6.4" href="./asv.html#iThess.2.3" target="asv">1 + Thess. 2:3 + </a>). Wherefore our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Mark.4.21" target="asv">Mk. 4:21</a>): "Doth a candle," i.e. true and pure doctrine, "come in to be put under a bushel?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p7"> Secondly, doctrine is hidden because it is put before few. And thus, again, did Christ teach nothing in secret: for He propounded + His entire doctrine either to the whole crowd or to His disciples gathered together. Hence Augustine says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.18.20" target="asv"> Jn. 18:20</a>: "How can it be said that He speaks in secret when He speaks before so many men? . . . especially if what He says to few + He wishes through them to be made known to many?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p8"> Thirdly, doctrine is hidden, as to the manner in which it is propounded. And thus Christ spoke certain things in secret to + the crowds, by employing parables in teaching them spiritual mysteries which they were either unable or unworthy to grasp: + and yet it was better for them to be instructed in the knowledge of spiritual things, albeit hidden under the garb of parables, + than to be deprived of it altogether. Nevertheless our Lord expounded the open and unveiled truth of these + parables to His disciples, so that they might hand it down to others worthy of it; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.2" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:2</a>: "The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same command to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others." + This is foreshadowed, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Num.4" target="asv">Num. 4</a>, where the sons of Aaron are commanded to wrap up the sacred vessels that were to be carried by the Levites. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Hilary says, commenting on the passage quoted, "we do not read that our Lord was wont to preach at night, and expound + His doctrine in the dark: but He says this because His speech is darkness to the carnal-minded, and His words are night to + the unbeliever. His meaning, therefore, is that whatever He said we also should say in the midst of unbelievers, by openly + believing and professing it." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p10"> Or, according to Jerome, He speaks comparatively---that is to say, because He was instructing them in Judea, which was a + small place compared with the whole world, where Christ's doctrine was to be published by the preaching of the apostles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By His doctrine our Lord did not make known all the depths of His wisdom, neither to the multitudes, nor, indeed, to His + disciples, to whom He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.12" target="asv">Jn. 16:12</a>): "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." Yet whatever things out of His wisdom He judged it + right to make known to others, He expounded, not in secret, but openly; although He was not understood by all. Hence Augustine + says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A3-p11.2" href="./asv.html#John.18.20" target="asv"> Jn. + 18:20 + </a>: "We must understand this, 'I have spoken openly to the world,' as though our Lord had said, 'Many have heard Me' . . . and, + again, it was not 'openly,' because they did not understand." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above, our Lord spoke to the multitudes in parables, because they were neither able nor worthy to receive the naked + truth, which He revealed to His disciples. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p13"> And when it is said that "without parables He did not speak to them," according to Chrysostom (Hom. xlvii in Matth.), we + are to understand this of that particular sermon, since on other occasions He said many things to the multitude without parables. + Or, as Augustine says (De Qq. Evang., qu. xvii), this means, "not that He spoke nothing literally, but that He scarcely ever + spoke without introducing a parable, although He also spoke some things in the literal sense." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A3-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q42_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q42_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should have committed His doctrine to writing. For the purpose of writing is to hand down doctrine + to posterity. Now Christ's doctrine was destined to endure for ever, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.21.33" target="asv"> Lk. 21:33</a>: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Therefore it seems that Christ should have committed + His doctrine to writing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Old Law was a foreshadowing of Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.1" target="asv"> Heb. 10:1</a>: "The Law has [Vulg.: 'having'] a shadow of the good things to come." Now the Old Law was put into writing by God, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.24.12" target="asv">Ex. 24:12</a>: "I will give thee" two "tables of stone and the law, and the commandments which I have written." Therefore it seems that + Christ also should have put His doctrine into writing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, to Christ, who came to enlighten them that sit in darkness ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.79" target="asv">Lk. 1:79</a>), it belonged to remove occasions of error, and to open out the road to faith. Now He would have done this by putting His + teaching into writing: for Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i) that "some there are who wonder why our Lord wrote nothing, + so that we have to believe what others have written about Him. Especially do those pagans ask this question who dare + not blame or blaspheme Christ, and who ascribe to Him most excellent, but merely human, wisdom. These say that the disciples + made out the Master to be more than He really was when they said that He was the Son of God and the Word of God, by whom all + things were made." And farther on he adds: "It seems as though they were prepared to believe whatever He might have written + of Himself, but not what others at their discretion published about Him." Therefore it seems that Christ should have Himself + committed His doctrine to writing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> No books written by Him were to be found in the canon of Scripture. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting that Christ should not commit His doctrine to writing. First, on account of His dignity: for the more excellent + the teacher, the more excellent should be his manner of teaching. Consequently it was fitting that Christ, as the most excellent + of teachers, should adopt that manner of teaching whereby His doctrine is imprinted on the hearts of His hearers; wherefore + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.29" target="asv">Mat. 7:29</a>) that "He was teaching them as one having power." And so + it was that among the Gentiles, Pythagoras and Socrates, who were teachers of great excellence, were unwilling to write anything. + For writings are ordained, as to an end, unto the imprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the hearers. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p7"> Secondly, on account of the excellence of Christ's doctrine, which cannot be expressed in writing; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.21.25" target="asv"> Jn. 21:25</a>: "There are also many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written everyone, the world itself, I think, would + not be able to contain the books that should be written." Which Augustine explains by saying: "We are not to believe that + in respect of space the world could not contain them . . . but that by the capacity of the + readers they could not be comprehended." And if Christ had committed His doctrine to writing, men would have had no deeper + thought of His doctrine than that which appears on the surface of the writing. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p8"> Thirdly, that His doctrine might reach all in an orderly manner: Himself teaching His disciples immediately, and they subsequently + teaching others, by preaching and writing: whereas if He Himself had written, His doctrine would have reached all immediately. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p9"> Hence it is said of Wisdom ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.9.3" target="asv">Prov. 9:3</a>) that "she hath sent her maids to invite to the tower." It is to be observed, however, that, as Augustine says (De Consensu + Evang. i), some of the Gentiles thought that Christ wrote certain books treating of the magic art whereby He worked miracles: + which art is condemned by the Christian learning. "And yet they who claim to have read those books of Christ do none of those + things which they marvel at His doing according + to those same books. Moreover, it is by a Divine judgment that they err so far as to assert that these books were, as it were, + entitled as letters to Peter and Paul, for that they found them in several places depicted in company with Christ. No wonder + that the inventors were deceived by the painters: for as long as Christ lived in the mortal flesh with His disciples, Paul + was no disciple of His." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says in the same book: "Christ is the head of all His disciples who are members of His body. Consequently, when + they put into writing what He showed forth and said to them, by no means must we say that He wrote nothing: since His members + put forth that which they knew under His dictation. For at His command they, being His hands, as it were, wrote whatever He + wished us to read concerning His deeds and words." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Since the old Law was given under the form of sensible signs, therefore also was it fittingly written with sensible signs. + But Christ's doctrine, which is "the law of the spirit of life" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.2" target="asv">Rom. 8:2</a>), had to be "written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables + of the heart," as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q42_A4-p11.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.3" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:3</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those who were unwilling to believe what the apostles wrote of Christ would have refused to believe the writings of Christ, + whom they deemed to work miracles by the magic art. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q42_A4-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q41_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q43" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q43-p0.1">OF THE MIRACLES WORKED BY CHRIST, IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q43-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q43-p2"> We must now consider the miracles worked by Christ: (1) In general; (2) Specifically, of each kind of miracle; (3) In particular, + of His transfiguration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43-p3"> Concerning the first, there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q43-p4"> (1) Whether Christ should have worked miracles?</p> + <p id="TP_Q43-p5"> (2) Whether He worked them by Divine power?</p> + <p id="TP_Q43-p6"> (3) When did He begin to work miracles?</p> + <p id="TP_Q43-p7"> (4) Whether His miracles are a sufficient proof of His Godhead?</p> + <div id="TP_Q43_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q43_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ should have worked miracles?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have worked miracles. For Christ's deeds should have been consistent with His words. + But He Himself said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.4" target="asv">Mat. 16:4</a>): "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet." + Therefore He should not have worked miracles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as Christ, at His second coming, is to come "with" great power and majesty, as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.30" target="asv"> Mat. 24:30, </a> so at His first coming He came in infirmity, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.3" target="asv"> Is. 53:3</a>: "A man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity." But the working of miracles belongs to power rather than to infirmity. + Therefore it was not fitting that He should work miracles in His first coming. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ came that He might save men by faith; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.2" target="asv"> Heb. 12:2</a>: "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith." But miracles lessen the merit of faith; hence our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.4.48" target="asv">Jn. 4:48</a>): "Unless you see signs and wonders you believe not." Therefore it seems that Christ should not have worked miracles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It was said in the person of His adversaries ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.11.47" target="asv">Jn. 11:47</a>): "What do we; for this man doth many miracles?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> God enables man to work miracles for two reasons. First and principally, in confirmation of the doctrine that a man teaches. + For since those things which are of faith surpass human reason, they cannot be proved by human arguments, but need to be proved + by the argument of Divine power: so that when a man does works that God alone can do, we may believe that what he says is + from God: just as when a man is the bearer of letters sealed with the king's ring, it + is to be believed that what they contain expresses the king's will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p7"> Secondly, in order to make known God's presence in a man by the grace of the Holy Ghost: so that when a man does the works + of God we may believe that God dwells in him by His grace. Wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.5" target="asv">Gal. 3:5</a>): "He who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p8"> Now both these things were to be made known to men concerning Christ---namely, that God dwelt in Him by grace, not of adoption, + but of union: and that His supernatural doctrine was from God. And therefore it was most fitting that He should work miracles. + Wherefore He Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.38" target="asv">Jn. 10:38</a>): "Though you will not believe Me, believe the works"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#John.5.36" target="asv">Jn. 5:36</a>): "The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . + give testimony to Me." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These words, "a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas," mean, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xliii in Matth.), that + "they did not receive a sign such as they sought, viz. from heaven": but not that He gave them no sign at all. Or that "He + worked signs not for the sake of those whom He knew to be hardened, but to amend others." Therefore those signs were given, + not to them, but to others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although Christ came "in the infirmity" of the flesh, which is manifested in the passions, yet He came "in the power of God" + [*Cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.13.4" target="asv">2 Cor. 13:4</a>], and this had to be made manifest by miracles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Miracles lessen the merit of faith in so far as those are shown to be hard of heart who are unwilling to believe what is + proved from the Scriptures unless (they are convinced) by miracles. Yet it is better for them to be converted to the faith + even by miracles than that they should remain altogether in their unbelief. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.14.22" target="asv">1 Cor. 14:22</a>) that signs are given "to unbelievers," viz. that they may be converted to the + faith. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A1-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q43_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q43_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ worked miracles by Divine power?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not work miracles by Divine power. For the Divine power is omnipotent. But it seems that Christ + was not omnipotent in working miracles; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.6.5" target="asv">Mk. 6:5</a>) that "He could not do any miracles there," i.e. in His own country. Therefore it seems that He did not work miracles by + Divine power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, God does not pray. But Christ sometimes prayed when working miracles; as may be seen in the raising of Lazarus ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.11.41" target="asv">Jn. 11:41,42</a>), and in the multiplication of the loaves, as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.14.19" target="asv">Mat. 14:19</a>. Therefore it seems that He did not work miracles by Divine power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what is done by Divine power cannot be done by the power of any creature. But the things which Christ did could + be done also by the power of a creature: wherefore the Pharisees said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.15" target="asv">Lk. 11:15</a>) that He cast out devils "by Beelzebub the prince of devils." Therefore it seems that Christ did not work miracles by Divine + power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.10" target="asv">Jn. 14:10</a>): "The Father who abideth in Me, He doth the works." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q43_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q110_A4.html">FP, Q[110], A[4]</a>, true miracles cannot be wrought save by Divine power: because God alone can change the order of nature; and this is what + is meant by a miracle. Wherefore Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Flav. xxviii) that, while there are two natures in Christ, there is + "one," viz. the Divine, which shines forth in miracles; and "another," viz. the human, "which submits to insults"; yet "each + communicates its actions to the + other": in as far as the human nature is the instrument of the Divine action, and the human action receives power from the + Divine Nature, as stated above (Q[19], A[1]). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When it is said that "He could not do any miracles there," it is not to be understood that He could not do them absolutely, + but that it was not fitting for Him to do them: for it was unfitting for Him to work miracles among unbelievers. Wherefore + it is said farther on: "And He wondered because of their unbelief." In like manner it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.18.17" target="asv">Gn. 18:17</a>): "Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.19.22" target="asv"> Gn. 19:22</a>: "I cannot do + anything till thou go in thither." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Chrysostom says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.14.19" target="asv"> Mat. 14:19, </a> "He took the five loaves and the two fishes, and, looking up to heaven, He blessed and brake: It was to be believed of Him, + both that He is of the Father and that He is equal to Him . . . Therefore that He might prove both, He works miracles now + with authority, now with prayer . . . in the lesser things, indeed, He looks up to heaven"---for instance, in multiplying + the loaves---"but in the greater, + which belong to God alone, He acts with authority; for example, when He forgave sins and raised the dead." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p9"> When it is said that in raising Lazarus He lifted up His eyes ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.11.41" target="asv">Jn. 11:41</a>), this was not because He needed to pray, but because He wished to teach us how to pray. Wherefore He said: "Because of the + people who stand about have I said it: that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ cast out demons otherwise than they are cast out by the power of demons. For demons are cast out from bodies by the + power of higher demons in such a way that they retain their power over the soul: since the devil does not work against his + own kingdom. On the other hand, Christ cast out demons, not only from the body, but still more from the soul. For this reason + our Lord rebuked the blasphemy of the Jews, who said that He cast out demons by the + power of the demons: first, by saying that Satan is not divided against himself; secondly, by quoting the instance of others + who cast out demons by the Spirit of God; thirdly, because He could not have cast out a demon unless He had overcome Him by + Divine power; fourthly, because there was nothing in common between His works and their effects and those of Satan; since + Satan's purpose was to "scatter" those whom Christ "gathered" together [*Cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.24" target="asv"> Mat. 12:24-30</a>; + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.3.22" target="asv">Mk. + 3:22 + </a>; + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A2-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.11.15" target="asv"> Lk. 11:15-32</a>]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q43_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q43_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ began to work miracles when He changed water into wine at the marriage feast?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not begin to work miracles when He changed water into wine at the marriage feast. For we read + in the book De Infantia Salvatoris that Christ worked many miracles in His childhood. But the miracle of changing water into + wine at the marriage feast took place in the thirtieth or thirty-first year of His age. Therefore it seems that it was not + then that He began to work miracles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ worked miracles by Divine power. Now He was possessed of Divine power from the first moment of His conception; + for from that instant He was both God and man. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles from the very first. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ began to gather His disciples after His baptism and temptation, as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.18" target="asv"> Mat. 4:18 </a>and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.35" target="asv"> Jn. 1:35.</a> But the disciples gathered around Him, principally on account of His miracles: thus it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A3-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.5.4" target="asv">Lk. 5:4</a>) that He called Peter when "he was astonished at" the miracle which He had worked in "the draught of fishes." Therefore it + seems that He worked other miracles before that of the + marriage feast. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.2.11" target="asv">Jn. 2:11</a>): "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ worked miracles in order to confirm His doctrine, and in order to show forth His Divine power. Therefore, as to the + first, it was unbecoming for Him to work miracles before He began to teach. And it was unfitting that He should begin to teach + until He reached the perfect age, as we stated above, in speaking of His baptism ( + <a id="TP_Q43_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q39_A3.html">Q[39], A[3]</a> ). But as to the second, it was right that He should so manifest His Godhead by working + miracles that men should believe in the reality of His manhood. And, consequently, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxi in Joan.), + "it was fitting that He should not begin to work wonders from His early years: for men would have deemed the Incarnation to + be imaginary and would have crucified Him before the proper time." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. xvii in Joan.), in regard to the saying of John the Baptist, "'That He may be made manifest in Israel, + therefore am I come baptizing with water,' it is clear that the wonders which some pretend to have been worked by Christ in + His childhood are untrue and fictitious. For had Christ worked miracles from His early years, John would by no means have + been unacquainted with Him, nor would the rest of the people have stood in need + of a teacher to point Him out to them." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> What the Divine power achieved in Christ was in proportion to the needs of the salvation of mankind, the achievement of which + was the purpose of His taking flesh. Consequently He so worked miracles by the Divine power as not to prejudice our belief + in the reality of His flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The disciples were to be commended precisely because they followed Christ "without having seen Him work any miracles," as + Gregory says in a homily (Hom. v in Evang.). And, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxiii in Joan.), "the need for working miracles + arose then, especially when the disciples were already gathered around and attached to Him, and attentive to what was going + on around them. Hence it is added: 'And His disciples believed in Him,'" not because + they then believed in Him for the first time, but because then "they believed with greater discernment and perfection." Or + they are called "disciples" because "they were to be disciples later on," as Augustine observes (De Consensu Evang. ii). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q43_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q43_A4-p0.1">Whether the miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof of His Godhead?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the miracles which Christ worked were not a sufficient proof of His Godhead. For it is proper to Christ + to be both God and man. But the miracles which Christ worked have been done by others also. Therefore they were not a sufficient + proof of His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no power surpasses that of the Godhead. But some have worked greater miracles than Christ, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.12" target="asv">Jn. 14:12</a>): "He that believeth in Me, the works that I do, he also shall do, and greater than these shall he do." Therefore it seems + that the miracles which Christ worked are not sufficient proof of His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the particular is not a sufficient proof of the universal. But any one of Christ's miracles was one particular work. + Therefore none of them was a sufficient proof of His Godhead, by reason of which He had universal power over all things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.36" target="asv">Jn. 5:36</a>): "The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . give testimony of Me." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient proof of His Godhead in three respects. First, as to the very nature of + the works, which surpassed the entire capability of created power, and therefore could not be done save by Divine power. For + this reason the blind man, after his sight had been restored, said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.9.32" target="asv">Jn. 9:32,33</a>): "From the beginning of the world it has not been heard, that any man hath opened the eyes of one born blind. + Unless this man were of God, he could not do anything." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p7"> Secondly, as to the way in which He worked miracles---namely, because He worked miracles as though of His own power, and + not by praying, as others do. Wherefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.19" target="asv">Lk. 6:19</a>) that "virtue went out from Him and healed all." Whereby it is proved, as Cyril says (Comment. in Lucam) that "He did not + receive power from another, but, being God by nature, He showed His own power over the sick. And this is how He worked countless + miracles." Hence + on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.16" target="asv"> Mat. 8:16</a>: "He cast out spirits with His word, and all that were sick He healed," Chrysostom says: "Mark how great a multitude of persons + healed, the Evangelists pass quickly over, not mentioning one by one . . . but in one word traversing an unspeakable sea of + miracles." And thus it was shown that His power was co-equal with that of God the Father, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A4-p7.3" href="./asv.html#John.5.19" target="asv"> Jn. 5:19</a>: "What things soever" the Father "doth, these the Son doth also in like manner"; + and, again ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A4-p7.4" href="./asv.html#John.5.21" target="asv">Jn. 5:21</a>): "As the Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life to whom He will." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p8"> Thirdly, from the very fact that He taught that He was God; for unless this were true it would not be confirmed by miracles + worked by Divine power. Hence it was said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.27" target="asv">Mk. 1:27</a>): "What is this new doctrine? For with power He commandeth the unclean spirits, and they obey Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This was the argument of the Gentiles. Wherefore Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): "No suitable wonders; say they, + show forth the presence of so great majesty, for the ghostly cleansing" whereby He cast out demons, "the cure of the sick, + the raising of the dead to life, if other miracles be taken into account, are small things before God." To this Augustine + answers thus: "We own that the prophets did as much . . . But even Moses himself and + the other prophets made Christ the Lord the object of their prophecy, and gave Him great glory . . . He, therefore, chose + to do similar things to avoid the inconsistency of failing to do what He had done through others. Yet still He was bound to + do something which no other had done: to be born of a virgin, to rise from the dead, and to ascend into heaven. If anyone + deem this a slight thing for God to do, I know not what more he can expect. Having become man, ought He to have made another + world, + that we might believe Him to be Him by whom the world was made? But in this world neither a greater world could be made nor + one equal to it: and if He had made a lesser world in comparison with this, that too would have been deemed a small thing." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p10"> As to the miracles worked by others, Christ did greater still. Hence on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q43_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.24" target="asv"> Jn. 15:24</a>: "If I had not done in [Douay: 'among'] them the works that no other men hath done," etc., Augustine says: "None of the works + of Christ seem to be greater than the raising of the dead: which thing we know the ancient prophets also did . . . Yet Christ + did some works 'which no other man hath done.' But we are told in answer that others did works which He did not, and which + none + other did . . . But to heal with so great a power so many defects and ailments and grievances of mortal men, this we read + concerning none soever of the men of old. To say nothing of those, each of whom by His bidding, as they came in His way, He + made whole . . . Mark saith (6:56): 'Whithersoever He entered, into towns or into villages or into cities, they laid the sick + in the streets, and besought Him that they might touch but the hem of His garment: and as many as touched Him were made whole.' + These things none other did in them; for when He saith 'In them,' it is not to be understood to mean 'Among them,' or 'In + their presence,' but wholly 'In them,' because He healed them . . . Therefore whatever works He did in them are works that + none ever did; since if ever any other man did any one of them, by His doing he did it; whereas these works He did, not by + their doing, but by Himself." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Augustine explains this passage of John as follows (Tract. lxxi): "What are these 'greater works' which believers in Him + would do? That, as they passed by, their very shadow healed the sick? For it is greater that a shadow should heal than the + hem of a garment . . . When, however, He said these words, it was the deeds and works of His words that He spoke of: for when + He said . . . 'The Father who abideth in Me, He doth the works,' what works did He + mean, then, but the words He was speaking? . . . and the fruits of those same words was the faith of those (who believed): + but when the disciples preached the Gospel, not some few like those, but the very nations believed . . . (Tract. lxxii). Did + not that rich man go away from His presence sorrowful? . . . and yet afterwards, what one individual, having heard from Him, + did not, that many did when He spake by the mouth of His disciples . . . Behold, He did greater works when spoken of by men + believing than when speaking to men hearing. But there is yet this difficulty: that He did these 'greater works' by the apostles: + whereas He saith as meaning not only them: . . . 'He that believeth in Me' . . . Listen! . . . 'He that believeth in Me, the + works that I do, he also shall do': first, 'I do,' then 'he also shall do,' because I do that he may do. What works---but + that from ungodly he should be made righteous? . . . Which thing Christ worketh in him, truly, but not without him. Yes, I + may affirm this to be altogether greater than to create" [*The words 'to create' are not in the text of St. Augustine] "heaven + and earth . . . for 'heaven and earth shall pass away'; but the salvation and justification of the predestinate shall remain + . . . But also in the heavens . . . the angels are the works of Christ: and does that man do greater works than these, who + co-operates with Christ in the work of his justification? . . . let him, who can, judge whether it be greater to create a + righteous being than to justify an ungodly one. Certainly if both are works of equal power, the latter is a work of greater + mercy." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p12"> "But there is no need for us to understand all the works of Christ, where He saith 'Greater than these shall he do.' For + by 'these' He meant, perhaps, those which He was doing at that hour: now at that time He was speaking words of faith: . . + . and certainly it is less to preach words of righteousness, which thing He did without us, than to justify the ungodly, which + thing He so doth in us that we also do it ourselves." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> When some particular work is proper to some agent, then that particular work is a sufficient proof of the whole power of + that agent: thus, since the act of reasoning is proper to man, the mere fact that someone reasons about any particular proposition + proves him to be a man. In like manner, since it is proper to God to work miracles by His own power, any single miracle worked + by Christ by His own power is a sufficient proof that He is God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q43_A4-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q42_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q44" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q44-p0.1">OF (CHRIST'S) MIRACLES CONSIDERED SPECIFICALLY (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q44-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q44-p2"> We have now to consider each kind of miracle:</p> + <p id="TP_Q44-p3"> (1) The miracles which He worked in spiritual substances;</p> + <p id="TP_Q44-p4"> (2) The miracles which He worked in heavenly bodies;</p> + <p id="TP_Q44-p5"> (3) The miracles which He worked in man;</p> + <p id="TP_Q44-p6"> (4) The miracles which He worked in irrational creatures.</p> + <div id="TP_Q44_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q44_A1-p0.1">Whether those miracles were fitting which Christ worked in spiritual substances?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that those miracles were unfitting which Christ worked in spiritual substances. For among spiritual substances + the holy angels are above the demons; for, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii): "The treacherous and sinful rational spirit of + life is ruled by the rational, pious, and just spirit of life." But we read of no miracles worked by Christ in the good angels. + Therefore neither should He have worked miracles in the demons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to make known His Godhead. But Christ's Godhead was not to be made known to the + demons: since this would have hindered the mystery of His Passion, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.8" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:8</a>: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." Therefore He should not have worked miracles + in the demons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of God: hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.8" target="asv">Mat. 9:8</a>) that "the multitudes seeing" that the man sick of the palsy had been healed by Christ, "feared, and glorified God that gave + such power to men." But the demons have no part in glorifying God; since "praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.15.9" target="asv">Ecclus. 15:9</a>). For which reason also "He suffered them not to speak" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.34" target="asv">Mk. 1:34</a>; + + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p4.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.41" target="asv"> Lk. 4:41</a>) those things which reflected glory on Him. Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for Him to work miracles in the demons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Christ's miracles are ordained to the salvation of mankind. But sometimes the casting out of demons from men was + detrimental to man, in some cases to the body: thus it is related ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.9.24" target="asv">Mk. 9:24,25</a>) that a demon at Christ's command, "crying out and greatly tearing" the man, "went out of him; and he became as dead, so + that many said: He is dead"; sometimes also to things: as when He sent the demons, at their own request, into the swine, + which they cast headlong into the sea; wherefore the inhabitants of those parts "besought Him that He would depart from their + coasts" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.31" target="asv">Mat. 8:31-34</a>). Therefore it seems unfitting that He should have worked such like miracles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> this was foretold ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Zech.13.2" target="asv">Zech. 13:2</a>), where it is written: "I will take away . . . the unclean spirit out of the earth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p7"> I answer that, The miracles worked by Christ were arguments for the faith which He taught. Now, by the power of His Godhead + He was to rescue those who would believe in Him, from the power of the demons; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.12.31" target="asv"> Jn. 12:31</a>: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Consequently it was fitting that, among other miracles, He should also + deliver those who were obsessed by demons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as men were to be delivered by Christ from the power of the demons, so by Him were they to be brought to the companionship + of the angels, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Col.1.20" target="asv"> Col. 1:20</a>: "Making peace through the blood of His cross, both as to the things on earth and the things that are in heaven." Therefore + it was not fitting to show forth to men other miracles as regards the angels, except by angels appearing to men: as happened + in His Nativity, + His Resurrection, and His Ascension. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): "Christ was known to the demons just as much as He willed; and He willed just as far + as there was need. But He was known to them, not as to the holy angels, by that which is eternal life, but by certain temporal + effects of His power." First, when they saw that Christ was hungry after fasting they deemed Him not to be the Son of God. + Hence, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.3" target="asv"> Lk. 4:3, </a> "If Thou be the Son of God," etc., Ambrose + says: "What means this way of addressing Him? save that, though He knew that the Son of God was to come, yet he did not think + that He had come in the weakness of the flesh?" But afterwards, when he saw Him work miracles, he had a sort of conjectural + suspicion that He was the Son of God. Hence on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.24" target="asv"> Mk. 1:24, </a> "I know who Thou art, the Holy one of God," Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch. Cf. Catena Aurea] says that "he had no certain + or firm knowledge of God's coming." Yet he knew + that He was "the Christ promised in the Law," wherefore it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.41" target="asv">Lk. 4:41</a>) that "they knew that He was Christ." But it was rather from suspicion than from certainty that they confessed Him to be + the Son of God. Hence Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p9.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.41" target="asv"> Lk. 4:41</a>: "The demons confess the Son of God, and, as stated farther on, 'they knew that He was Christ.' For when the devil saw Him + weakened by His fast, He knew Him to be a real man: but when He failed to overcome Him by + temptation, He doubted lest He should be the Son of God. And now from the power of His miracles He either knew, or rather + suspected that He was the Son of God. His reason therefore for persuading the Jews to crucify Him was not that he deemed Him + not to be Christ or the Son of God, but because he did not foresee that he would be the loser by His death. For the Apostle + says of this mystery" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p9.5" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:7,8</a>), "which is hidden from the beginning, that 'none of the princes of + this world knew it,' for if they had known it they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The miracles which Christ worked in expelling demons were for the benefit, not of the demons, but of men, that they might + glorify Him. Wherefore He forbade them to speak in His praise. First, to give us an example. For, as Athanasius says, "He + restrained his speech, although he was confessing the truth; to teach us not to care about such things, although it may seem + that what is said is true. For it is wrong to seek to learn from the devil when we + have the Divine Scripture": Besides, it is dangerous, since the demons frequently mix falsehood with truth. Or, as Chrysostom + [*Cyril of Alexandria, Comment. in Luc.] says: "It was not meet for them to usurp the prerogative of the apostolic office. + Nor was it fitting that the mystery of Christ should be proclaimed by a corrupt tongue" because "praise is not seemly in the + mouth of a sinner" [*Cf. Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc.]. Thirdly, because, as Bede says, "He did not wish the envy of the Jews + to be aroused thereby" [*Bede, Expos. in Luc. iv, 41]. Hence "even the apostles are commanded to be silent about Him, lest, + if His Divine majesty were proclaimed, the gift of His Passion should be deferred." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ came specially to teach and to work miracles for the good of man, and principally as to the salvation of his soul. + Consequently, He allowed the demons, that He cast out, to do man some harm, either in his body or in his goods, for the salvation + of man's soul---namely, for man's instruction. Hence Chrysostom says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.32" target="asv"> Mat. 8:32 </a>that Christ let the demons depart into the swine, "not as yielding to the demons, but first, to show + . . . how harmful are the demons who attack men; secondly, that all might learn that the demons would not dare to hurt even + the swine, except He allow them; thirdly, that they would have treated those men more grievously than they treated the swine, + unless they had been protected by God's providence." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p12"> And for the same motives He allowed the man, who was being delivered from the demons, to suffer grievously for the moment; + yet did He release him at once from that distress. By this, moreover, we are taught, as Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.9.25" target="asv"> Mk. 9:25, </a> that "often, when after falling into sin we strive to return to God, we experience further and more grievous attacks from + the old enemy. This he does, either that he may inspire us with a distaste for virtue, or that he may + avenge the shame of having been cast out." For the man who was healed "became as dead," says Jerome, "because to those who + are healed it is said, 'You are dead; and your life is hid with Christ in God'" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Col.3.3" target="asv">Col. 3:3</a>) + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A1-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q44_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q44_A2-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that Christ should work miracles in the heavenly bodies?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was unfitting that Christ should work miracles in the heavenly bodies. For, as Dionysius says (Div. + Nom. iv), "it beseems Divine providence not to destroy, but to preserve, nature." Now, the heavenly bodies are by nature incorruptible + and unchangeable, as is proved De Coelo i. Therefore it was unfitting that Christ should cause any change in the order of + the heavenly bodies. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the course of time is marked out by the movement of the heavenly bodies, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.14" target="asv"> Gn. 1:14</a>: "Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven . . . and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and + years." Consequently if the movement of the heavenly bodies be changed, the distinction and order of the seasons is changed. + But there is no report of this having been perceived by astronomers, "who gaze at the stars + and observe the months," as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.47.13" target="asv">Is. 47:13</a>). Therefore it seems that Christ did not work any change in the movements of the heavenly bodies. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it was more fitting that Christ should work miracles in life and when teaching, than in death: both because, as + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.13.4" target="asv">2 Cor. 13:4</a>), "He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God," by which He worked miracles; and because His miracles + were in confirmation of His doctrine. But there is no record of Christ having worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies during + His lifetime: nay, more; when the + Pharisees asked Him to give "a sign from heaven," He refused, as Matthew relates (12,16). Therefore it seems that neither + in His death should He have worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.44" target="asv">Lk. 23:44,45</a>): "There was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was darkened." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q44_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q43_A4.html">Q[43], A[4]</a>) it behooved Christ's miracles to be a sufficient proof of His Godhead. Now this is not so sufficiently proved by changes + wrought in the lower bodies, which changes can be brought about by other causes, as it is by changes wrought in the course + of the heavenly bodies, which have been established by God alone in an unchangeable order. This is what Dionysius says in + his epistle to Polycarp: "We must + recognize that no alteration can take place in the order end movement of the heavens that is not caused by Him who made all + and changes all by His word." Therefore it was fitting that Christ should work miracles even in the heavenly bodies. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as it is natural to the lower bodies to be moved by the heavenly bodies, which are higher in the order of nature, so + is it natural to any creature whatsoever to be changed by God, according to His will. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. + xxvi; quoted by the gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.24" target="asv"> Rom. 11:24</a>: "Contrary to nature thou wert grafted," etc.): "God, the Creator and Author of all natures, does nothing contrary to nature: + for whatsoever He does + in each thing, that is its nature." Consequently the nature of a heavenly body is not destroyed when God changes its course: + but it would be if the change were due to any other cause. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The order of the seasons was not disturbed by the miracle worked by Christ. For, according to some, this gloom or darkening + of the sun, which occurred at the time of Christ's passion, was caused by the sun withdrawing its rays, without any change + in the movement of the heavenly bodies, which measures the duration of the seasons. Hence Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.45" target="asv"> Mat. 27:45</a>: "It seems as though the 'greater light' withdrew its rays, lest it + should look on its Lord hanging on the Cross, or bestow its radiancy on the impious blasphemers." And this withdrawal of the + rays is not to be understood as though it were in the sun's power to send forth or withdraw its rays: for it sheds its light, + not from choice, but by nature, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But the sun is said to withdraw its rays in so far as the + Divine power caused the sun's rays not to reach the earth. On the other hand, Origen says this was caused by clouds coming + between (the earth and the sun). Hence on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.45" target="asv"> Mat. 27:45 </a>he says: "We must therefore suppose that many large and very dense clouds were massed together over Jerusalem and the land + of Judea; so that it was exceedingly dark from the sixth to the ninth hour. Hence I am of opinion that, just as the other + signs which occurred at the time of the Passion"---namely, "the rending of the veil, the quaking of the earth," etc.---"took + place in Jerusalem only, so this also: . . . or if + anyone prefer, it may be extended to the whole of Judea," since it is said that "'there was darkness over the whole earth,' + which expression refers to the land of Judea, as may be gathered from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A2-p8.3" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 18:10, </a> where Abdias says to Elias: 'As the Lord thy God liveth, there is no nation or kingdom whither my lord hath not sent to seek + thee': which shows that they sought him among the nations in the neighborhood of Judea." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p9"> On this point, however, credence is to be given rather to Dionysius, who is an eyewitness as to this having occurred by the + moon eclipsing the sun. For he says (Ep. ad Polycarp): "Without any doubt we saw the moon encroach on the sun," he being in + Egypt at the time, as he says in the same letter. And in this he points out four miracles. The first is that the natural eclipse + of the sun by interposition of the moon never takes place except when the sun and moon are in conjunction. + But then the sun and moon were in opposition, it being the fifteenth day, since it was the Jewish Passover. Wherefore he says: + "For it was not the time of conjunction."---The second miracle is that whereas at the sixth hour the moon was seen, together + with the sun, in the middle of the heavens, in the evening it was seen to be in its place, i.e. in the east, opposite the + sun. Wherefore he says: "Again we saw it," i.e. the moon, "return supernaturally into opposition with the sun," so as to be + diametrically opposite, having withdrawn from the sun "at the ninth hour," when the darkness ceased, "until evening." From + this it is clear that the wonted course of the seasons was not disturbed, because the Divine power caused the moon both to + approach the sun supernaturally at an unwonted season, and to withdraw from the sun and return to its proper place according + to the season. The third miracle was that the eclipse of the sun naturally always begins in that part of the sun which is + to the + west and spreads towards the east: and this is because the moon's proper movement from west to east is more rapid than that + of the sun, and consequently the moon, coming up from the west, overtakes the sun and passes it on its eastward course. But + in this case the moon had already passed the sun, and was distant from it by the length of half the heavenly circle, being + opposite to it: consequently it had to return eastwards towards the sun, so as to come into apparent contact with it from + the + east, and continue in a westerly direction. This is what he refers to when he says: "Moreover, we saw the eclipse begin to + the east and spread towards the western edge of the sun," for it was a total eclipse, "and afterwards pass away." The fourth + miracle consisted in this, that in a natural eclipse that part of the sun which is first eclipsed is the first to reappear + (because the moon, coming in front of the sun, by its natural movement passes on to the east, so as to come away first from + the + western portion of the sun, which was the first part to be eclipsed), whereas in this case the moon, while returning miraculously + from the east to the west, did not pass the sun so as to be to the west of it: but having reached the western edge of the + sun returned towards the east: so that the last portion of the sun to be eclipsed was the first to reappear. Consequently + the eclipse began towards the east, whereas the sun began to reappear towards the west. And to this he refers by saying: + "Again we observed that the occultation and emersion did not begin from the same point," i.e. on the same side of the sun, + "but on opposite sides." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p10"> Chrysostom adds a fifth miracle (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.), saying that "the darkness in this case lasted for three hours, + whereas an eclipse of the sun lasts but a short time, for it is soon over, as those know who have seen one." Hence we are + given to understand that the moon was stationary below the sun, except we prefer to say that the duration of the darkness + was measured from the first moment of occultation of the sun to the moment when the sun had completely emerged from + the eclipse. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p11"> But, as Origen says (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.45" target="asv"> Mat. 27:45</a>), "against this the children of this world object: How is it such a phenomenal occurrence is not related by any writer, whether + Greek or barbarian?" And he says that someone of the name of Phlegon "relates in his chronicles that this took place during + the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but he does not say that it occurred at the full moon." It may be, therefore, that because it + was not the time for an eclipse, the various + astronomers living then throughout the world were not on the look-out for one, and that they ascribed this darkness to some + disturbance of the atmosphere. But in Egypt, where clouds are few on account of the tranquillity of the air, Dionysius and + his companions were considerably astonished so as to make the aforesaid observations about this darkness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Then, above all, was there need for miraculous proof of Christ's Godhead, when the weakness of human nature was most apparent + in Him. Hence it was that at His birth a new star appeared in the heavens. Wherefore Maximus says (Serm. de Nativ. viii): + "If thou disdain the manger, raise thine eyes a little and gaze on the new star in the heavens, proclaiming to the world the + birth of our Lord." But in His Passion yet greater weakness appeared in His + manhood. Therefore there was need for yet greater miracles in the greater lights of the world. And, as Chrysostom says (Hom. + lxxxviii in Matth.): "This is the sign which He promised to them who sought for one saying: 'An evil and adulterous generation + seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet,' referring to His Cross . . . and Resurrection + . . . For it was much more wonderful that this should happen when He was crucified than when He was walking on + earth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A2-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q44_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q44_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ worked miracles fittingly on men?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on men. For in man the soul is of more import than the body. Now Christ + worked many miracles on bodies, but we do not read of His working any miracles on souls: for neither did He convert any unbelievers + to the faith mightily, but by persuading and convincing them with outward miracles, nor is it related of Him that He made + wise men out of fools. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men in an + unfitting manner. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q44_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q43_A2.html">Q[43], A[2]</a>), Christ worked miracles by Divine power: to which it is proper to work suddenly, perfectly, and without any assistance. + Now Christ did not always heal men suddenly as to their bodies: for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.8.22" target="asv">Mk. 8:22-25</a>) that, "taking the blind man by the hand, He led him out of the town; and, spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him, + He asked him if he saw anything. And, + looking up, he said: I see men as it were trees walking. After that again He laid His hands upon his eyes, and he began to + see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly." It is clear from this that He did not heal him suddenly, but at + first imperfectly, and by means of His spittle. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men unfittingly. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, there is no need to remove at the same time things which do not follow from one another. Now bodily ailments are + not always the result of sin, as appears from our Lord's words ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.9.3" target="asv">Jn. 9:3</a>): "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should be born blind." It was unseemly, therefore, for Him to forgive + the sins of those who sought the healing of the body, as He is related to have done in the case of the man sick of the + palsy ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.2" target="asv">Mat. 9:2</a>): the more that the healing of the body, being of less account than the forgiveness of sins, does not seem a sufficient argument + for the power of forgiving sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm His doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q44_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q43_A4.html">Q[43], A[4]</a>). Now no man should hinder the purpose of his own work. Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ commanded those who had + been healed miraculously to tell no one, as appears from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.30" target="asv"> Mat. 9:30 </a>and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Mark.8.26" target="asv"> Mk. 8:26</a>: the more so, since He commanded others to proclaim the miracles + worked on them; thus it is related ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p5.4" href="./asv.html#Mark.5.19" target="asv">Mk. 5:19</a>) that, after delivering a man from the demons, He said to him: "Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them, how great + things the Lord hath done for thee." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.7.37" target="asv">Mk. 7:37</a>): "He hath done all things well: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The means should be proportionate to the end. Now Christ came into the world and taught in order to save man, according to + + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.17" target="asv">Jn. 3:17</a>: "For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him." Therefore it was fitting + that Christ, by miraculously healing men in particular, should prove Himself to be the universal and spiritual Saviour of + all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The means are distinct from the end. Now the end for which Christ's miracles were worked was the health of the rational part, + which is healed by the light of wisdom, and the gift of righteousness: the former of which presupposes the latter, since, + as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.1.4" target="asv">Wis. 1:4</a>): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins." Now it was unfitting that man should + be made righteous unless he willed: for this would be + both against the nature of righteousness, which implies rectitude of the will, and contrary to the very nature of man, which + requires to be led to good by the free-will, not by force. Christ, therefore, justified man inwardly by the Divine power, + but not against man's will. Nor did this pertain to His miracles, but to the end of His miracles. In like manner by the Divine + power He infused wisdom into the simple minds of His disciples: hence He said to them ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.21.15" target="asv">Lk. 21:15</a>): "I + will give you a mouth and wisdom" which "all your adversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay." And this, in so far + as the enlightenment was inward, is not to be reckoned as a miracle, but only as regards the outward action---namely, in so + far as men saw that those who had been unlettered and simple spoke with such wisdom and constancy. Wherefore it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.4.13" target="asv">Acts 4:13</a>) that the Jews, "seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were + illiterate and ignorant men . . . wondered."---And though such like spiritual effects are different from visible miracles, + yet do they testify to Christ's doctrine and power, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p8.4" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.4" target="asv"> Heb. 2:4</a>: "God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p9"> Nevertheless Christ did work some miracles on the soul of man, principally by changing its lower powers. Hence Jerome, commenting + on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.9" target="asv">Mat. 9:9</a>, "He rose up and followed Him," says: "Such was the splendor and majesty of His hidden Godhead, which shone forth even in + His human countenance, that those who gazed on it were drawn to Him at first sight." And on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.12" target="asv"> Mat. 21:12, </a> "(Jesus) cast out all them that sold and bought," the same Jerome says: "Of all the signs worked + by our Lord, this seems to me the most wondrous---that one man, at that time despised, could, with the blows of one scourge, + cast out such a multitude. For a fiery and heavenly light flashed from His eyes, and the majesty of His Godhead shone in His + countenance." And Origen says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p9.3" href="./asv.html#John.2.15" target="asv"> Jn. 2:15 </a>that "this was a greater miracle than when He changed water into wine, for there He shows His power over inanimate matter, + whereas here He tames the minds of thousands of men." Again, + on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p9.4" href="./asv.html#John.18.6" target="asv"> Jn. 18:6, </a> "They went backward and fell to the ground," Augustine says: "Though that crowd was fierce in hate and terrible with arms, + yet did that one word . . . without any weapon, smite them through, drive them back, lay them prostrate: for God lay hidden + in that flesh." Moreover, to this must be referred what Luke says (4:30) ---namely, that Jesus, "passing through the midst + of them, went His way," on which Chrysostom observes (Hom. xlviii in Joan.): "That He stood in + the midst of those who were lying in wait for Him, and was not seized by them, shows the power of His Godhead"; and, again, + that which is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p9.5" href="./asv.html#John.8.59" target="asv"> Jn. 8:59, </a> "Jesus hid Himself and went out of the Temple," on which Theophylact says: "He did not hide Himself in a corner of the Temple, + as if afraid, or take shelter behind a wall or pillar; but by His heavenly power making Himself invisible to those who were + threatening Him, He passed through the midst of them." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p10"> From all these instances it is clear that Christ, when He willed, changed the minds of men by His Divine power, not only + by the bestowal of righteousness and the infusion of wisdom, which pertains to the end of miracles, but also by outwardly + drawing men to Himself, or by terrifying or stupefying them, which pertains to the miraculous itself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ came to save the world, not only by Divine power, but also through the mystery of His Incarnation. Consequently in + healing the sick He frequently not only made use of His Divine power, healing by way of command, but also by applying something + pertaining to His human nature. Hence on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.4.40" target="asv"> Lk. 4:40, </a> "He, laying His hands on every one of them, healed them," Cyril says: "Although, as God, He might, by one word, have driven + out all + diseases, yet He touched them, showing that His own flesh was endowed with a healing virtue." And on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.8.23" target="asv"> Mk. 8:23, </a> "Spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him," etc., Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch] says: "He spat and laid His hands + upon the blind man, wishing to show that His Divine word, accompanied by His operation, works wonders: for the hand signifies + operation; the spittle signifies the word which proceeds from the mouth." Again, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p11.3" href="./asv.html#John.9.6" target="asv"> Jn. 9:6, </a> "He + made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man," Augustine says: "Of His spittle He made clay---because + 'the Word was made flesh.'" Or, again, as Chrysostom says, to signify that it was He who made man of "the slime of the earth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p12"> It is furthermore to be observed concerning Christ's miracles that generally what He did was most perfect. Hence on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.2.10" target="asv"> Jn. 2:10, </a> "Every man at first setteth forth good wine," Chrysostom says: "Christ's miracles are such as to far surpass the works of + nature in splendor and usefulness." Likewise in an instant He conferred perfect health on the sick. Hence on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.15" target="asv"> Mat. 8:15, </a> "She arose and ministered to them," Jerome says: "Health restored by our + Lord returns wholly and instantly." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p13"> There was, however, special reason for the contrary happening in the case of the man born blind, and this was his want of + faith, as Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch] says. Or as Bede observes on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.8.23" target="asv"> Mk. 8:23</a>: "Whom He might have healed wholly and instantly by a single word, He heals little by little, to show the extent of human + blindness, which hardly, and that only by degrees, can come back to the light: and to point out that each step forward in + the way of + perfection is due to the help of His grace." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q44_A3-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q43_A2.html">Q[43], A[2]</a>), Christ worked miracles by Divine power. Now "the works of God are perfect" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.4" target="asv">Dt. 32:4</a>). But nothing is perfect except it attain its end. Now the end of the outward healing worked by Christ is the healing of + the soul. Consequently it was not fitting that Christ should heal a man's body without healing his soul. Wherefore on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p14.3" href="./asv.html#John.7.23" target="asv"> Jn. 7:23, </a> "I have healed the + whole man on a Sabbath day," Augustine says: "Because he was cured, so as to be whole in body; he believed, so as to be whole + in soul." To the man sick of the palsy it is said specially, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," because, as Jerome observes on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p14.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.5" target="asv"> Mat. 9:5,6</a>: "We are hereby given to understand that ailments of the body are frequently due to sin: for which reason, perhaps, first + are his sins forgiven, that the cause of the ailment being removed, health may return." Wherefore, + also ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p14.5" href="./asv.html#John.4.14" target="asv">Jn. 4:14</a>), it is said: "Sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee." Whence, says Chrysostom, "we learn that his sickness was + the result of sin." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p15"> Nevertheless, as Chrysostom says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.5" target="asv"> Mat. 9:5</a>: "By how much a soul is of more account than a body, by so much is the forgiving of sins a greater work than healing the + body; but because the one is unseen He does the lesser and more manifest thing in order to prove the greater and more unseen." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> On + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.30" target="asv"> Mat. 9:30, </a> "See that no man know this," Chrysostom says: "If in another place we find Him saying, 'Go and declare the glory of God' + (cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.5.19" target="asv"> Mk. 5:19</a>; + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A3-p16.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.8.39" target="asv"> Lk. 8:39</a>), that is not contrary to this. For He instructs us to forbid them that would praise us on our own account: but if the glory + be referred to God, then we must not forbid, but command, that it be done." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p17"></p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A3-p18"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q44_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q44_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ worked miracles fittingly on irrational creatures?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on irrational creatures. For brute animals are more noble than plants. + But Christ worked a miracle on plants as when the fig-tree withered away at His command ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.19" target="asv">Mat. 21:19</a>). Therefore Christ should have worked miracles also on brute animals. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, punishment is not justly inflicted save for fault. But it was not the fault of the fig-tree that Christ found no + fruit on it, when fruit was not in season ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.11.13" target="asv">Mk. 11:13</a>). Therefore it seems unfitting that He withered it up. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, air and water are between heaven and earth. But Christ worked some miracles in the heavens, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q44_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q44_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, and likewise in the earth, when it quaked at the time of His Passion ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.51" target="asv">Mat. 27:51</a>). Therefore it seems that He should also have worked miracles in the air and water, such as to divide the sea, as did Moses + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.14.21" target="asv">Ex. 14:21</a>); or a river, as did Josue ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p4.4" href="./asv.html#Josh.3.16" target="asv">Josh. + 3:16 + </a>) and Elias ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p4.5" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">4 Kings 2:8</a>); and to cause thunder to be heard in the air, as occurred on Mount Sinai when the Law was given ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p4.6" href="./asv.html#Exod.19.16" target="asv">Ex. 19:16</a>), and like to what Elias did ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p4.7" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 18:45</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, miraculous works pertain to the work of Divine providence in governing the world. But this work presupposes creation. + It seems, therefore, unfitting that in His miracles Christ made use of creation: when, to wit, He multiplied the loaves. Therefore + His miracles in regard to irrational creatures seem to have been unfitting. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Christ is "the wisdom of God" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24</a>), of whom it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.8.1" target="asv">Wis. 8:1</a>) that "she ordereth all things sweetly." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above, Christ's miracles were ordained to the end that He should be recognized as having Divine power, unto the + salvation of mankind. Now it belongs to the Divine power that every creature be subject thereto. Consequently it behooved + Him to work miracles on every kind of creature, not only on man, but also on irrational creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Brute animals are akin generically to man, wherefore they were created on the same day as man. And since He had worked many + miracles on the bodies of men, there was no need for Him to work miracles on the bodies of brute animals. and so much the + less that, as to their sensible and corporeal nature, the same reason applies to both men and animals, especially terrestrial. + But fish, from living in water, are more alien from human nature; wherefore they + were made on another day. On them Christ worked a miracle in the plentiful draught of fishes, related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.5" target="asv">Lk. 5</a> and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#John.21" target="asv">Jn. 21</a>; and, again, in the fish caught by Peter, who found a stater in it ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.26" target="asv">Mat. 17:26</a>). As to the swine who were cast headlong into the sea, this was not the effect of a Divine miracle, but of the action of + the demons, God permitting. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Chrysostom says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.19" target="asv"> Mat. 21:19</a>: "When our Lord does any such like thing" on plants or brute animals, "ask not how it was just to wither up the fig-tree, + since it was not the fruit season; to ask such a question is foolish in the extreme," because such things cannot commit a + fault or be punished: "but look at the miracle, and wonder at the worker." Nor does the Creator "inflict" any hurt on the + owner, if He choose to make use of + His own creature for the salvation of others; rather, as Hilary says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.19" target="asv"> Mat. 21:19, </a> "we should see in this a proof of God's goodness, for when He wished to afford an example of salvation as being procured + by Him, He exercised His mighty power on the human body: but when He wished to picture to them His severity towards those + who wilfully disobey Him, He foreshadows their doom by His sentence on the tree." This is the more noteworthy in a fig-tree + which, as Chrysostom + observes (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.19" target="asv"> Mat. 21:19</a>), "being full of moisture, makes the miracle all the more remarkable." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ also worked miracles befitting to Himself in the air and water: when, to wit, as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.26" target="asv"> Mat. 8:26, </a> "He commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm." But it was not befitting that He who came to restore + all things to a state of peace and calm should cause either a disturbance in the atmosphere or a division of waters. Hence + the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.18" target="asv">Heb. 12:18</a>): "You are not come to a fire that + may be touched and approached [Vulg.: 'a mountain that might be touched, and a burning fire'], and a whirlwind, and darkness, + and storm." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p11"> At the time of His Passion, however, the "veil was rent," to signify the unfolding of the mysteries of the Law; "the graves + were opened," to signify that His death gave life to the dead; "the earth quaked and the rocks were rent," to signify that + man's stony heart would be softened, and the whole world changed for the better by the virtue of His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The multiplication of the loaves was not effected by way of creation, but by an addition of extraneous matter transformed + into loaves; hence Augustine says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q44_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.1" target="asv"> Jn. 6:1-14</a>: "Whence He multiplieth a few grains into harvests, thence in His hands He multiplied the five loaves": and it is clearly + by a process of transformation that grains are multiplied into harvests. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q44_A4-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q43_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q45" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q45-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S TRANSFIGURATION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q45-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q45-p2"> We now consider Christ's transfiguration; and here there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q45-p3"> (1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?</p> + <p id="TP_Q45-p4"> (2) Whether the clarity of the transfiguration was the clarity of glory?</p> + <p id="TP_Q45-p5"> (3) Of the witnesses of the transfiguration;</p> + <p id="TP_Q45-p6"> (4) Of the testimony of the Father's voice.</p> + <div id="TP_Q45_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q45_A1-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should be transfigured. For it is not fitting for a true body to be changed + into various shapes [figuras], but only for an imaginary body. Now Christ's body was not imaginary, but real, as stated above + ( + <a id="TP_Q45_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q5_A1.html">Q[5], A[1]</a>). Therefore it seems that it should not have been transfigured. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, figure is in the fourth species of quality, whereas clarity is in the third, since it is a sensible quality. Therefore + Christ's assuming clarity should not be called a transfiguration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a glorified body has four gifts, as we shall state farther on ( + <a id="TP_Q45_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q82.html">XP, Q[82])</a>, viz. impassibility, agility, subtlety, and clarity. Therefore His transfiguration should not have consisted in an assumption + of clarity rather than of the other gifts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.2" target="asv">Mat. 17:2</a>) that Jesus "was transfigured" in the presence of three of His disciples. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Our Lord, after foretelling His Passion to His disciples, had exhorted them to follow the path of His sufferings ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.21" target="asv">Mat. 16:21</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.24" target="asv">24</a>). Now in order that anyone go straight along a road, he must have some knowledge of the end: thus an archer will not shoot + the arrow straight unless he first see the target. Hence Thomas said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#John.14.5" target="asv">Jn. 14:5</a>): "Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way?" Above all is this + necessary when hard and rough is the road, heavy the going, but delightful the end. Now by His Passion Christ achieved glory, + not only of His soul, not only of His soul, which He had from the first moment of His conception, but also of His body; according + to Luke (24:26): "Christ ought [Vulg.: 'ought not Christ'] to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory (?)." + To which glory He brings those who follow the footsteps of His Passion, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A1-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Acts.14.21" target="asv"> Acts + 14:21 + </a>: "Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God." Therefore it was fitting that He should show His disciples + the glory of His clarity (which is to be transfigured), to which He will configure those who are His; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A1-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.21" target="asv"> Phil. 3:21</a>: "(Who) will reform the body of our lowness configured [Douay: 'made like'] to the body of His glory." Hence Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A1-p6.6" href="./asv.html#Mark.8.39" target="asv"> Mk. 8:39</a>: "By His loving foresight He allowed them to taste for a + short time the contemplation of eternal joy, so that they might bear persecution bravely." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.2" target="asv"> Mat. 17:2</a>: "Let no one suppose that Christ," through being said to be transfigured, "laid aside His natural shape and countenance, + or substituted an imaginary or aerial body for His real body. The Evangelist describes the manner of His transfiguration when + he says: 'His face did shine as the sun, and His garments became white as snow.' Brightness of face and whiteness of garments + argue not a change of substance, + but a putting on of glory." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Figure is seen in the outline of a body, for it is "that which is enclosed by one or more boundaries" [*Euclid, bk i, def. + xiv]. Therefore whatever has to do with the outline of a body seems to pertain to the figure. Now the clarity, just as the + color, of a non-transparent body is seen on its surface, and consequently the assumption of clarity is called transfiguration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Of those four gifts, clarity alone is a quality of the very person in himself; whereas the other three are not perceptible, + save in some action or movement, or in some passion. Christ, then, did show in Himself certain indications of those three + gifts---of agility, for instance, when He walked on the waves of the sea; of subtlety, when He came forth from the closed + womb of the Virgin; of impassibility, when He escaped unhurt from the hands of the Jews + who wished to hurl Him down or to stone Him. And yet He is not said, on account of this, to be transfigured, but only on account + of clarity, which pertains to the aspect of His Person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q45_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q45_A2-p0.1">Whether this clarity was the clarity of glory?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of glory. For a gloss of Bede on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.2" target="asv"> Mat. 17:2, </a> "He was transfigured before them," says: "In His mortal body He shows forth, not the state of immortality, but clarity like + to that of future immortality." But the clarity of glory is the clarity of immortality. Therefore the clarity which Christ + showed to His disciples was not the clarity of glory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.27" target="asv"> Lk. 9:27 </a>"(That) shall not taste death unless [Vulg.: 'till'] they see the kingdom of God," Bede's gloss says: "That is, the glorification + of the body in an imaginary vision of future beatitude." But the image of a thing is not the thing itself. Therefore this + was not the clarity of beatitude. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the clarity of glory is only in a human body. But this clarity of the transfiguration was seen not only in Christ's + body, but also in His garments, and in "the bright cloud" which "overshaded" the disciples. Therefore it seems that this was + not the clarity of glory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Jerome says on the words "He was transfigured before them" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.2" target="asv">Mat. 17:2</a>): "He appeared to the Apostles such as He will appear on the day of judgment." And on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A2-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.16.28" target="asv"> Mat. 16:28, </a> "Till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom," Chrysostom says: "Wishing to show with what kind of glory He is afterwards + to come, so far as it was possible for them to learn it, He showed it to them in their present life, that they might not + grieve even over the death of their Lord." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The clarity which Christ assumed in His transfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not as to its mode + of being. For the clarity of the glorified body is derived from that of the soul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Diosc. cxviii). + And in like manner the clarity of Christ's body in His transfiguration was derived from His God. head, as Damascene says (Orat. + de Transfig.) and from the glory of His soul. That the glory of His soul did not + overflow into His body from the first moment of Christ's conception was due to a certain Divine dispensation, that, as stated + above ( + <a id="TP_Q45_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">Q[14], A[1]</a>, ad 2), He might fulfil the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body. This did not, however, deprive Christ of His + power of outpouring the glory of His soul into His body. And this He did, as to clarity, in His transfiguration, but otherwise + than in a glorified body. For the clarity of the soul overflows into a glorified + body, by way of a permanent quality affecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a glorified body. But + in Christ's transfiguration clarity overflowed from His Godhead and from His soul into His body, not as an immanent quality + affecting His very body, but rather after the manner of a transient passion, as when the air is lit up by the sun. Consequently + the refulgence, which appeared in Christ's body then, was miraculous: just as was the fact of His walking on the waves of + the sea. Hence Dionysius says (Ep. ad Cai. iv): "Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man: this is shown in + His supernatural conception of a virgin and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of material and earthly feet." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p7"> Wherefore we must not say, as Hugh of St. Victor [*Innocent III, De Myst. Miss. iv] said, that Christ assumed the gift of + clarity in the transfiguration, of agility in walking on the sea, and of subtlety in coming forth from the Virgin's closed + womb: because the gifts are immanent qualities of a glorified body. On the contrary, whatever pertained to the gifts, that + He had miraculously. The same is to be said, as to the soul, of the vision in which Paul saw God in a rapture, as + we have stated in the + <a id="TP_Q45_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q175_A3.html">SS, Q[175], A[3]</a>, ad 2. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words quoted prove, not that the clarity of Christ was not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a glorified + body, since Christ's body was not as yet immortal. And just as it was by dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul + should not overflow into the body so was it possible that by dispensation it might overflow as to the gift of clarity and + not as to that of impassibility. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This clarity is said to have been imaginary, not as though it were not really the clarity of glory, but because it was a + kind of image representing that perfection of glory, in virtue of which the body will be glorious. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as the clarity which was in Christ's body was a representation of His body's future clarity, so the clarity which was + in His garments signified the future clarity of the saints, which will be surpassed by that of Christ, just as the brightness + of the snow is surpassed by that of the sun. Hence Gregory says (Moral. xxxii) that Christ's garments became resplendent, + "because in the height of heavenly clarity all the saints will cling to Him in the + refulgence of righteousness. For His garments signify the righteous, because He will unite them to Himself," according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.49.18" target="asv"> Is. 49:18</a>: "Thou shalt be clothed with all these as with an ornament." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p11"> The bright cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Ghost or the "power of the Father," as Origen says (Tract. iii in Matth.), + by which in the glory to come the saints will be covered. Or, again, it may be said fittingly that it signifies the clarity + of the world redeemed, which clarity will cover the saints as a tent. Hence when Peter proposed to make tents, "a bright cloud + overshaded" the disciples. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q45_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q45_A3-p0.1">Whether the witnesses of the transfiguration were fittingly chosen?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the witnesses of the transfiguration were unfittingly chosen. For everyone is a better witness of things + that he knows. But at the time of Christ's transfiguration no one but the angels had as yet any knowledge from experience + of the glory to come. Therefore the witnesses of the transfiguration should have been angels rather than men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, truth, not fiction, is becoming in a witness of the truth. Now, Moses and Elias were there, not really, but only + in appearance; for a gloss on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.9.30" target="asv"> Lk. 9:30, </a> "They were Moses and Elias," says: "It must be observed that Moses and Elias were there neither in body nor in soul"; but + that those bodies were formed "of some available matter. It is also credible that this was the result of the angelic ministries, + through the angels + impersonating them." Therefore it seems that they were unsuitable witnesses. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.43" target="asv">Acts 10:43</a>) that "all the prophets give testimony" to Christ. Therefore not only Moses and Elias, but also all the prophets, should + have been present as witnesses. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Christ's glory is promised as a reward to all the faithful ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.18" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:18</a>; + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.21" target="asv"> Phil. 3:21</a>), in whom He wished by His transfiguration to enkindle a desire of that glory. Therefore He should have taken not only Peter, + James, and John, but all His disciples, to be witnesses of His transfiguration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p6"> On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.</p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ wished to be transfigured in order to show men His glory, and to arouse men to a desire of it, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q45_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q45_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Now men are brought to the glory of eternal beatitude by Christ---not only those who lived after Him, but also those who + preceded Him; therefore, when He was approaching His Passion, both "the multitude that followed" and that "which went before, + cried saying: 'Hosanna,'" as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.9" target="asv">Mat. 21:9</a>, beseeching Him, + as it were, to save them. Consequently it was fitting that witnesses should be present from among those who preceded Him---namely, + Moses and Elias---and from those who followed after Him---namely, Peter, James, and John---that "in the mouth of two or three + witnesses" this word might stand. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By His transfiguration Christ manifested to His disciples the glory of His body, which belongs to men only. It was therefore + fitting that He should choose men and not angels as witnesses. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This gloss is said to be taken from a book entitled On the Marvels of Holy Scripture. It is not an authentic work, but is + wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine; consequently we need not stand by it. For Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.3" target="asv"> Mat. 17:3</a>: "Observe that when the Scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign from heaven, He refused to give one; whereas here in order + to increase the apostles' faith, He gives a sign from heaven, Elias coming down thence, + whither he had ascended, and Moses arising from the nether world." This is not to be understood as though the soul of Moses + was reunited to his body, but that his soul appeared through some assumed body, just as the angels do. But Elias appeared + in his own body, not that he was brought down from the empyrean heaven, but from some place on high whither he was taken up + in the fiery chariot. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Chrysostom says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.3" target="asv"> Mat. 17:3</a>: "Moses and Elias are brought forward for many reasons." And, first of all, "because the multitude said He was Elias or Jeremias + or one of the prophets, He brings the leaders of the prophets with Him; that hereby at least they might see the difference + between the servants and their Lord." Another reason was " . . . that Moses gave the Law . . . while Elias . . . was jealous + for the glory of God." + Therefore by appearing together with Christ, they show how falsely the Jews "accused Him of transgressing the Law, and of + blasphemously appropriating to Himself the glory of God." A third reason was "to show that He has power of death and life, + and that He is the judge of the dead and the living; by bringing with Him Moses who had died, and Elias who still lived." + A fourth reason was because, as Luke says (9:31), "they spoke" with Him "of His decease that He should accomplish in Jerusalem," + i.e. of His Passion and death. Therefore, "in order to strengthen the hearts of His disciples with a view to this," He sets + before them those who had exposed themselves to death for God's sake: since Moses braved death in opposing Pharaoh, and Elias + in opposing Achab. A fifth reason was that "He wished His disciples to imitate the meekness of Moses and the zeal of Elias." + Hilary adds a sixth reason---namely, in order to signify that He had been foretold by the Law, which Moses gave them, and + by + the prophets, of whom Elias was the principal. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Lofty mysteries should not be immediately explained to everyone, but should be handed down through superiors to others in + their proper turn. Consequently, as Chrysostom says (on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.3" target="asv"> Mat. 17:3</a>), "He took these three as being superior to the rest." For "Peter excelled in the love" he bore to Christ and in the power + bestowed on him; John in the privilege of Christ's love for him on account of his virginity, and, again, on account of his + being privileged to be an Evangelist; James on account of the privilege of martyrdom. Nevertheless He did not wish them to + tell others what they had seen before His Resurrection; "lest," as Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A3-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.19" target="asv"> Mat. 17:19, </a> "such a wonderful thing should seem incredible to them; and lest, after hearing of so great glory, they should be scandalized + at the Cross" that followed; or, again, "lest [the Cross] should be entirely hindered by the people" [*Bede, Hom. xviii; cf. + Catena + Aurea]; and "in order that they might then be witnesses of spiritual things when they should be filled with the Holy Ghost" + [*Hilary, in Matth. xvii]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A3-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q45_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q45_A4-p0.1">Whether the testimony of the Father's voice, saying, "This is My beloved Son," was fittingly added?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the testimony of the Father's voice, saying, "This is My beloved Son," was not fittingly added; for, as + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Job.33.14" target="asv">Job 33:14</a>), "God speaketh once, and repeateth not the selfsame thing the second time." But the Father's voice had testified to this + at the time of (Christ's) baptism. Therefore it was not fitting that He should bear witness to it a second time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, at the baptism the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove at the same time as the Father's voice was heard. + But this did not happen at the transfiguration. Therefore it seems that the testimony of the Father was made in an unfitting + manner. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ began to teach after His baptism. Nevertheless, the Father's voice did not then command men to hear him. + Therefore neither should it have so commanded at the transfiguration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, things should not be said to those who cannot bear them, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.12" target="asv"> Jn. 16:12</a>: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." But the disciples could not bear the Father's voice; + for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A4-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.6" target="asv">Mat. 17:6</a>) that "the disciples hearing, fell upon their face, and were very much afraid." Therefore the Father's voice should not have + been addressed to them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p6"> On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.</p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The adoption of the sons of God is through a certain conformity of image to the natural Son of God. Now this takes place + in two ways: first, by the grace of the wayfarer, which is imperfect conformity; secondly, by glory, which is perfect conformity, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.3.2" target="asv">1 Jn. 3:2</a>: "We are now the sons of God, and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be: we know that, when He shall appear, we shall + be like to Him, because we shall see Him as + He is." Since, therefore, it is in baptism that we acquire grace, while the clarity of the glory to come was foreshadowed + in the transfiguration, therefore both in His baptism and in His transfiguration the natural sonship of Christ was fittingly + made known by the testimony of the Father: because He alone with the Son and Holy Ghost is perfectly conscious of that perfect + generation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The words quoted are to be understood of God's eternal speaking, by which God the Father uttered the only-begotten and co-eternal + Word. Nevertheless, it can be said that God uttered the same thing twice in a bodily voice, yet not for the same purpose, + but in order to show the divers modes in which men can be partakers of the likeness of the eternal Sonship. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as in the Baptism, where the mystery of the first regeneration was proclaimed, the operation of the whole Trinity was + made manifest, because the Son Incarnate was there, the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove, and the Father made + Himself known in the voice; so also in the transfiguration, which is the mystery of the second regeneration, the whole Trinity + appears---the Father in the voice, the Son in the man, the Holy Ghost in the bright + cloud; for just as in baptism He confers innocence, signified by the simplicity of the dove, so in the resurrection will He + give His elect the clarity of glory and refreshment from all sorts of evil, which are signified by the bright cloud. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ came to give grace actually, and to promise glory by His words. Therefore it was fitting at the time of His transfiguration, + and not at the time of His baptism, that men should be commanded to hear Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> It was fitting that the disciples should be afraid and fall down on hearing the voice of the Father, to show that the glory + which was then being revealed surpasses in excellence the sense and faculty of all mortal beings; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.33.20" target="asv"> Ex. 33:20</a>: "Man shall not see Me and live." This is what Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q45_A4-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.17.6" target="asv"> Mat. 17:6</a>: "Such is human frailty that it cannot bear to gaze on such great glory." But men are healed of + this frailty by Christ when He brings them into glory. And this is signified by what He says to them: "Arise, and fear not." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q45_A4-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q44_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q46-p0.1">THE PASSION OF CHRIST (TWELVE ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q46-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p2"> In proper sequence we have now to consider all that relates to Christ's leaving the world. In the first place, His Passion; + secondly, His death; thirdly, His burial; and, fourthly, His descent into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p3"> With regard to the Passion, there arises a threefold consideration: (1) The Passion itself; (2) the efficient cause of the + Passion; (3) the fruits of the Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p4"> Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p5"> (1) Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for men's deliverance?</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p6"> (2) Whether there was any other possible means of delivering men?</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p7"> (3) Whether this was the more suitable means?</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p8"> (4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer on the cross?</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p9"> (5) The extent of His sufferings;</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p10"> (6) Whether the pain which He endured was the greatest?</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p11"> (7) Whether His entire soul suffered?</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p12"> (8) Whether His Passion hindered the joy of fruition?</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p13"> (9) The time of the Passion;</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p14"> (10) The place;</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p15"> (11) Whether it was fitting for Him to be crucified with robbers?</p> + <p id="TP_Q46-p16"> (12) Whether Christ's Passion is to be attributed to the Godhead?</p> + <div id="TP_Q46_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A1-p0.1">Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race. For the human race could + not be delivered except by God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.45.21" target="asv"> Is. 45:21</a>: "Am not I the Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me." But no necessity + can compel God, for this would be repugnant to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.7" target="asv">Is. 53:7</a>): "He was offered because it was His own will." Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.24.10" target="asv">Ps. 24:10</a>): "All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth." But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer on the part of the + Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part + of Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation. Therefore it does not seem necessary that + Christ should have suffered for man's + deliverance. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But Christ did not + suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently, neither was it necessary for Him to suffer for + the salvation of the human race. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.14" target="asv">Jn. 3:14</a>): "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may + not perish, but may have life everlasting." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are several acceptations of the word "necessary." In one way it means anything + which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God + or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; + and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the + necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But + if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end---namely, + when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, + for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God's part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on + Christ's own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted + in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): "The Son of man + must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." Secondly, on Christ's part, + who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.26" target="asv"> Lk. + 24:26 + </a>: "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?" Thirdly, on God's part, whose determination + regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to + be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): "The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined"; + and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.44" target="asv">Lk. 24:44</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.46" target="asv">46</a>): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must + needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is + thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on God's part. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because + by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ's justice: and with + His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q46_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q1_A2.html">Q[1], A[2]</a>), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.24" target="asv"> Rom. 3:24,25</a>: "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, + through faith in His blood." And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence + it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A1-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Eph.2.4" target="asv">Eph. 2:4</a>): "God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened + us together in Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of the first man ( + <a id="TP_Q46_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q64_A2.html">FP, Q[64], A[2]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A1-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A2-p0.1">Whether there was any other possible way of human deliverance besides the Passion of Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no other possible way of human deliverance besides Christ's Passion. For our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.12.24" target="asv">Jn. 12:24</a>): "Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone; but if it die, + it bringeth forth much fruit." Upon this St. Augustine (Tract. li) observes that "Christ called Himself the seed." Consequently, + unless He suffered death, He would not otherwise have produced + the fruit of our redemption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord addresses the Father ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.42" target="asv">Mat. 26:42</a>): "My Father, if this chalice may not pass away but I must drink it, Thy will be done." But He spoke there of the chalice + of the Passion. Therefore Christ's Passion could not pass away; hence Hilary says (Comm. 31 in Matth.): "Therefore the chalice + cannot pass except He drink of it, because we cannot be restored except through His Passion." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God's justice required that Christ should satisfy by the Passion in order that man might be delivered from sin. + But Christ cannot let His justice pass; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.13" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:13</a>): "If we believe not, He continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself were He to deny His justice, + since He is justice itself. It seems impossible, then, for man to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, there can be no falsehood underlying faith. But the Fathers of old believed that Christ would suffer. Consequently, + it seems that it had to be that Christ should suffer. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "We assert that the way whereby God deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ, who is + mediator between God and man, is both good and befitting the Divine dignity; but let us also show that other possible means + were not lacking on God's part, to whose power all things are equally subordinate." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A thing may be said to be possible or impossible in two ways: first of all, simply and absolutely; or secondly, from supposition. + Therefore, speaking simply and absolutely, it was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ, + because "no word shall be impossible with God" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.37" target="asv">Lk. 1:37</a>). Yet it was impossible if some supposition be made. For since it is impossible for God's foreknowledge to be deceived and + His + will or ordinance to be frustrated, then, supposing God's foreknowledge and ordinance regarding Christ's Passion, it was not + possible at the same time for Christ not to suffer, and for mankind to be delivered otherwise than by Christ's Passion. And + the same holds good of all things foreknown and preordained by God, as was laid down in the + <a id="TP_Q46_A2-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A13.html">FP, Q[14], A[13]</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our Lord is speaking there presupposing God's foreknowledge and predetermination, according to which it was resolved that + the fruit of man's salvation should not follow unless Christ suffered. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the same way we must understand what is here objected to in the second instance: "If this chalice may not pass away but + I must drink of it"---that is to say, because Thou hast so ordained it---hence He adds: "Thy will be done." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even this justice depends on the Divine will, requiring satisfaction for sin from the human race. But if He had willed to + free man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted against justice. For a judge, while preserving justice, + cannot pardon fault without penalty, if he must visit fault committed against another---for instance, against another man, + or against the State, or any Prince in higher authority. But God has no one higher + than Himself, for He is the sovereign and common good of the whole universe. Consequently, if He forgive sin, which has the + formality of fault in that it is committed against Himself, He wrongs no one: just as anyone else, overlooking a personal + trespass, without satisfaction, acts mercifully and not unjustly. And so David exclaimed when he sought mercy: "To Thee only + have I sinned" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.50.6" target="asv">Ps. 50:6</a>), as if to say: "Thou canst pardon me without injustice." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Human faith, and even the Divine Scriptures upon which faith is based, are both based on the Divine foreknowledge and ordinance. + And the same reason holds good of that necessity which comes of supposition, and of the necessity which arises of the Divine + foreknowledge and will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A3-p0.1">Whether there was any more suitable way of delivering the human race than by Christ's Passion?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was some other more suitable way of delivering the human race besides Christ's Passion. For nature + in its operation imitates the Divine work, since it is moved and regulated by God. But nature never employs two agents where + one will suffice. Therefore, since God could have liberated mankind solely by His Divine will, it does not seem fitting that + Christ's Passion should have been added for the deliverance of the human race. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, natural actions are more suitably performed than deeds of violence, because violence is "a severance or lapse from + what is according to nature," as is said in De Coelo ii. But Christ's Passion brought about His death by violence. Therefore + it would have been more appropriate had Christ died a natural death rather than suffer for man's deliverance. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it seems most fitting that whatsoever keeps something unjustly and by violence, should be deprived of it by some + superior power; hence Isaias says (52:3): "You were sold gratis, and you shall be redeemed without money." But the devil possessed + no right over man, whom he had deceived by guile, and whom he held subject in servitude by a sort of violence. Therefore it + seems most suitable that Christ should have despoiled the devil solely by His power and + without the Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> St. Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "There was no other more suitable way of healing our misery" than by the Passion of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Among means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful + to such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ's Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred + for man's salvation. 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 + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.8" target="asv">Rom. 5:8</a>): "God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us." Secondly, because thereby + He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are + requisite for man's salvation. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.21" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:21</a>): "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps." Thirdly, because Christ by His + Passion + not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later + ( + <a id="TP_Q46_A3-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html">Q[48], A[1]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q46_A3-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html"> Q[49], AA[1]</a>, 5). Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A3-p6.5" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.20" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:20</a>: "You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body." Fifthly, because it redounded to man's greater dignity, + that as man was overcome and deceived by the + devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish + death. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A3-p6.6" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.57" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:57</a>): "Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." It was accordingly more fitting that we + should be delivered by Christ's Passion than simply by God's good-will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Even nature uses several means to one intent, in order to do something more fittingly: as two eyes for seeing; and the same + can be observed in other matters. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. De Incarn. Verb.] says: "Christ had come in order to destroy death, not His own, (for since + He is life itself, death could not be His), but men's death. Hence it was not by reason of His being bound to die that He + laid His body aside, but because the death He endured was inflicted on Him by men. But even if His body had sickened and dissolved + in the sight of all men, it was not befitting Him who healed the infirmities + of others to have his own body afflicted with the same. And even had He laid His body aside without any sickness, and had + then appeared, men would not have believed Him when He spoke of His resurrection. For how could Christ's victory over death + appear, unless He endured it in the sight of all men, and so proved that death was vanquished by the incorruption of His body?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the devil assailed man unjustly, nevertheless, on account of sin, man was justly left by God under the devil's bondage. + And therefore it was fitting that through justice man should be delivered from the devil's bondage by Christ making satisfaction + on his behalf in the Passion. This was also a fitting means of overthrowing the pride of the devil, "who is a deserter from + justice, and covetous of sway"; in that Christ "should vanquish him and + deliver man, not merely by the power of His Godhead, but likewise by the justice and lowliness of the Passion," as Augustine + says (De Trin. xiii). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ ought to have suffered on the cross?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ ought not to have suffered on the cross. For the truth ought to conform to the figure. But in all + the sacrifices of the Old Testament which prefigured Christ the beasts were slain with a sword and afterwards consumed by + fire. Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have suffered on a cross, but rather by the sword or by fire. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ ought not to assume "dishonoring afflictions." But death on a cross + was most dishonoring and ignominious; hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.2.20" target="asv">Wis. 2:20</a>): "Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death." Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have undergone the death of + the cross. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it was said of Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.9" target="asv">Mat. 21:9</a>): "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." But death upon the cross was a death of malediction, as we read + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.23" target="asv"> Dt. 21:23</a>: "He is accursed of God that hangeth on a tree." Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to be crucified. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv">Phil. 2:8</a>): "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was most fitting that Christ should suffer the death of the cross. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p7"> First of all, as an example of virtue. For Augustine thus writes (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 25): "God's Wisdom became man to give + us an example in righteousness of living. But it is part of righteous living not to stand in fear of things which ought not + to be feared. Now there are some men who, although they do not fear death in itself, are yet troubled over the manner of their + death. In order, then, that no kind of death should trouble an upright man, the cross of this Man had to be set + before him, because, among all kinds of death, none was more execrable, more fear-inspiring, than this." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p8"> Secondly, because this kind of death was especially suitable in order to atone for the sin of our first parent, which was + the plucking of the apple from the forbidden tree against God's command. And so, to atone for that sin, it was fitting that + Christ should suffer by being fastened to a tree, as if restoring what Adam had purloined; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.68.5" target="asv"> Ps. 68:5</a>: "Then did I pay that which I took not away." Hence Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion [*Cf. + Serm. ci De Tempore]: "Adam despised the command, plucking the apple from the tree: but all that Adam lost, Christ found upon + the cross." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p9"> The third reason is because, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Passion (De Cruce et Latrone i, ii): "He suffered upon + a high rood and not under a roof, in order that the nature of the air might be purified: and the earth felt a like benefit, + for it was cleansed by the flowing of the blood from His side." And on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.14" target="asv"> Jn. 3:14</a>: "The Son of man must be lifted up," Theophylact says: "When you hear that He was lifted up, understand His hanging on high, + that He + might sanctify the air who had sanctified the earth by walking upon it." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p10"> The fourth reason is, because, by dying on it, He prepares for us an ascent into heaven, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide + A, III, ad 2] says. Hence it is that He says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.12.32" target="asv">Jn. 12:32</a>): "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all things to Myself." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p11"> The fifth reason is because it is befitting the universal salvation of the entire world. Hence Gregory of Nyssa observes + (In Christ. Resurr., Orat. i) that "the shape of the cross extending out into four extremes from their central point of contact + denotes the power and the providence diffused everywhere of Him who hung upon it." Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A. III, ad + 2] also says that upon the cross "He dies with outstretched hands in order to draw with one hand the people of + old, and with the other those who spring from the Gentiles." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p12"> The sixth reason is because of the various virtues denoted by this class of death. Hence Augustine in his book on the grace + of the Old and New Testament (Ep. cxl) says: "Not without purpose did He choose this class of death, that He might be a teacher + of that breadth, and height, and length, and depth," of which the Apostle speaks ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.18" target="asv">Eph. 3:18</a>): "For breadth is in the beam, which is fixed transversely above; this appertains to good works, since the hands are + stretched out upon it. Length is the tree's extent from the beam to the ground; and there it is planted---that is, it stands + and abides---which is the note of longanimity. Height is in that portion of the tree which remains over from the transverse + beam upwards to the top, and this is at the head of the Crucified, because He is the supreme desire of souls of good hope. + But that part of the tree which is hidden from view to hold it fixed, and from which the entire rood springs, denotes the + depth + of gratuitous grace." And, as Augustine says (Tract. cxix in Joan.): "The tree upon which were fixed the members of Him dying + was even the chair of the Master teaching." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p13"> The seventh reason is because this kind of death responds to very many figures. For, as Augustine says in a sermon on the + Passion (Serm. ci De Tempore), an ark of wood preserved the human race from the waters of the Deluge; at the exodus of God's + people from Egypt, Moses with a rod divided the sea, overthrew Pharaoh and saved the people of God. the same Moses dipped + his rod into the water, changing it from bitter to sweet; at the touch of a wooden rod a salutary spring gushed + forth from a spiritual rock; likewise, in order to overcome Amalec, Moses stretched forth his arms with rod in hand; lastly, + God's law is entrusted to the wooden Ark of the Covenant; all of which are like steps by which we mount to the wood of the + cross. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The altar of holocausts, upon which the sacrifices of animals were immolated, was constructed of timbers, as is set forth + + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.27" target="asv">Ex. 27</a>:, and in this respect the truth answers to the figure; but "it is not necessary for it to be likened in every respect, otherwise + it would not be a likeness," but the reality, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii). But. in particular, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, + vide A, III, ad 2] says: "His head is not cut off, as was done + to John; nor was He sawn in twain, like Isaias, in order that His entire and indivisible body might obey death, and that there + might be no excuse for them who want to divide the Church." While, instead of material fire, there was the spiritual fire + of charity in Christ's holocaust. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ refused to undergo dishonorable sufferings which are allied with defects of knowledge, or of grace, or even of virtue, + but not those injuries inflicted from without---nay, more, as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.2" target="asv">Heb. 12:2</a>: "He endured the cross, despising the shame." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xiv), sin is accursed, and, consequently, so is death, and mortality, which comes of sin. + "But Christ's flesh was mortal, 'having the resemblance of the flesh of sin'"; and hence Moses calls it "accursed," just as + the Apostle calls it "sin," saying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p16.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.21" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:21</a>): "Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made sin"---namely, because of the penalty of sin. "Nor is there greater ignominy + on that account, + because he said: 'He is accursed of God.'" For, "unless God had hated sin, He would never have sent His Son to take upon Himself + our death, and to destroy it. Acknowledge, then, that it was for us He took the curse upon Himself, whom you confess to have + died for us." Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A4-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.13" target="asv">Gal. 3:13</a>): "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p17"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A4-p18"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ endured all suffering?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did endure all sufferings, because Hilary (De Trin. x) says: "God's only-begotten Son testifies + that He endured every kind of human sufferings in order to accomplish the sacrament of His death, when with bowed head He + gave up the ghost." It seems, therefore, that He did endure all human sufferings. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.52.13" target="asv">Is. 52:13</a>): "Behold My servant shall understand, He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding high; as many as have been + astonished at Him [Vulg.: 'thee'], so shall His visage be inglorious among men, and His form among the sons of men." But Christ + was exalted in that He had all grace and all knowledge, at which many were astonished in admiration thereof. Therefore it + seems that He was "inglorious," by + enduring every human suffering. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's Passion was ordained for man's deliverance from sin, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q46_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. But Christ came to deliver men from every kind of sin. Therefore He ought to have endured every kind of suffering. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.19.32" target="asv">Jn. 19:32</a>): "The soldiers therefore came: and they broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him; but after + they were come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs." Consequently, He did not endure + every human suffering. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Human sufferings may be considered under two aspects. First of all, specifically, and in this way it was not necessary for + Christ to endure them all, since many are mutually exclusive, as burning and drowning; for we are dealing now with sufferings + inflicted from without, since it was not beseeming for Him to endure those arising from within, such as bodily ailments, as + already stated ( + <a id="TP_Q46_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A4.html">Q[14], A[4]</a>). But, speaking generically, He did + endure every human suffering. This admits of a threefold acceptance. First of all, on the part of men: for He endured something + from Gentiles and from Jews; from men and from women, as is clear from the women servants who accused Peter. He suffered from + the rulers, from their servants and from the mob, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.2.1" target="asv"> Ps. 2:1,2</a>: "Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, + against the Lord and + against His Christ." He suffered from friends and acquaintances, as is manifest from Judas betraying and Peter denying Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p7"> Secondly, the same is evident on the part of the sufferings which a man can endure. For Christ suffered from friends abandoning + Him; in His reputation, from the blasphemies hurled at Him; in His honor and glory, from the mockeries and the insults heaped + upon Him; in things, for He was despoiled of His garments; in His soul, from sadness, weariness, and fear; in His body, from + wounds and scourgings. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p8"> Thirdly, it may be considered with regard to His bodily members. In His head He suffered from the crown of piercing thorns; + in His hands and feet, from the fastening of the nails; on His face from the blows and spittle; and from the lashes over His + entire body. Moreover, He suffered in all His bodily senses: in touch, by being scourged and nailed; in taste, by being given + vinegar and gall to drink; in smell, by being fastened to the gibbet in a place reeking with the stench of + corpses, "which is called Calvary"; in hearing, by being tormented with the cries of blasphemers and scorners; in sight, by + beholding the tears of His Mother and of the disciple whom He loved. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Hilary's words are to be understood as to all classes of sufferings, but not as to their kinds. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The likeness is sustained, not as to the number of the sufferings and graces, but as to their greatness; for, as He was uplifted + above others in gifts of graces, so was He lowered beneath others by the ignominy of His sufferings. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The very least one of Christ's sufferings was sufficient of itself to redeem the human race from all sins; but as to fittingness, + it sufficed that He should endure all classes of sufferings, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A5-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A6-p0.1">Whether the pain of Christ's Passion was greater than all other pains?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the pain of Christ's Passion was not greater than all other pains. For the sufferer's pain is increased + by the sharpness and the duration of the suffering. But some of the martyrs endured sharper and more prolonged pains than + Christ, as is seen in St. Lawrence, who was roasted upon a gridiron; and in St. Vincent, whose flesh was torn with iron pincers. + Therefore it seems that the pain of the suffering Christ was not the greatest. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, strength of soul mitigates pain, so much so that the Stoics held there was no sadness in the soul of a wise man; + and Aristotle (Ethic. ii) holds that moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions. But Christ had most perfect strength of + soul. Therefore it seems that the greatest pain did not exist in Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the more sensitive the sufferer is, the more acute will the pain be. But the soul is more sensitive than the body, + since the body feels in virtue of the soul; also, Adam in the state of innocence seems to have had a body more sensitive than + Christ had, who assumed a human body with its natural defects. Consequently, it seems that the pain of a sufferer in purgatory, + or in hell, or even Adam's pain, if he suffered at all, was greater than Christ's in + the Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the greater the good lost, the greater the pain. But by sinning the sinner loses a greater good than Christ did + when suffering; since the life of grace is greater than the life of nature: also, Christ, who lost His life, but was to rise + again after three days, seems to have lost less than those who lose their lives and abide in death. Therefore it seems that + Christ's pain was not the greatest of all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the victim's innocence lessens the sting of his sufferings. But Christ died innocent, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.9.19" target="asv"> Jer. 9:19</a>: "I was as a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim." Therefore it seems that the pain of Christ's Passion was not the + greatest. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p7"> + <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, there was nothing superfluous in Christ's conduct. But the slightest pain would have sufficed to secure man's salvation, + because from His Divine Person it would have had infinite virtue. Therefore it would have been superfluous to choose the greatest + of all pains. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p8"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Lam.1.12" target="asv">Lam. 1:12</a>) on behalf of Christ's Person: "O all ye that pass by the way attend, and see if there be any sorrow like unto My sorrow." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As we have stated, when treating of the defects assumed by Christ ( + <a id="TP_Q46_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q15_A5.html">Q[15], AA[5]</a>,6), there was true and sensible pain in the suffering Christ, which is caused by something hurtful to the body: also, there + was internal pain, which is caused from the apprehension of something hurtful, and this is termed "sadness." And in Christ + each of these was the greatest in this present life. This arose from four causes. First of all, from the + sources of His pain. For the cause of the sensitive pain was the wounding of His body; and this wounding had its bitterness, + both from the extent of the suffering already mentioned (A[5] ) and from the kind of suffering, since the death of the crucified + is most bitter, because they are pierced in nervous and highly sensitive parts---to wit, the hands and feet; moreover, the + weight of the suspended body intensifies the agony. and besides this there is the duration of the suffering because they + do not die at once like those slain by the sword. The cause of the interior pain was, first of all, all the sins of the human + race, for which He made satisfaction by suffering; hence He ascribes them, so to speak, to Himself, saying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A6-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.21.2" target="asv">Ps. 21:2</a>): "The words of my sins." Secondly, especially the fall of the Jews and of the others who sinned in His death chiefly of + the apostles, who were scandalized at His Passion. Thirdly, the loss of His bodily life, which is naturally + horrible to human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p10"> The magnitude of His suffering may be considered, secondly, from the susceptibility of the sufferer as to both soul and body. + For His body was endowed with a most perfect constitution, since it was fashioned miraculously by the operation of the Holy + Ghost; just as some other things made by miracles are better than others, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xxii in Joan.) respecting + the wine into which Christ changed the water at the wedding-feast. And, consequently, Christ's sense of + touch, the sensitiveness of which is the reason for our feeling pain, was most acute. His soul likewise, from its interior + powers, apprehended most vehemently all the causes of sadness. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p11"> Thirdly, the magnitude of Christ's suffering can be estimated from the singleness of His pain and sadness. In other sufferers + the interior sadness is mitigated, and even the exterior suffering, from some consideration of reason, by some derivation + or redundance from the higher powers into the lower; but it was not so with the suffering Christ, because "He permitted each + one of His powers to exercise its proper function," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p12"> Fourthly, the magnitude of the pain of Christ's suffering can be reckoned by this, that the pain and sorrow were accepted + voluntarily, to the end of men's deliverance from sin; and consequently He embraced the amount of pain proportionate to the + magnitude of the fruit which resulted therefrom. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p13"> From all these causes weighed together, it follows that Christ's pain was the very greatest.</p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument follows from only one of the considerations adduced---namely, from the bodily injury, which is the cause of + sensitive pain; but the torment of the suffering Christ is much more intensified from other causes, as above stated. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Moral virtue lessens interior sadness in one way, and outward sensitive pain in quite another; for it lessens interior sadness + directly by fixing the mean, as being its proper matter, within limits. But, as was laid down in the + <a id="TP_Q46_A6-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q64_A2.html">FS, Q[64], A[2]</a>, moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions, not according to mathematical quantity, but according to quantity of proportion, + so that the passion shall not go beyond the rule of reason. + And since the Stoics held all sadness to be unprofitable, they accordingly believed it to be altogether discordant with reason, + and consequently to be shunned altogether by a wise man. But in very truth some sadness is praiseworthy, as Augustine proves + (De Civ. Dei xiv)---namely, when it flows from holy love, as, for instance, when a man is saddened over his own or others' + sins. Furthermore, it is employed as a useful means of satisfying for sins, according to the saying of the Apostle + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A6-p15.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.7.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 7:10</a>): "The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance, steadfast unto salvation." And so to atone for the sins of all men, + Christ accepted sadness, the greatest in absolute quantity, yet not exceeding the rule of reason. But moral virtue does not + lessen outward sensitive pain, because such pain is not subject to reason, but follows the nature of the body; yet it lessens + it indirectly by redundance of the higher powers into the lower. But this did not happen in + Christ's case, as stated above (cf. Q[14], A[1], ad 2; Q[45], A[2]). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The pain of a suffering, separated soul belongs to the state of future condemnation, which exceeds every evil of this life, + just as the glory of the saints surpasses every good of the present life. Accordingly, when we say that Christ's pain was + the greatest, we make no comparison between His and the pain of a separated soul. But Adam's body could not suffer, except + he sinned. so that he would become mortal, and passible. And, though actually + suffering, it would have felt less pain than Christ's body, for the reasons already stated. From all this it is clear that + even if by impassibility Adam had suffered in the state of innocence, his pain would have been less than Christ's. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ grieved not only over the loss of His own bodily life, but also over the sins of all others. And this grief in Christ + surpassed all grief of every contrite heart, both because it flowed from a greater wisdom and charity, by which the pang of + contrition is intensified, and because He grieved at the one time for all sins, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A6-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.4" target="asv"> Is. 53:4</a>: "Surely He hath carried our sorrows." But such was the dignity of Christ's life in + the body, especially on account of the Godhead united with it, that its loss, even for one hour, would be a matter of greater + grief than the loss of another man's life for howsoever long a time. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) that the man + of virtue loves his life all the more in proportion as he knows it to be better; and yet he exposes it for virtue's sake. + And in like fashion Christ laid down His most beloved life for the good of charity, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A6-p17.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.12.7" target="asv"> Jer. 12:7</a>: + "I have given My dear soul into the hands of her enemies." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p18"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The sufferer's innocence does lessen numerically the pain of the suffering, since, when a guilty man suffers, he grieves + not merely on account of the penalty, but also because of the crime. whereas the innocent man grieves only for the penalty: + yet this pain is more intensified by reason of his innocence, in so far as he deems the hurt inflicted to be the more undeserved. + Hence it is that even others are more deserving of blame if they do not + compassionate him. according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A6-p18.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.57.1" target="asv"> Is. 57:1</a>: "The just perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p19"> + <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Christ willed to deliver the human race from sins not merely by His power, but also according to justice. And therefore He + did not simply weigh what great virtue His suffering would have from union with the Godhead, but also how much, according + to His human nature, His pain would avail for so great a satisfaction. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p20"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A6-p21"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A7-p0.1">Whether Christ suffered in His whole soul?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not suffer in His whole soul. For the soul suffers indirectly when the body suffers, inasmuch + as it is the "act of the body." But the soul is not, as to its every part, the "act of the body"; because the intellect is + the act of no body, as is said De Anima iii. Therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in His whole soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every power of the soul is passive in regard to its proper object. But the higher part of reason has for its object + the eternal types, "to the consideration and consultation of which it directs itself," as Augustine says (De Trin. xii). But + Christ could suffer no hurt from the eternal types, since they are nowise opposed to Him. Therefore it seems that He did not + suffer in His whole soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a sensitive passion is said to be complete when it comes into contact with the reason. But there was none such in + Christ, but only "pro-passions"; as Jerome remarks on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A7-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.37" target="asv"> Mat. 26:37.</a> Hence Dionysius says in a letter to John the Evangelist that "He endured only mentally the sufferings inflicted upon Him." + Consequently it does not seem that Christ suffered in His whole soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, suffering causes pain: but there is no pain in the speculative intellect, because, as the Philosopher says (Topic. + i), "there is no sadness in opposition to the pleasure which comes of consideration." Therefore it seems that Christ did not + suffer in His whole soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.87.4" target="asv">Ps. 87:4</a>) on behalf of Christ: "My soul is filled with evils": upon which the gloss adds: "Not with vices, but with woes, whereby + the soul suffers with the flesh; or with evils, viz. of a perishing people, by compassionating them." But His soul would not + have been filled with these evils except He had suffered in His whole soul. Therefore Christ suffered in His entire soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A whole is so termed with respect to its parts. But the parts of a soul are its faculties. So, then, the whole soul is said + to suffer in so far as it is afflicted as to its essence, or as to all its faculties. But it must be borne in mind that a + faculty of the soul can suffer in two ways: first of all, by its own passion; and this comes of its being afflicted by its + proper object; thus, sight may suffer from superabundance of the visible object. In another + way a faculty suffers by a passion in the subject on which it is based; as sight suffers when the sense of touch in the eye + is affected, upon which the sense of sight rests, as, for instance, when the eye is pricked, or is disaffected by heat. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p8"> So, then, we say that if the soul be considered with respect to its essence, it is evident that Christ's whole soul suffered. + For the soul's whole essence is allied with the body, so that it is entire in the whole body and in its every part. Consequently, + when the body suffered and was disposed to separate from the soul, the entire soul suffered. But if we consider the whole + soul according to its faculties, speaking thus of the proper passions of the faculties, He suffered + indeed as to all His lower powers; because in all the soul's lower powers, whose operations are but temporal, there was something + to be found which was a source of woe to Christ, as is evident from what was said above + <a id="TP_Q46_A7-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. But Christ's higher reason did not suffer thereby on the part of its object, which is God, who was the cause, not of grief, + but rather of delight and joy, to the soul of Christ. Nevertheless, all the powers of Christ's soul did suffer according as + any faculty is said to be affected as regards its subject, because all the faculties of Christ's soul were rooted in its essence, + to which suffering extended when the body, whose act it is, suffered. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the intellect as a faculty is not the act of the body, still the soul's essence is the act of the body, and in it + the intellective faculty is rooted, as was shown in the + <a id="TP_Q46_A7-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q77_A6.html">FP, Q[77], AA[6]</a>,8. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument proceeds from passion on the part of the proper object, according to which Christ's higher reason did not suffer. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Grief is then said to be a true passion, by which the soul is troubled, when the passion in the sensitive part causes reason + to deflect from the rectitude of its act, so that it then follows the passion, and has no longer free-will with regard to + it. In this way passion of the sensitive part did not extend to reason in Christ, but merely subjectively, as was stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The speculative intellect can have no pain or sadness on the part of its object, which is truth considered absolutely, and + which is its perfection: nevertheless, both grief and its cause can reach it in the way mentioned above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A7-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A9.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A8-p0.1">Whether Christ's entire soul enjoyed blessed fruition during the Passion?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's entire soul did not enjoy blessed fruition during the Passion. For it is not possible to be sad + and glad at the one time, since sadness and gladness are contraries. But Christ's whole soul suffered grief during the Passion, + as was stated above + <a id="TP_Q46_A8-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A7.html">(A[7])</a>. Therefore His whole soul could not enjoy fruition. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii) that, if sadness be vehement, it not only checks the contrary delight, but every + delight; and conversely. But the grief of Christ's Passion was the greatest, as shown above + <a id="TP_Q46_A8-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A6.html">(A[6])</a>; and likewise the enjoyment of fruition is also the greatest, as was laid down in the first volume of the + <a id="TP_Q46_A8-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q34_A3.html">FS, Q[34], A[3]</a>. Consequently, it was not possible for Christ's whole soul to be + suffering and rejoicing at the one time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, beatific "fruition" comes of the knowledge and love of Divine things, as Augustine says (Doctr. Christ. i). But + all the soul's powers do not extend to the knowledge and love of God. Therefore Christ's whole soul did not enjoy fruition. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): Christ's Godhead "permitted His flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it." In + like fashion, since it belonged to Christ's soul, inasmuch as it was blessed, to enjoy fruition, His Passion did not impede + fruition. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q46_A8-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A7.html">(A[7])</a>, the whole soul can be understood both according to its essence and according to all its faculties. If it be understood according + to its essence, then His whole soul did enjoy fruition, inasmuch as it is the subject of the higher part of the soul, to which + it belongs, to enjoy the Godhead: so that as passion, by reason of the essence, is attributed to the higher part of the soul, + so, on the other hand, by + reason of the superior part of the soul, fruition is attributed to the essence. But if we take the whole soul as comprising + all its faculties, thus His entire soul did not enjoy fruition: not directly, indeed, because fruition is not the act of any + one part of the soul; nor by any overflow of glory, because, since Christ was still upon earth, there was no overflowing of + glory from the higher part into the lower, nor from the soul into the body. But since, on the contrary, the soul's higher + part + was not hindered in its proper acts by the lower, it follows that the higher part of His soul enjoyed fruition perfectly while + Christ was suffering. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The joy of fruition is not opposed directly to the grief of the Passion, because they have not the same object. Now nothing + prevents contraries from being in the same subject, but not according to the same. And so the joy of fruition can appertain + to the higher part of reason by its proper act; but grief of the Passion according to the subject. Grief of the Passion belongs + to the essence of the soul by reason of the body, whose form the soul is; + whereas the joy of fruition (belongs to the soul) by reason of the faculty in which it is subjected. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Philosopher's contention is true because of the overflow which takes place naturally of one faculty of the soul into + another; but it was not so with Christ, as was said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Such argument holds good of the totality of the soul with regard to its faculties. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A8-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A9.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A9" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A10.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A9-p0.1">Whether Christ suffered at a suitable time?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not suffer at a suitable time. For Christ's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifice of the + Paschal lamb: hence the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:7</a>): "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed." But the paschal lamb was slain "on the fourteenth day at eventide," as is stated in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.6" target="asv"> Ex. 12:6.</a> Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have suffered then; which is manifestly false: for He was then celebrating the + Pasch with His disciples, according to Mark's account (14:12): "On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed + the Pasch"; whereas it was on the following day that He suffered. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's Passion is called His uplifting, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.14" target="asv"> Jn. 3:14</a>: "So must the Son of man be lifted up." And Christ is Himself called the Sun of Justice, as we read + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Mal.4.2" target="asv"> Mal. 4:2.</a> Therefore it seems that He ought to have suffered at the sixth hour, when the sun is at its highest point, and yet the contrary + appears from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Mark.15.25" target="asv"> Mk. 15:25</a>: "It was the third hour, and they crucified Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as the sun is at its highest point in each day at the sixth hour, so also it reaches its highest point in every + year at the summer solstice. Therefore Christ ought to have suffered about the time of the summer solstice rather than about + the vernal equinox. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the world was enlightened by Christ's presence in it, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.9.5" target="asv"> Jn. 9:5</a>: "As long as I am in the world I am the light of the world." Consequently it was fitting for man's salvation that Christ + should have lived longer in the world, so that He should have suffered, not in young, but in old, age. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.13.1" target="asv">Jn. 13:1</a>): "Jesus, knowing that His hour was come for Him to pass out of this world to the Father"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.2.4" target="asv">Jn. 2:4</a>): "My hour is not yet come." Upon which texts Augustine observes: "When He had done as much as He deemed sufficient, then + came His hour, not of necessity, but of will, not of condition, but of power." Therefore Christ died at an opportune time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As was observed above + <a id="TP_Q46_A9-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, Christ's Passion was subject to His will. But His will was ruled by the Divine wisdom which "ordereth all things" conveniently + and "sweetly" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.8.1" target="asv">Wis. 8:1</a>). Consequently it must be said that Christ's Passion was enacted at an opportune time. Hence it is written in De Qq. Vet. + et Nov. Test., qu. lv: "The Saviour did everything in its proper place and season." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Some hold that Christ did die on the fourteenth day of the moon, when the Jews sacrificed the Pasch: hence it is stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.18.28" target="asv">Jn. 18:28</a>) that the Jews "went not into Pilate's hall" on the day of the Passion, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might + eat the Pasch." Upon this Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxii in Joan.): "The Jews celebrated the Pasch then; but He celebrated + the Pasch on the previous day, reserving His own + slaying until the Friday, when the old Pasch was kept." And this appears to tally with the statement ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p8.2" href="./asv.html#John.13.1" target="asv">Jn. 13:1-5</a>) that "before the festival day of the Pasch . . . when supper was done" . . . Christ washed "the feet of the disciples." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p9"> But Matthew's account (26:17) seems opposed to this; that "on the first day of the Azymes the disciples came to Jesus, saying: + Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pasch?" From which, as Jerome says, "since the fourteenth day of the first + month is called the day of the Azymes, when the lamb was slain, and when it was full moon," it is quite clear that Christ + kept the supper on the fourteenth and died on the fifteenth. And this comes out more clearly from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.14.12" target="asv"> + Mk. 14:12 + </a>: "On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch," etc.; and from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.7" target="asv"> Lk. 22:7</a>: "The day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the Pasch should be killed." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p10"> Consequently, then, others say that Christ ate the Pasch with His disciples on the proper day---that is, on the fourteenth + day of the moon---"showing thereby that up to the last day He was not opposed to the law," as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxi + in Matth.): but that the Jews, being busied in compassing Christ's death against the law, put off celebrating the Pasch until + the following day. And on this account it is said of them that on the day of Christ's Passion they were + unwilling to enter Pilate's hall, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pasch." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p11"> But even this solution does not tally with Mark, who says: "On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed + the Pasch." Consequently Christ and the Jews celebrated the ancient Pasch at the one time. And as Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.7" target="asv"> Lk. 22:7,8</a>: "Although Christ who is our Pasch was slain on the following day---that is, on the fifteenth day of the moon---nevertheless, + on the night when the Lamb was sacrificed, delivering to the disciples to be celebrated, + the mysteries of His body and blood, and being held and bound by the Jews, He hallowed the opening of His own immolation---that + is, of His Passion." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p12"> But the words ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.13.1" target="asv">Jn. 13:1</a>) "Before the festival day of the Pasch" are to be understood to refer to the fourteenth day of the moon, which then fell + upon the Thursday: for the fifteenth day of the moon was the most solemn day of the Pasch with the Jews: and so the same day + which John calls "before the festival day of the Pasch," on account of the natural distinction of days, Matthew calls the + first day of the unleavened bread, because, according to the rite of + the Jewish festivity, the solemnity began from the evening of the preceding day. When it is said, then, that they were going + to eat the Pasch on the fifteenth day of the month, it is to be understood that the Pasch there is not called the Paschal + lamb, which was sacrificed on the fourteenth day, but the Paschal food---that is, the unleavened bread---which had to be eaten + by the clean. Hence Chrysostom in the same passage gives another explanation, that the Pasch can be taken as meaning the + whole feast of the Jews, which lasted seven days. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): "'It was about the sixth hour' when the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be + crucified," as John relates. For it "was not quite the sixth hour, but about the sixth---that is, it was after the fifth, + and when part of the sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was ended---that the darkness began, when Christ hung + upon the cross. It is understood to have been the third hour when the Jews clamored for + the Lord to be crucified: and it is most clearly shown that they crucified Him when they clamored out. Therefore, lest anyone + might divert the thought of so great a crime from the Jews to the soldiers, he says: 'It was the third hour, and they crucified + Him,' that they before all may be found to have crucified Him, who at the third hour clamored for His crucifixion. Although + there are not wanting some persons who wish the Parasceve to be understood as the third hour, which John recalls, saying: + 'It was the Parasceve, about the sixth hour.' For 'Parasceve' is interpreted 'preparation.' But the true Pasch, which was + celebrated in the Lord's Passion, began to be prepared from the ninth hour of the night---namely, when the chief priests said: + 'He is deserving of death.'" According to John, then, "the sixth hour of the Parasceve" lasts from that hour of the night + down to Christ's crucifixion; while, according to Mark, it is the third hour of the day. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p14"> Still, there are some who contend that this discrepancy is due to the error of a Greek transcriber: since the characters + employed by them to represent 3 and 6 are somewhat alike. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. lv, "our Lord willed to redeem and reform the world by His Passion, + at the time of year at which He had created it---that is, at the equinox. It is then that day grows upon night; because by + our Saviour's Passion we are brought from darkness to light." And since the perfect enlightening will come about at Christ's + second coming, therefore the season of His second coming is compared + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.32" target="asv">Mat. 24:32,33</a>) to the summer in these words: "When the branch thereof is now tender, and the leaves come forth, you know that summer is + nigh: so you also, when you shall see all these things, know ye that it is nigh even at the doors." And then also shall be + Christ's greatest exaltation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ willed to suffer while yet young, for three reasons. First of all, to commend the more His love by giving up His life + for us when He was in His most perfect state of life. Secondly, because it was not becoming for Him to show any decay of nature + nor to be subject to disease, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q46_A9-p16.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A4.html">Q[14], A[4]</a>). Thirdly, that by dying and rising at an early age Christ might exhibit beforehand in His own person the future + condition of those who rise again. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A9-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.13" target="asv">Eph. 4:13</a>): "Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure + of the age of the fulness of Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p17"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A9-p18"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A10.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A10" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A11.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A10-p0.1">Whether Christ suffered in a suitable place?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not suffer in a suitable place. For Christ suffered according to His human nature, which was + conceived in Nazareth and born in Bethlehem. Consequently it seems that He ought not to have suffered in Jerusalem, but in + Nazareth or Bethlehem. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the reality ought to correspond with the figure. But Christ's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old + Law, and these were offered up in the Temple. Therefore it seems that Christ ought to have suffered in the Temple, and not + outside the city gate. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the medicine should correspond with the disease. But Christ's Passion was the medicine against Adam's sin: and Adam + was not buried in Jerusalem, but in Hebron; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A10-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Josh.14.15" target="asv">Josh. 14:15</a>): "The name of Hebron before was called Cariath-Arbe: Adam the greatest in the land of [Vulg.: 'among'] the Enacims was laid + there." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A10-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.13.33" target="asv">Lk. 13:33</a>): "It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." Therefore it was fitting that He should die in Jerusalem. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. lv, "the Saviour did everything in its proper place and season," + because, as all things are in His hands, so are all places: and consequently, since Christ suffered at a suitable time, so + did He in a suitable place. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ died most appropriately in Jerusalem. First of all, because Jerusalem was God's chosen place for the offering of sacrifices + to Himself: and these figurative sacrifices foreshadowed Christ's Passion, which is a true sacrifice, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A10-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv"> Eph. 5:2</a>: "He hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness." Hence Bede says in a Homily + (xxiii): "When the Passion drew nigh, our Lord willed + to draw nigh to the place of the Passion"---that is to say, to Jerusalem---whither He came five days before the Pasch; just + as, according to the legal precept, the Paschal lamb was led to the place of immolation five days before the Pasch, which + is the tenth day of the moon. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p8"> Secondly, because the virtue of His Passion was to be spread over the whole world, He wished to suffer in the center of the + habitable world---that is, in Jerusalem. Accordingly it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A10-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.73.12" target="asv">Ps. 73:12</a>): "But God is our King before ages: He hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth"---that is, in Jerusalem, which is + called "the navel of the earth" [*Cf. Jerome's comment on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A10-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Ezek.5.5" target="asv"> Ezech. 5:5</a>]. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p9"> Thirdly, because it was specially in keeping with His humility: that, as He chose the most shameful manner of death, so likewise + it was part of His humility that He did not refuse to suffer in so celebrated a place. Hence Pope Leo says (Serm. I in Epiph.): + "He who had taken upon Himself the form of a servant chose Bethlehem for His nativity and Jerusalem for His Passion." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p10"> Fourthly, He willed to suffer in Jerusalem, where the chief priests dwelt, to show that the wickedness of His slayers arose + from the chiefs of the Jewish people. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A10-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.4.27" target="asv">Acts 4:27</a>): "There assembled together in this city against Thy holy child Jesus whom Thou hast anointed, Herod, and Pontius Pilate, + with the Gentiles and the people of Israel." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> For three reasons Christ suffered outside the gate, and not in the Temple nor in the city. First of all, that the truth might + correspond with the figure. For the calf and the goat which were offered in most solemn sacrifice for expiation on behalf + of the entire multitude were burnt outside the camp, as commanded in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A10-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.16.27" target="asv"> Lev. 16:27.</a> Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A10-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.27" target="asv">Heb. 13:27</a>): "For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is + brought into the holies by the high-priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify + the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p12"> Secondly, to set us the example of shunning worldly conversation. Accordingly the passage continues: "Let us go forth therefore + to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p13"> Thirdly, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Passion (Hom. i De Cruce et Latrone): "The Lord was not willing to suffer + under a roof, nor in the Jewish Temple, lest the Jews might take away the saving sacrifice, and lest you might think He was + offered for that people only. Consequently, it was beyond the city and outside the walls, that you may learn it was a universal + sacrifice, an oblation for the whole world, a cleansing for all." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to Jerome, in his commentary on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A10-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.33" target="asv"> Mat. 27:33, </a> "someone explained 'the place of Calvary' as being the place where Adam was buried; and that it was so called because the + skull of the first man was buried there. A pleasing interpretation indeed, and one suited to catch the ear of the people, + but, still, not the true one. For the spots where the condemned are beheaded are outside the city and beyond the gates, deriving + thence + the name of Calvary---that is, of the beheaded. Jesus, accordingly, was crucified there, that the standards of martyrdom might + be uplifted over what was formerly the place of the condemned. But Adam was buried close by Hebron and Arbe, as we read in + the book of Jesus Ben Nave." But Jesus was to be crucified in the common spot of the condemned rather than beside Adam's sepulchre, + to make it manifest that Christ's cross was the remedy, not only for Adam's personal sin, but also for the sin of the + entire world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p15"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A10-p16"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A9.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A11.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A11" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A12.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A11-p0.1">Whether it was fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been crucified with thieves, because it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A11-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:14</a>): "What participation hath justice with injustice?" But for our sakes Christ "of God is made unto us justice" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A11-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.30" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:30</a>); whereas iniquity applies to thieves. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be crucified with thieves. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A11-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.35" target="asv"> Mat. 26:35, </a> "Though I should die with Thee, I will not deny Thee," Origen (Tract. xxxv in Matth.) observes: "It was not men's lot to + die with Jesus, since He died for all." Again, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A11-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.33" target="asv"> Lk. 22:33, </a> "I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison and death," Ambrose says: "Our Lord's Passion has followers, but not equals." + It seems, then, much less fitting for Christ to suffer with thieves. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A11-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.44" target="asv">Mat. 27:44</a>) that "the thieves who were crucified with Him reproached Him." But in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A11-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.42" target="asv"> Lk. 22:42 </a>it is stated that one of them who were crucified with Christ cried out to Him: "Lord, remember me when Thou shalt come into + Thy kingdom." It seems, then, that besides the blasphemous thieves there was another man who did not blaspheme Him: and so + the Evangelist's account does not seem to be accurate when + it says that Christ was crucified with thieves. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It was foretold by Isaias (53:12): "And He was reputed with the wicked." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ was crucified between thieves from one intention on the part of the Jews, and from quite another on the part of God's + ordaining. As to the intention of the Jews, Chrysostom remarks (Hom. lxxxvii in Matth.) that they crucified the two thieves, + one on either side, "that He might be made to share their guilt. But it did not happen so; because mention is never made of + them; whereas His cross is honored everywhere. Kings lay aside their crowns to take up + the cross: on their purple robes, on their diadems, on their weapons, on the consecrated table, everywhere the cross shines + forth." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p7"> As to God's ordinance, Christ was crucified with thieves, because, as Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A11-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.33" target="asv"> Mat. 27:33</a>: "As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, so for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty." + Secondly, as Pope Leo observes (Serm. iv de Passione): "Two thieves were crucified, one on His right hand and one on His left, + to set forth by the very appearance of the gibbet that separation of all men which shall be made in His hour of + judgment." And Augustine on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A11-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.7.36" target="asv"> Jn. 7:36</a>: "The very cross, if thou mark it well, was a judgment-seat: for the judge being set in the midst, the one who believed was + delivered, the other who mocked Him was condemned. Already He has signified what He shall do to the quick and the dead; some + He will set on His right, others on His left hand." Thirdly, according to Hilary (Comm. xxxiii in Matth.): "Two thieves are + set, one upon His right and one upon His left, to show that all + mankind is called to the sacrament of His Passion. But because of the cleavage between believers and unbelievers, the multitude + is divided into right and left, those on the right being saved by the justification of faith." Fourthly, because, as Bede + says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A11-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Mark.15.27" target="asv"> Mk. 15:27</a>: "The thieves crucified with our Lord denote those who, believing in and confessing Christ, either endure the conflict of + martyrdom or keep the institutes of stricter observance. But those who do the like for + the sake of everlasting glory are denoted by the faith of the thief on the right; while others who do so for the sake of human + applause copy the mind and behavior of the one on the left." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as Christ was not obliged to die, but willingly submitted to death so as to vanquish death by His power: so neither + deserved He to be classed with thieves; but willed to be reputed with the ungodly that He might destroy ungodliness by His + power. Accordingly, Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxiv in Joan.) that "to convert the thief upon the cross, and lead him into paradise, + was no less a wonder than to shake the rocks." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It was not fitting that anyone else should die with Christ from the same cause as Christ: hence Origen continues thus in + the same passage: "All had been under sin, and all required that another should die for them, not they for others." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): We can understand Matthew "as putting the plural for the singular" when he said + "the thieves reproached Him." Or it may be said, with Jerome, that "at first both blasphemed Him, but afterwards one believed + in Him on witnessing the wonders." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A11-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A10.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A12.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q46_A12" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q46_A12-p0.1">Whether Christ's Passion is to be attributed to His Godhead?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Passion is to be attributed to His Godhead; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A12-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.8" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:8</a>): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." But Christ is the Lord of glory in respect of + His Godhead. Therefore Christ's Passion is attributed to Him in respect of His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the principle of men's salvation is the Godhead Itself, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q46_A12-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.36.39" target="asv"> Ps. 36:39</a>: "But the salvation of the just is from the Lord." Consequently, if Christ's Passion did not appertain to His Godhead, it + would seem that it could not produce fruit in us. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Jews were punished for slaying Christ as for murdering God Himself; as is proved by the gravity of the punishment. + Now this would not be so if the Passion were not attributed to the Godhead. Therefore Christ's Passion should be so attributed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.): "The Word is impassible whose Nature is Divine." But what is impassible cannot suffer. Consequently, + Christ's Passion did not concern His Godhead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q46_A12-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A1.html">Q[2], AA[1]</a>,2,3,6), the union of the human nature with the Divine was effected in the Person, in the hypostasis, in the suppositum, yet + observing the distinction of natures; so that it is the same Person and hypostasis of the Divine and human natures, while + each nature retains that which is proper to it. And therefore, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q46_A12-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A4.html">Q[16], A[4]</a>), the Passion is to be attributed to the + suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of the Divine Nature, which is impassible, but by reason of the human nature. + Hence, in a Synodal Epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes., P. i, cap. 26] we read: "If any man does not confess that the Word + of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh, let him be anathema." Therefore Christ's Passion belongs to the + "suppositum" of the Divine Nature by reason of the passible nature assumed, but not on account of the impassible Divine + Nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not as the Lord of glory, but as a man capable of suffering. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As is said in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus [*P. iii, cap. 10], "Christ's death being, as it were, God's death"---namely, + by union in Person---"destroyed death"; since He who suffered "was both God and man. For God's Nature was not wounded, nor + did It undergo any change by those sufferings." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the passage quoted goes on to say: "The Jews did not crucify one who was simply a man; they inflicted their presumptions + upon God. For suppose a prince to speak by word of mouth, and that his words are committed to writing on a parchment and sent + out to the cities, and that some rebel tears up the document, he will be led forth to endure the death sentence, not for merely + tearing up a document, but as destroying the imperial message. Let not the + Jew, then, stand in security, as crucifying a mere man; since what he saw was as the parchment, but what was hidden under + it was the imperial Word, the Son by nature, not the mere utterance of a tongue." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q46_A12-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A11.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q45_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q47" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q47-p0.1">OF THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF CHRIST'S PASSION (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q47-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47-p2"> We have now to consider the efficient cause of Christ's Passion, concerning which there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q47-p3"> (1) Whether Christ was slain by others, or by Himself?</p> + <p id="TP_Q47-p4"> (2) From what motive did He deliver Himself up to the Passion?</p> + <p id="TP_Q47-p5"> (3) Whether the Father delivered Him up to suffer?</p> + <p id="TP_Q47-p6"> (4) Whether it was fitting that He should suffer at the hands of the Gentiles, or rather of the Jews?</p> + <p id="TP_Q47-p7"> (5) Whether His slayers knew who He was?</p> + <p id="TP_Q47-p8"> (6) Of the sin of them who slew Christ.</p> + <div id="TP_Q47_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q47_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ was slain by another or by Himself?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was not slain by another, but by Himself. For He says Himself ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.18" target="asv">Jn. 10:18</a>): "No men taketh My life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself." But he is said to kill another who takes away his life. Consequently, + Christ was not slain by others, but by Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those slain by others sink gradually from exhausted nature, and this is strikingly apparent in the crucified: for, + as Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "Those who were crucified were tormented with a lingering death." But this did not happen + in Christ's case, since "crying out, with a loud voice, He yielded up the ghost" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.50" target="asv">Mat. 27:50</a>). Therefore Christ was not slain by others, but by Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, those slain by others suffer a violent death, and hence die unwillingly, because violent is opposed to voluntary. + But Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "Christ's spirit did not quit the flesh unwillingly, but because He willed it, when He willed + it, and as He willed it." Consequently Christ was not slain by others, but by Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.18.33" target="asv">Lk. 18:33</a>): "After they have scourged Him, they will put him to death." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A thing may cause an effect in two ways: in the first instance by acting directly so as to produce the effect; and in this + manner Christ's persecutors slew Him because they inflicted on Him what was a sufficient cause of death, and with the intention + of slaying Him, and the effect followed, since death resulted from that cause. In another way someone causes an effect indirectly---that + is, by not preventing it when he can do so; just as one person is said to + drench another by not closing the window through which the shower is entering: and in this way Christ was the cause of His + own Passion and death. For He could have prevented His Passion and death. Firstly, by holding His enemies in check, so that + they would not have been eager to slay Him, or would have been powerless to do so. Secondly, because His spirit had the power + of preserving His fleshly nature from the infliction of any injury; and Christ's soul had this power, because it was united + in + unity of person with the Divine Word, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv). Therefore, since Christ's soul did not repel the injury + inflicted on His body, but willed His corporeal nature to succumb to such injury, He is said to have laid down His life, or + to have died voluntarily. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When we hear the words, "No man taketh away My life from Me," we must understand "against My will": for that is properly + said to be "taken away" which one takes from someone who is unwilling and unable to resist. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In order for Christ to show that the Passion inflicted by violence did not take away His life, He preserved the strength + of His bodily nature, so that at the last moment He was able to cry out with a loud voice: and hence His death should be computed + among His other miracles. Accordingly it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.15.39" target="asv">Mk. 15:39</a>): "And the centurion who stood over against Him, seeing that crying out in this manner, He had given up the ghost, said: + Indeed, this man was the Son of God." It was also a subject of wonder in Christ's death that He died sooner than the others + who were tormented with the same suffering. Hence John says (19:32) that "they broke the legs of the first, and of the other + that was crucified with Him," that they might die more speedily; "but after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that He + was already dead, they did not break His legs." Mark also states (15:44) that "Pilate wondered that He should be already dead." + For as of His own will His bodily nature kept its vigor to the end, so likewise, when He willed, He suddenly succumbed to + the injury inflicted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ at the same time suffered violence in order to die, and died, nevertheless, voluntarily; because violence was inflicted + on His body, which, however, prevailed over His body only so far as He willed it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q47_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q47_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ died out of obedience?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not die out of obedience. For obedience is referred to a command. But we do not read that Christ + was commanded to suffer. Therefore He did not suffer out of obedience. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a man is said to do from obedience what he does from necessity of precept. But Christ did not suffer necessarily, + but voluntarily. Therefore He did not suffer out of obedience. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, charity is a more excellent virtue than obedience. But we read that Christ suffered out of charity, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv"> Eph. 5:2</a>: "Walk in love, as Christ also has loved us, and delivered Himself up for us." Therefore Christ's Passion ought to be ascribed + rather to charity than to obedience. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv">Phil. 2:8</a>): "He became obedient" to the Father "unto death." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was befitting that Christ should suffer out of obedience. First of all, because it was in keeping with human justification, + that "as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just," + as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.19" target="asv"> Rom. 5:19.</a> Secondly, it was suitable for reconciling man with God: hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.10" target="asv">Rom. 5:10</a>): "We are reconciled to God by the death of His Son," in so + far as Christ's death was a most acceptable sacrifice to God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv"> Eph. 5:2</a>: "He delivered Himself for us an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness." Now obedience is preferred to + all sacrifices. according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p6.4" href="./asv.html#iKgs.15.22" target="asv">1 Kings 15:22</a>: "Obedience is better than sacrifices." Therefore it was fitting that the sacrifice of Christ's Passion and death should + proceed from obedience. Thirdly, it was in keeping with His victory whereby He triumphed + over death and its author; because a soldier cannot conquer unless he obey his captain. And so the Man-Christ secured the + victory through being obedient to God, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Prov.21.28" target="asv"> Prov. 21:28</a>: "An obedient man shall speak of victory." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ received a command from the Father to suffer. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.18" target="asv">Jn. 10:18</a>): "I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it up again: (and) this commandment have I received of My Father"---namely, + of laying down His life and of resuming it again. "From which," as Chrysostom says (Hom. lix in Joan.), it is not to be understood + "that at first He awaited the command, and that He had need to be told, but He + showed the proceeding to be a voluntary one, and destroyed suspicion of opposition" to the Father. Yet because the Old Law + was ended by Christ's death, according to His dying words, "It is consummated" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.19.30" target="asv">Jn. 19:30</a>), it may be understood that by His suffering He fulfilled all the precepts of the Old Law. He fulfilled those of the moral + order which are founded on the precepts of charity, inasmuch as He suffered both out of love of the Father, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p7.3" href="./asv.html#John.14.31" target="asv"> Jn. + 14:31 + </a>: "That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father hath given Me commandment, so do I: arise, let us go + hence"---namely, to the place of His Passion: and out of love of His neighbor, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Gal.2.20" target="asv"> Gal. 2:20</a>: "He loved me, and delivered Himself up for me." Christ likewise by His Passion fulfilled the ceremonial precepts of the + Law, which are chiefly ordained for sacrifices and oblations, in so far as all the ancient sacrifices were figures of + that true sacrifice which the dying Christ offered for us. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p7.5" href="./asv.html#Col.2.16" target="asv">Col. 2:16,17</a>): "Let no man judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which + are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's," for the reason that Christ is compared to them as a body is to + a shadow. Christ also by His Passion fulfilled the judicial precepts of the Law, which are chiefly ordained for making compensation + to them + who have suffered wrong, since, as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p7.6" href="./asv.html#Ps.68.5" target="asv"> Ps. 68:5</a>: He "paid that which" He "took not away," suffering Himself to be fastened to a tree on account of the apple which man had + plucked from the tree against God's command. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although obedience implies necessity with regard to the thing commanded, nevertheless it implies free-will with regard to + the fulfilling of the precept. And, indeed, such was Christ's obedience, for, although His Passion and death, considered in + themselves, were repugnant to the natural will, yet Christ resolved to fulfill God's will with respect to the same, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.39.9" target="asv"> Ps. 39:9</a>: "That I should do Thy will: O my God, I have + desired it." Hence He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.42" target="asv">Mat. 26:42</a>): "If this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, Thy will be done." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> For the same reason Christ suffered out of charity and out of obedience; because He fulfilled even the precepts of charity + out of obedience only; and was obedient, out of love, to the Father's command. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q47_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q47_A3-p0.1">Whether God the Father delivered up Christ to the Passion?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that God the Father did not deliver up Christ to the Passion. For it is a wicked and cruel act to hand over + an innocent man to torment and death. But, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.4" target="asv">Dt. 32:4</a>): "God is faithful, and without any iniquity." Therefore He did not hand over the innocent Christ to His Passion and death. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is not likely that a man be given over to death by himself and by another also. But Christ gave Himself up for + us, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.12" target="asv">Is. 53:12</a>): "He hath delivered His soul unto death." Consequently it does not appear that God the Father delivered Him up. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Judas is held to be guilty because he betrayed Christ to the Jews, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.71" target="asv"> Jn. 6:71</a>: "One of you is a devil," alluding to Judas, who was to betray Him. The Jews are likewise reviled for delivering Him up to + Pilate; as we read in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.18.35" target="asv"> Jn. 18:35</a>: "Thy own nation, and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me." Moreover, as is related in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p4.3" href="./asv.html#John.19.16" target="asv"> Jn. 19:16</a>: Pilate "delivered Him to them to be + crucified"; and according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p4.4" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:14</a>: there is no "participation of justice with injustice." It seems, therefore, that God the Father did not deliver up Christ + to His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.32" target="asv">Rom. 8:32</a>): "God hath not spared His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As observed above + <a id="TP_Q47_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q47_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, Christ suffered voluntarily out of obedience to the Father. Hence in three respects God the Father did deliver up Christ + to the Passion. In the first way, because by His eternal will He preordained Christ's Passion for the deliverance of the human + race, according to the words of Isaias (53:6): "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquities of us all"; and again ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.10" target="asv">Is. 53:10</a>): "The Lord was + pleased to bruise Him in infirmity." Secondly, inasmuch as, by the infusion of charity, He inspired Him with the will to suffer + for us; hence we read in the same passage: "He was offered because it was His own will" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.7" target="asv">Is. 53:7</a>). Thirdly, by not shielding Him from the Passion, but abandoning Him to His persecutors: thus we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.46" target="asv">Mat. 27:46</a>) that Christ, while hanging upon the cross, cried out: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" because, to wit, + He left Him to the power of His persecutors, as Augustine says (Ep. cxl). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It is indeed a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent man to torment and to death against his will. Yet God the Father + did not so deliver up Christ, but inspired Him with the will to suffer for us. God's "severity" (cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.22" target="asv"> Rom. 11:22</a>) is thereby shown, for He would not remit sin without penalty: and the Apostle indicates this when ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.32" target="asv">Rom. 8:32</a>) he says: "God spared not even His own Son." Likewise His "goodness" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.22" target="asv">Rom. + 11:22 + </a>) shines forth, since by no penalty endured could man pay Him enough satisfaction: and the Apostle denotes this when he says: + "He delivered Him up for us all": and, again ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A3-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv">Rom. 3:25</a>): "Whom"---that is to say, Christ---God "hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ as God delivered Himself up to death by the same will and action as that by which the Father delivered Him up; but + as man He gave Himself up by a will inspired of the Father. Consequently there is no contrariety in the Father delivering + Him up and in Christ delivering Himself up. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The same act, for good or evil, is judged differently, accordingly as it proceeds from a different source. The Father delivered + up Christ, and Christ surrendered Himself, from charity, and consequently we give praise to both: but Judas betrayed Christ + from greed, the Jews from envy, and Pilate from worldly fear, for he stood in fear of Caesar; and these accordingly are held + guilty. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q47_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q47_A4-p0.1">Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer at the hands of the Gentiles?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting that Christ should suffer at the hands of the Gentiles. For since men were to be freed from sin by + Christ's death, it would seem fitting that very few should sin in His death. But the Jews sinned in His death, on whose behalf + it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.38" target="asv">Mat. 21:38</a>): "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." It seems fitting, therefore, that the Gentiles should not be implicated in the + sin of Christ's slaying. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the truth should respond to the figure. Now it was not the Gentiles but the Jews who offered the figurative sacrifices + of the Old Law. Therefore neither ought Christ's Passion, which was a true sacrifice, to be fulfilled at the hands of the + Gentiles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.18" target="asv"> Jn. 5:18, </a> "the Jews sought to kill" Christ because "He did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was His Father, making Himself + equal to God." But these things seemed to be only against the Law of the Jews: hence they themselves said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A4-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.19.7" target="asv">Jn. 19:7</a>): "According to the Law He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God." It seems fitting, therefore, that Christ + should suffer, at the hands + not of the Gentiles, but of the Jews, and that what they said was untrue: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death," + since many sins are punishable with death according to the Law, as is evident from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A4-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Lev.20" target="asv">Lev. 20</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.20.19" target="asv">Mat. 20:19</a>): "They shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The effect of Christ's Passion was foreshown by the very manner of His death. For Christ's Passion wrought its effect of + salvation first of all among the Jews, very many of whom were baptized in His death, as is evident from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.41" target="asv"> Acts 2:41 </a>and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.4.4" target="asv"> Acts 4:4.</a> Afterwards, by the preaching of Jews, Christ's Passion passed on to the Gentiles. Consequently it was fitting that Christ + should begin His sufferings at the hands of the + Jews, and, after they had delivered Him up, finish His Passion at the hands of the Gentiles. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> In order to demonstrate the fulness of His love, on account of which He suffered, Christ upon the cross prayed for His persecutors. + Therefore, that the fruits of His petition might accrue to Jews and Gentiles, Christ willed to suffer from both. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's Passion was the offering of a sacrifice, inasmuch as He endured death of His own free-will out of charity: but in + so far as He suffered from His persecutors it was not a sacrifice, but a most grievous sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Tract. cxiv in Joan.): "The Jews said that 'it is not lawful for us to put any man to death,' because + they understood that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death" owing to the sacredness of the feast-day, which they + had already begun to celebrate. or, as Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxiii in Joan.), because they wanted Him to be slain, not + as a transgressor of the Law, but as a public enemy, since He had made Himself out + to be a king, of which it was not their place to judge. Or, again, because it was not lawful for them to crucify Him (as they + wanted to), but to stone Him, as they did to Stephen. Better still is it to say that the power of putting to death was taken + from them by the Romans, whose subjects they were. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q47_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q47_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ's persecutors knew who He was?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's persecutors did know who He was. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.38" target="asv">Mat. 21:38</a>) that the husbandmen seeing the son said within themselves: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." On this Jerome remarks: + "Our Lord proves most manifestly by these words that the rulers of the Jews crucified the Son of God, not from ignorance, + but out of envy: for they understood that it was He to whom the Father says by the Prophet: 'Ask of Me, + and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance.'" It seems, therefore, that they knew Him to be Christ or the Son of + God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.24" target="asv">Jn. 15:24</a>): "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Now what is seen is known manifestly. Therefore the Jews, + knowing Christ, inflicted the Passion on Him out of hatred. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is said in a sermon delivered in the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, cap. x): "Just as he who tears up the imperial + message is doomed to die, as despising the prince's word; so the Jew, who crucified Him whom he had seen, will pay the penalty + for daring to lay his hands on God the Word Himself." Now this would not be so had they not known Him to be the Son of God, + because their ignorance would have excused them. Therefore it seems that the Jews in + crucifying Christ knew Him to be the Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.8" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:8</a>): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." And ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.3.17" target="asv">Acts 3:17</a>), Peter, addressing the Jews, says: "I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your rulers." Likewise the Lord + hanging upon the cross said: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.34" target="asv">Lk. 23:34</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Among the Jews some were elders, and others of lesser degree. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. + lxvi, the elders, who were called "rulers, knew," as did also the devils, "that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for + they saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to pass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead." + Consequently the Apostle says: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the + Lord of glory." It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it + were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead; yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; + neither would they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God. Hence He Himself says of them ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.15.22" target="asv">Jn. 15:22</a>): "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for + their sin." And afterwards He adds ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.15.24" target="asv">Jn. 15:24</a>): "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin." And so the expression employed + by Job (21:14) can be accepted on their behalf: "(Who) said to God: depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p7"> But those of lesser degree---namely, the common folk---who had not grasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully + comprehend that He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them believed in Him, yet the multitude did not; + and if they doubted sometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs and force of His teaching, as is + stated + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.7.31" target="asv"> Jn. 7:31,41, </a> nevertheless they were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they + did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to them: "I know that you did it through ignorance, + as did also your rulers"---namely, because they were seduced by the rulers. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Those words are spoken by the husbandmen of the vineyard; and these signify the rulers of the people, who knew Him to be + the heir, inasmuch as they knew Him to be the Christ promised in the Law, but the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.2.8" target="asv"> Ps. 2:8 </a>seem to militate against this answer: "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance"; which are addressed + to Him of whom it is said: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." If, then, + they knew Him to be the one to whom the words were addressed: "Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance," + it follows that they knew Him to be the Son of God. Chrysostom, too, says upon the same passage that "they knew Him to be + the Son of God." Bede likewise, commenting on the words, "For they know not what they do" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A5-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.34" target="asv">Lk. 23:34</a>), says: "It is to be observed that He does not pray for them who, understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify + Him rather than + acknowledge Him." But to this it may be replied that they knew Him to be the Son of God, not from His Nature, but from the + excellence of His singular grace. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p9"> Yet we may hold that they are said to have known also that He was verily the Son of God, in that they had evident signs thereof: + yet out of hatred and envy, they refused credence to these signs, by which they might have known that He was the Son of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The words quoted are preceded by the following: "If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they + would not have sin"; and then follow the words: "But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Now all this + shows that while they beheld Christ's marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not know Him to be the Son + of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems, rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so strongly + attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only + of the Man-Christ, but also as of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A5-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q47_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q47_A6-p0.1">Whether the sin of those who crucified Christ was most grievous?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the sin of Christ's crucifiers was not the most grievous. Because the sin which has some excuse cannot + be most grievous. But our Lord Himself excused the sin of His crucifiers when He said: "Father, forgive them: for they know + not what they do" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.34" target="asv">Lk. 23:34</a>). Therefore theirs was not the most grievous sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, our Lord said to Pilate ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.19.11" target="asv">Jn. 19:11</a>): "He that hath delivered Me to thee hath the greater sin." But it was Pilate who caused Christ to be crucified by his minions. + Therefore the sin of Judas the traitor seems to be greater than that of those who crucified Him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v): "No one suffers injustice willingly"; and in the same place he adds: "Where + no one suffers injustice, nobody works injustice." Consequently nobody wreaks injustice upon a willing subject. But Christ + suffered willingly, as was shown above ( + <a id="TP_Q47_A6-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q47_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2). Therefore those who crucified Christ did Him no injustice; and hence their sin was not the most grievous. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Chrysostom, commenting on the words, "Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.23.32" target="asv">Mat. 23:32</a>), says: "In very truth they exceeded the measure of their fathers; for these latter slew men, but they crucified God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q47_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q47_A5.html">(A[5])</a>, the rulers of the Jews knew that He was the Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, it was affected ignorance, which + could not excuse them. Therefore their sin was the most grievous, both on account of the kind of sin, as well as from the + malice of their will. The Jews also of the common order sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one respect + their crime was lessened by reason of + their ignorance. Hence Bede, commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.34" target="asv">Lk. 23:34</a>, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," says: "He prays for them who know not what they are doing, as having + the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." But the sin of the Gentiles, by whose hands He was crucified, was much more + excusable, since they had no knowledge of the Law. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above, the excuse made by our Lord is not to be referred to the rulers among the Jews, but to the common people. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Judas did not deliver up Christ to Pilate, but to the chief priests who gave Him up to Pilate, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.18.35" target="asv"> Jn. 18:35</a>: "Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me." But the sin of all these was greater than that of Pilate, + who slew Christ from fear of Caesar; and even greater than the sin of the soldiers who crucified Him at the governor's bidding, + not out of cupidity like Judas, nor from envy and hate like + the chief priests. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ, indeed willed His Passion just as the Father willed it; yet He did not will the unjust action of the Jews. Consequently + Christ's slayers are not excused of their injustice. Nevertheless, whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain, + but likewise to God and to the State; just as he who kills himself, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v). Hence it was that + David condemned to death the man who "did not fear to lay hands upon the + Lord's anointed," even though he (Saul) had requested it, as related + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q47_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iiKgdms.1.5" target="asv">2 Kings 1:5-14.</a> + </p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q47_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q46_A12.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q48" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q48-p0.1">OF THE EFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S PASSION (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q48-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48-p2"> We now have to consider Christ's Passion as to its effect; first of all, as to the manner in which it was brought about; + and, secondly, as to the effect in itself. Under the first heading there are six points for inquiry: + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48-p3"> (1) Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of merit?</p> + <p id="TP_Q48-p4"> (2) Whether it was by way of atonement?</p> + <p id="TP_Q48-p5"> (3) Whether it was by way of sacrifice?</p> + <p id="TP_Q48-p6"> (4) Whether it was by way of redemption?</p> + <p id="TP_Q48-p7"> (5) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer?</p> + <p id="TP_Q48-p8"> (6) Whether (the Passion) secured man's salvation efficiently?</p> + <div id="TP_Q48_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q48_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of merit?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation by way of merit. For the sources of our sufferings + are not within us. But no one merits or is praised except for that whose principle lies within him. Therefore Christ's Passion + wrought nothing by way of merit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, from the beginning of His conception Christ merited for Himself and for us, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q48_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q9_A4.html">Q[9], A[4]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q48_A1-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A3.html"> Q[34], A[3]</a>). But it is superfluous to merit over again what has been merited before. Therefore by His Passion Christ did not merit our + salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the source of merit is charity. But Christ's charity was not made greater by the Passion than it was before. Therefore + He did not merit our salvation by suffering more than He had already. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> on the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.9" target="asv"> Phil. 2:9, </a> "Therefore God exalted Him," etc., Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "The lowliness" of the Passion "merited glory; glory + was the reward of lowliness." But He was glorified, not merely in Himself, but likewise in His faithful ones, as He says Himself + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.17.10" target="asv">Jn. 17:10</a>). Therefore it appears that He merited the salvation of the faithful. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q48_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q7_A1.html">Q[7], AA[1]</a>,9; + <a id="TP_Q48_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html"> Q[8], AA[1]</a>,5), grace was bestowed upon Christ, not only as an individual, but inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, so that it might + overflow into His members; and therefore Christ's works are referred to Himself and to His members in the same way as the + works of any other man in a state of grace are referred to himself. But it is evident that whosoever suffers for justice's + sake, provided that he be in a state of grace, merits his salvation thereby, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.10" target="asv"> Mat. 5:10</a>: "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake." Consequently Christ by His Passion merited salvation, not + only for Himself, but likewise for all His members. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Suffering, as such, is caused by an outward principle: but inasmuch as one bears it willingly, it has an inward principle. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> From the beginning of His conception Christ merited our eternal salvation; but on our side there were some obstacles, whereby + we were hindered from securing the effect of His preceding merits: consequently, in order to remove such hindrances, "it was + necessary for Christ to suffer," as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q48_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A3.html">Q[46], A[3]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's Passion has a special effect, which His preceding merits did not possess, not on account of greater charity, but + because of the nature of the work, which was suitable for such an effect, as is clear from the arguments brought forward above + all the fittingness of Christ's Passion (Q[46], AA, 3,4). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q48_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q48_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation by way of atonement. For it seems that to make the + atonement devolves on him who commits the sin; as is clear in the other parts of penance, because he who has done the wrong + must grieve over it and confess it. But Christ never sinned, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.22" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:22</a>: "Who did no sin." Therefore He made no atonement by His personal suffering. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no atonement is made to another by committing a graver offense. But in Christ's Passion the gravest of all offenses + was perpetrated, because those who slew Him sinned most grievously, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q48_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q47_A6.html">Q[47], A[6]</a>). Consequently it seems that atonement could not be made to God by Christ's Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, atonement implies equality with the trespass, since it is an act of justice. But Christ's Passion does not appear + equal to all the sins of the human race, because Christ did not suffer in His Godhead, but in His flesh, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.4.1" target="asv">1 Pet. 4:1</a>: "Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh." Now the soul, which is the subject of sin, is of greater account than the + flesh. Therefore Christ did not atone for our sins by His + Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.68.5" target="asv">Ps. 68:5</a>) in Christ's person: "Then did I pay that which I took not away." But he has not paid who has not fully atoned. Therefore + it appears that Christ by His suffering has fully atoned for our sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested + the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense + of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the + dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who + was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above + ( + <a id="TP_Q48_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A6.html">Q[46], A[6]</a>). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.2" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:2</a>: "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The head and members are as one mystic person; and therefore Christ's satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His + members. Also, in so far as any two men are one in charity, the one can atone for the other as shall be shown later ( + <a id="TP_Q48_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q13_A2.html">XP, Q[13], A[2]</a>). But the same reason does not hold good of confession and contrition, because atonement consists in an outward action, for + which helps may be used, among which friends are + to be computed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's love was greater than His slayers' malice: and therefore the value of His Passion in atoning surpassed the murderous + guilt of those who crucified Him: so much so that Christ's suffering was sufficient and superabundant atonement for His murderer's + crime. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The dignity of Christ's flesh is not to be estimated solely from the nature of flesh, but also from the Person assuming it---namely, + inasmuch as it was God's flesh, the result of which was that it was of infinite worth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q48_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q48_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ's Passion operated by way of sacrifice?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Passion did not operate by way of sacrifice. For the truth should correspond with the figure. + But human flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the Old Law, which were figures of Christ: nay, such sacrifices + were reputed as impious, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.105.38" target="asv"> Ps. 105:38</a>: "And they shed innocent blood: the blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan." + It seems therefore + that Christ's Passion cannot be called a sacrifice. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x) that "a visible sacrifice is a sacrament---that is, a sacred sign---of an invisible + sacrifice." Now Christ's Passion is not a sign, but rather the thing signified by other signs. Therefore it seems that Christ's + Passion is not a sacrifice. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred rite, as the very word "sacrifice" shows. But those men who slew Christ + did not perform any sacred act, but rather wrought a great wrong. Therefore Christ's Passion was rather a malefice than a + sacrifice. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv">Eph. 5:2</a>): "He delivered Himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him: and + hence it is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): "A true sacrifice is every good work done in order that we may cling to God + in holy fellowship, yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we can be truly blessed." But, as is added in the + same place, "Christ offered Himself up for us in the Passion": and this voluntary + enduring of the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from charity. Therefore it is manifest that Christ's Passion + was a true sacrifice. Moreover, as Augustine says farther on in the same book, "the primitive sacrifices of the holy Fathers + were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, one being prefigured by many, in the same way as a single concept of thought + is expressed in many words, in order to commend it without tediousness": and, as Augustine observe, (De Trin. iv), "since + there are four things to be noted in every sacrifice---to wit, to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, + and for whom it is offered---that the same one true Mediator reconciling us with God through the peace-sacrifice might continue + to be one with Him to whom He offered it, might be one with them for whom He offered it, and might Himself be the offerer + and what He offered." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the truth answers to the figure in some respects, yet it does not in all, since the truth must go beyond the figure. + Therefore the figure of this sacrifice, in which Christ's flesh is offered, was flesh right fittingly, not the flesh of men, + but of animals, as denoting Christ's. And this is a most perfect sacrifice. First of all, since being flesh of human nature, + it is fittingly offered for men, and is partaken of by them under the + Sacrament. Secondly, because being passible and mortal, it was fit for immolation. Thirdly, because, being sinless, it had + virtue to cleanse from sins. Fourthly, because, being the offerer's own flesh, it was acceptable to God on account of His + charity in offering up His own flesh. Hence it is that Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "What else could be so fittingly partaken + of by men, or offered up for men, as human flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this immolation as mortal flesh? What + else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as the flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence, and coming from + a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and accepted as the flesh of our sacrifice, which was made the body of + our Priest?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Augustine is speaking there of visible figurative sacrifices: and even Christ's Passion, although denoted by other figurative + sacrifices, is yet a sign of something to be observed by us, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.4.1" target="asv">1 Pet. 4:1</a>: "Christ therefore, having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath suffered in the + flesh hath ceased from sins: that now he may live the rest of his time in the flesh, not after the + desires of men, but according to the will of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's Passion was indeed a malefice on His slayers' part; but on His own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of + charity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this sacrifice, and not the executioners. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q48_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q48_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of redemption?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Passion did not effect our salvation by way of redemption. For no one purchases or redeems what + never ceased to belong to him. But men never ceased to belong to God according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.23.1" target="asv">Ps. 23:1</a>: "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof: the world and all they that dwell therein." Therefore it seems that Christ + did not redeem us by His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "The devil had to be overthrown by Christ's justice." But justice requires that + the man who has treacherously seized another's property shall be deprived of it, because deceit and cunning should not benefit + anyone, as even human laws declare. Consequently, since the devil by treachery deceived and subjugated to himself man, who + is God's creature, it seems that man ought not to be rescued from his power by way of + redemption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to the holder. But it was not to the devil, who held us in bondage, + that Christ paid His blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore Christ did not redeem us by His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.1.18" target="asv">1 Pet. 1:18</a>): "You were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: + but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled." And ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A4-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.13" target="asv">Gal. 3:13</a>): "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Now He is said to be a curse for us inasmuch + as He suffered upon the tree, as stated + above ( + <a id="TP_Q48_A4-p5.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A4.html">Q[46], A[4]</a>). Therefore He did redeem us by His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: first of all, by the bondage of sin, because ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.34" target="asv">Jn. 8:34</a>): "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiPet.2.19" target="asv">2 Pet. 2:19</a>): "By whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave." Since, then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him + to sin, man was subject to the devil's bondage. Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the payment of which man was held + fast by God's justice: and this, too, is a kind of bondage, since it savors of bondage for a man to suffer what he does not + wish, just as it is the free man's condition to apply himself to what he wills. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p7"> Since, then, Christ's Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, + it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the atonement by which one satisfies for self + or another is called the price, by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.4.24" target="asv"> Dan. 4:24</a>: "Redeem thou thy sins with alms." Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or + anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price---Himself---for us. And therefore Christ's Passion is called + our redemption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Man is said to belong to God in two ways. First of all, in so far as he comes under God's power: in which way he never ceased + to belong to God; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.4.22" target="asv"> Dan. 4:22</a>: "The Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Secondly, by being united to Him in + charity, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.9" target="asv"> Rom. 8:9</a>: "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." In the first way, then, man + never ceased to belong to God, but in the second way he did cease because of sin. And therefore in so far as he was delivered + from sin by the satisfaction of Christ's Passion, he is said to be redeemed by the Passion of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Man by sinning became the bondsman both of God and of the devil. Through guilt he had offended God, and put himself under + the devil by consenting to him; consequently he did not become God's servant on account of his guilt, but rather, by withdrawing + from God's service, he, by God's just permission, fell under the devil's servitude on account of the offense perpetrated. + But as to the penalty, man was chiefly bound to God as his sovereign judge, and to + the devil as his torturer, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.25" target="asv"> Mat. 5:25</a>: "Lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer"---that is, "to the relentless + avenging angel," as Chrysostom says (Hom. xi). Consequently, although, after deceiving man, the devil, so far as in him lay, + held him unjustly in bondage as to both sin and penalty, still it was just that man should suffer it. God so permitting it + as to the sin and ordaining it as to the penalty. + And therefore justice required man's redemption with regard to God, but not with regard to the devil. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Because, with regard to God, redemption was necessary for man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price + had to be paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is said to have paid the price of our redemption---His own + precious blood---not to the devil, but to God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q48_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q48_A5-p0.1">Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the Redeemer, because it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.30.6" target="asv">Ps. 30:6</a>): "Thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, the God of Truth." But to be the Lord God of Truth belongs to the entire Trinity. Therefore + it is not proper to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he is said to redeem who pays the price of redemption. But God the Father gave His Son in redemption for our sins, + as is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.110.9" target="asv">Ps. 110:9</a>): "The Lord hath sent redemption to His people," upon which the gloss adds, "that is, Christ, who gives redemption to captives." + Therefore not only Christ, but the Father also, redeemed us. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, not only Christ's Passion, but also that of other saints conduced to our salvation, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Col.1.24" target="asv"> Col. 1:24</a>: "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh + for His body, which is the Church." Therefore the title of Redeemer belongs not only to Christ, but also to the other saints. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.13" target="asv">Gal. 3:13</a>): "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us." But only Christ was made a curse for us. Therefore + only Christ ought to be called our Redeemer. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> For someone to redeem, two things are required---namely, the act of paying and the price paid. For if in redeeming something + a man pays a price which is not his own, but another's, he is not said to be the chief redeemer, but rather the other is, + whose price it is. Now Christ's blood or His bodily life, which "is in the blood," is the price of our redemption ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.17.11" target="asv">Lev. 17:11</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.17.14" target="asv">14</a>), and that life He paid. Hence both of these belong immediately + to Christ as man; but to the Trinity as to the first and remote cause, to whom Christ's life belonged as to its first author, + and from whom Christ received the inspiration of suffering for us. Consequently it is proper to Christ as man to be the Redeemer + immediately; although the redemption may be ascribed to the whole Trinity as its first cause. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A gloss explains the text thus: "Thou, O Lord God of Truth, hast redeemed me in Christ, crying out, 'Lord, into Thy hands + I commend my spirit.'" And so redemption belongs immediately to the Man-Christ, but principally to God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Man-Christ paid the price of our redemption immediately, but at the command of the Father as the original author. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the Church, as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.1.6" target="asv">2 Cor. 1:6</a>: "Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation and salvation." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q48_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q48_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation efficiently?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently. For the efficient cause of our salvation + is the greatness of the Divine power, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.59.1" target="asv"> Is. 59:1</a>: "Behold the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save." But "Christ was crucified through weakness," as it is + written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.13.4" target="asv">2 Cor. 13:4</a>). Therefore, Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation efficiently. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no corporeal agency acts efficiently except by contact: hence even Christ cleansed the leper by touching him "in + order to show that His flesh had saving power," as Chrysostom [*Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc.] says. But Christ's Passion could + not touch all mankind. Therefore it could not efficiently bring about the salvation of all men. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it does not seem to be consistent for the same agent to operate by way of merit and by way of efficiency, since + he who merits awaits the result from someone else. But it was by way of merit that Christ's Passion accomplished our salvation. + Therefore it was not by way of efficiency. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.18" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:18</a>) that "the word of the cross to them that are saved . . . is the power of God." But God's power brings about our salvation + efficiently. Therefore Christ's Passion on the cross accomplished our salvation efficiently. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There is a twofold efficient agency---namely, the principal and the instrumental. Now the principal efficient cause of man's + salvation is God. But since Christ's humanity is the "instrument of the Godhead," as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q48_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q43_A2.html">Q[43], A[2]</a>), therefore all Christ's actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue of His Godhead for the salvation of men. + Consequently, then, Christ's Passion accomplishes man's salvation + efficiently. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's Passion in relation to His flesh is consistent with the infirmity which He took upon Himself, but in relation to + the Godhead it draws infinite might from It, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.25" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:25</a>: "The weakness of God is stronger than men"; because Christ's weakness, inasmuch as He is God, has a might exceeding all + human power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's Passion, although corporeal, has yet a spiritual effect from the Godhead united: and therefore it secures its efficacy + by spiritual contact---namely, by faith and the sacraments of faith, as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q48_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv">Rom. 3:25</a>): "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's Passion, according as it is compared with His Godhead, operates in an efficient manner: but in so far as it is compared + with the will of Christ's soul it acts in a meritorious manner: considered as being within Christ's very flesh, it acts by + way of satisfaction, inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt of punishment; while inasmuch as we are freed from the + servitude of guilt, it acts by way of redemption: but in so far as we are + reconciled with God it acts by way of sacrifice, as shall be shown farther on ( + <a id="TP_Q48_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49.html">Q[49])</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q48_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q47_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q49" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q49-p0.1">OF THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S PASSION (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q49-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49-p2"> We have now to consider what are the effects of Christ's Passion, concerning which there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q49-p3"> (1) Whether we were freed from sin by Christ's Passion?</p> + <p id="TP_Q49-p4"> (2) Whether we were thereby delivered from the power of the devil?</p> + <p id="TP_Q49-p5"> (3) Whether we were freed thereby from our debt of punishment?</p> + <p id="TP_Q49-p6"> (4) Whether we were thereby reconciled with God?</p> + <p id="TP_Q49-p7"> (5) Whether heaven's gate was opened to us thereby?</p> + <p id="TP_Q49-p8"> (6) Whether Christ derived exaltation from it?</p> + <div id="TP_Q49_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q49_A1-p0.1">Whether we were delivered from sin through Christ's Passion?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that we were not delivered from sin through Christ's Passion. For to deliver from sin belongs to God alone, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.43.25" target="asv"> Is. 43:25</a>: "I am He who blot out your iniquities for My own sake." But Christ did not suffer as God, but as man. Therefore Christ's + Passion did not free us from sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, what is corporeal does not act upon what is spiritual. But Christ's Passion is corporeal, whereas sin exists in + the soul, which is a spiritual creature. Therefore Christ's Passion could not cleanse us from sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, one cannot be purged from a sin not yet committed, but which shall be committed hereafter. Since, then, many sins + have been committed since Christ's death, and are being committed daily, it seems that we were not delivered from sin by Christ's + death. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, given an efficient cause, nothing else is required for producing the effect. But other things besides are required + for the forgiveness of sins, such as baptism and penance. Consequently it seems that Christ's Passion is not the sufficient + cause of the forgiveness of sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.10.12" target="asv">Prov. 10:12</a>): "Charity covereth all sins"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.15.27" target="asv">Prov. 15:27</a>): "By mercy and faith, sins are purged away." But there are many other things of which we have faith, and which excite charity. + Therefore Christ's Passion is not the proper cause of the forgiveness of sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.1.5" target="asv">Apoc. 1:5</a>): "He loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's Passion is the proper cause of the forgiveness of sins in three ways. First of all, by way of exciting our charity, + because, as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.8" target="asv">Rom. 5:8</a>): "God commendeth His charity towards us: because when as yet we were sinners, according to the time, Christ died for us." + But it is by charity that we procure pardon of our sins, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.7.47" target="asv"> Lk. 7:47</a>: "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved + much." Secondly, Christ's Passion causes forgiveness of sins by way of redemption. For since He is our head, then, by the + Passion which He endured from love and obedience, He delivered us as His members from our sins, as by the price of His Passion: + in the same way as if a man by the good industry of his hands were to redeem himself from a sin committed with his feet. For, + just as the natural body is one though made up of diverse members, so the whole Church, Christ's mystic body, is reckoned + as one person with its head, which is Christ. Thirdly, by way of efficiency, inasmuch as Christ's flesh, wherein He endured + the Passion, is the instrument of the Godhead, so that His sufferings and actions operate with Divine power for expelling + sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although Christ did not suffer as God, nevertheless His flesh is the instrument of the Godhead; and hence it is that His + Passion has a kind of Divine Power of casting out sin, as was said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although Christ's Passion is corporeal, still it derives a kind of spiritual energy from the Godhead, to which the flesh + is united as an instrument: and according to this power Christ's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ by His Passion delivered us from our sins causally---that is, by setting up the cause of our deliverance, from which + cause all sins whatsoever, past, present, or to come, could be forgiven: just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by + which all sicknesses can be cured even in future. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As stated above, since Christ's Passion preceded, as a kind of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins, it needs to be + applied to each individual for the cleansing of personal sins. Now this is done by baptism and penance and the other sacraments, + which derive their power from Christ's Passion, as shall be shown later ( + <a id="TP_Q49_A1-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q62_A5.html">Q[62], A[5]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Christ's Passion is applied to us even through faith, that we may share in its fruits, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A1-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv"> Rom. 3:25</a>: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." But the faith through which we are cleansed from + sin is not "lifeless faith," which can exist even with sin, but "faith living" through charity; that thus Christ's Passion + may be applied to us, not only as to our minds, but also as to our hearts. + And even in this way sins are forgiven through the power of the Passion of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A1-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q49_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q49_A2-p0.1">Whether we were delivered from the devil's power through Christ's Passion?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that we were not delivered from the power of the devil through Christ's Passion. For he has no power over others, + who can do nothing to them without the sanction of another. But without the Divine permission the devil could never do hurt + to any man, as is evident in the instance of Job (1,2), where, by power received from God, the devil first injured him in + his possessions, and afterwards in his body. In like manner it is stated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.31" target="asv">Mat. + 8:31,32 + </a>) that the devils could not enter into the swine except with Christ's leave. Therefore the devil never had power over men: + and hence we are not delivered from his power through Christ's Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the devil exercises his power over men by tempting them and molesting their bodies. But even after the Passion he + continues to do the same to men. Therefore we are not delivered from his power through Christ's Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the might of Christ's Passion endures for ever, as, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.14" target="asv"> Heb. 10:14</a>: "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." But deliverance rom the devil's power is not found + everywhere, since there are still idolaters in many regions of the world; nor will it endure for ever, because in the time + of Antichrist he will be especially active in using his power to the hurt of men; because it is said of him + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iiThess.2.9" target="asv">2 Thess. 2:9</a>): "Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of + iniquity." Consequently it seems that Christ's Passion is not the cause of the human race being delivered from the power of + the devil. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.12.31" target="asv">Jn. 12:31</a>), when His Passion was drawing nigh: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out; and I, if I be lifted up from the earth, + will draw all things to Myself." Now He was lifted up from the earth by His Passion on the cross. Therefore by His Passion + the devil was deprived of his power over man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There are three things to be considered regarding the power which the devil exercised over men previous to Christ's Passion. + The first is on man's own part, who by his sin deserved to be delivered over to the devil's power, and was overcome by his + tempting. Another point is on God's part, whom man had offended by sinning, and who with justice left man under the devil's + power. The third is on the devil's part, who out of his most wicked will hindered man from + securing his salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p7"> As to the first point, by Christ's Passion man was delivered from the devil's power, in so far as the Passion is the cause + of the forgiveness of sins, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q49_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. As to the second, it must be said that Christ's Passion freed us from the devil's power, inasmuch as it reconciled us with + God, as shall be shown later + <a id="TP_Q49_A2-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. But as to the third, Christ's Passion delivered us from the devil, inasmuch as in Christ's Passion + he exceeded the limit of power assigned him by God, by conspiring to bring about Christ's death, Who, being sinless, did not + deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, cap. xiv): "The devil was vanquished by Christ's justice: because, while + discovering in Him nothing deserving of death, nevertheless he slew Him. And it is certainly just that the debtors whom he + held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in Him whom the devil slew, though He was no debtor." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The devil is said to have had such power over men not as though he were able to injure them without God's sanction, but because + he was justly permitted to injure men whom by tempting he had induced to give consent. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> God so permitting it, the devil can still tempt men's souls and harass their bodies: yet there is a remedy provided for man + through Christ's Passion, whereby he can safeguard himself against the enemy's assaults, so as not to be dragged down into + the destruction of everlasting death. And all who resisted the devil previous to the Passion were enabled to do so through + faith in the Passion, although it was not yet accomplished. Yet in one respect no one + was able to escape the devil's hands, i.e. so as not to descend into hell. But after Christ's Passion, men can defend themselves + from this by its power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> God permits the devil to deceive men by certain persons, and in times and places, according to the hidden motive of His judgments; + still, there is always a remedy provided through Christ's Passion, for defending themselves against the wicked snares of the + demons, even in Antichrist's time. But if any man neglect to make use of this remedy, it detracts nothing from the efficacy + of Christ's Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A2-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q49_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q49_A3-p0.1">Whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's Passion?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that men were not freed from the punishment of sin by Christ's Passion. For the chief punishment of sin is + eternal damnation. But those damned in hell for their sins were not set free by Christ's Passion, because "in hell there is + no redemption" [*Office of the Dead, Resp. vii]. It seems, therefore, that Christ's Passion did not deliver men from the punishment + of sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no punishment should be imposed upon them who are delivered from the debt of punishment. But a satisfactory punishment + is imposed upon penitents. Consequently, men were not freed from the debt of punishment by Christ's Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, death is a punishment of sin, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.23" target="asv"> Rom. 6:23</a>: "The wages of sin is death." But men still die after Christ's Passion. Therefore it seems that we have not been delivered + from the debt of punishment. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.4" target="asv">Is. 53:4</a>): "Surely He hath borne our iniquities and carried our sorrows." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Through Christ's Passion we have been delivered from the debt of punishment in two ways. First of all, directly---namely, + inasmuch as Christ's Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race: but when + sufficient satisfaction has been paid, then the debt of punishment is abolished. In another way---indirectly, that is to say---in + so far as Christ's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, upon which the debt + of punishment rests. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's Passion works its effect in them to whom it is applied, through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. And, + consequently, the lost in hell cannot avail themselves of its effects, since they are not united to Christ in the aforesaid + manner. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 4,5), in order to secure the effects of Christ's Passion, we must be likened unto Him. Now we are + likened unto Him sacramentally in Baptism, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.4" target="asv"> Rom. 6:4</a>: "For we are buried together with Him by baptism into death." Hence no punishment of satisfaction is imposed upon men at + their baptism, since they are fully delivered by Christ's satisfaction. But because, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.18" target="asv">1 Pet. + 3:18 + </a>), "Christ died" but "once for our sins," therefore a man cannot a second time be likened unto Christ's death by the sacrament + of Baptism. Hence it is necessary that those who sin after Baptism be likened unto Christ suffering by some form of punishment + or suffering which they endure in their own person; yet, by the co-operation of Christ's satisfaction, much lighter penalty + suffices than one that is proportionate to the sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we are incorporated with Him, as the members with their head, as + stated above + <a id="TP_Q49_A3-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Now the members must be conformed to their head. Consequently, as Christ first had grace in His soul with bodily passibility, + and through the Passion attained to the glory of immortality, so we likewise, who are His members, are freed by His Passion + from all debt of punishment, yet so + that we first receive in our souls "the spirit of adoption of sons," whereby our names are written down for the inheritance + of immortal glory, while we yet have a passible and mortal body: but afterwards, "being made conformable" to the sufferings + and death of Christ, we are brought into immortal glory, according to the saying of the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.17" target="asv">Rom. 8:17</a>): "And if sons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so if we suffer with Him, that we may be + also glorified with Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q49_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q49_A4-p0.1">Whether we were reconciled to God through Christ's Passion?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that we were not reconciled to God through Christ's Passion. For there is no need of reconciliation between + friends. But God always loved us, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.11.25" target="asv"> Wis. 11:25</a>: "Thou lovest all the things that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made." Therefore Christ's Passion did + not reconcile us to God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the same thing cannot be cause and effect: hence grace, which is the cause of meriting, does not come under merit. + But God's love is the cause of Christ's Passion, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.16" target="asv"> Jn. 3:16</a>: "God so loved the world, as to give His only-begotten Son." It does not appear, then, that we were reconciled to God through + Christ's Passion, so that He began to love us anew. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's Passion was completed by men slaying Him; and thereby they offended God grievously. Therefore Christ's + Passion is rather the cause of wrath than of reconciliation to God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.10" target="asv">Rom. 5:10</a>): "We are reconciled to God by the death of His Son." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's Passion is in two ways the cause of our reconciliation to God. In the first way, inasmuch as it takes away sin by + which men became God's enemies, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.14.9" target="asv"> Wis. 14:9</a>: "To God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"; and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.5.7" target="asv"> Ps. 5:7</a>: "Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity." In another way, inasmuch as it is a most acceptable sacrifice to God. Now it + is the proper effect of sacrifice to appease God: + just as man likewise overlooks an offense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of homage shown him. Hence + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#iKgs.26.19" target="asv">1 Kings 26:19</a>): "If the Lord stir thee up against me, let Him accept of sacrifice." And in like fashion Christ's voluntary suffering was + such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offense of the human race with + regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ in the aforesaid + manner (A[1], ad 4). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God loves all men as to their nature, which He Himself made; yet He hates them with respect to the crimes they commit against + Him, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.12.3" target="asv"> Ecclus. 12:3</a>: "The Highest hateth sinners." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ is not said to have reconciled us with God, as if God had begun anew to love us, since it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.3" target="asv">Jer. 31:3</a>): "I have loved thee with an everlasting love"; but because the source of hatred was taken away by Christ's Passion, both + through sin being washed away and through compensation being made in the shape of a more pleasing offering. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Christ's slayers were men, so also was the Christ slain. Now the charity of the suffering Christ surpassed the wickedness + of His slayers. Accordingly Christ's Passion prevailed more in reconciling God to the whole human race than in provoking Him + to wrath. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q49_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q49_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ opened the gate of heaven to us by His Passion?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not open the gate of heaven to us by His Passion. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.11.18" target="asv">Prov. 11:18</a>): "To him that soweth justice, there is a faithful reward." But the reward of justice is the entering into the kingdom of + heaven. It seems, therefore, that the holy Fathers who wrought works of justice, obtained by faith the entering into the heavenly + kingdom even without Christ's Passion. Consequently Christ's Passion is not the + cause of the opening of the gate of the kingdom of heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Elias was caught up to heaven previous to Christ's Passion (4 Kings 2). But the effect never precedes the cause. + Therefore it seems that the opening of heaven's gate is not the result of Christ's Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.3.16" target="asv">Mat. 3:16</a>), when Christ was baptized the heavens were opened to Him. But His baptism preceded the Passion. Consequently the opening + of heaven is not the result of Christ's Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mic.2.13" target="asv">Mic. 2:13</a>): "For He shall go up that shall open the way before them." But to open the way to heaven seems to be nothing else than to + throw open its gate. Therefore it seems that the gate of heaven was opened to us, not by Christ's Passion, but by His Ascension. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> is the saying of the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.19" target="asv">Heb. 10:19</a>): "We have [Vulg.: 'having a'] confidence in the entering into the Holies"---that is, of the heavenly places---"through the + blood of Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The shutting of the gate is the obstacle which hinders men from entering in. But it is on account of sin that men were prevented + from entering into the heavenly kingdom, since, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.35.8" target="asv"> Is. 35:8</a>: "It shall be called the holy way, and the unclean shall not pass over it." Now there is a twofold sin which prevents men + from entering into the kingdom of heaven. The first is common to the whole race, for it is our first parents' sin, and + by that sin heaven's entrance is closed to man. Hence we read in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.3.24" target="asv"> Gn. 3:24 </a>that after our first parents' sin God "placed . . . cherubim and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the + tree of life." The other is the personal sin of each one of us, committed by our personal act. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p8"> Now by Christ's Passion we have been delivered not only from the common sin of the whole human race, both as to its guilt + and as to the debt of punishment, for which He paid the penalty on our behalf; but, furthermore, from the personal sins of + individuals, who share in His Passion by faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. Consequently, then the gate of heaven's + kingdom is thrown open to us through Christ's Passion. This is precisely what the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.11" target="asv">Heb. + 9:11,12 + </a>): "Christ being come a high-priest of the good things to come . . . by His own blood entered once into the Holies, having + obtained eternal redemption." And this is foreshadowed ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Num.35.25" target="asv">Num. 35:25</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Num.35.28" target="asv">28</a>), where it is said that the slayer* "shall abide there"---that is to say, in the city of refuge---"until the death of the + high-priest, that is anointed with the holy oil: but after he is dead, then shall he return home." [*The Septuagint has 'slayer', + the Vulgate, + 'innocent'---i.e. the man who has slain 'without hatred and enmity'.] + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The holy Fathers, by doing works of justice, merited to enter into the heavenly kingdom, through faith in Christ's Passion, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.33" target="asv"> Heb. 11:33</a>: The saints "by faith conquered kingdoms, wrought justice," and each of them was thereby cleansed from sin, so far as the + cleansing of the individual is concerned. Nevertheless the faith and righteousness of no one of them sufficed for removing + the barrier arising from the guilt of the + whole human race: but this was removed at the cost of Christ's blood. Consequently, before Christ's Passion no one could enter + the kingdom of heaven by obtaining everlasting beatitude, which consists in the full enjoyment of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and + likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As was stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q49_A5-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q39_A5.html">Q[39], A[5]</a>), the heavens were opened at Christ's baptism, not for Christ's sake, to whom heaven was ever open, but in order to signify + that heaven is opened to the baptized, through Christ's baptism, which has its efficacy from His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ by His Passion merited for us the opening of the kingdom of heaven, and removed the obstacle; but by His ascension + He, as it were, brought us to the possession of the heavenly kingdom. And consequently it is said that by ascending He "opened + the way before them." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A5-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q49_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q49_A6-p0.1">Whether by His Passion Christ merited to be exalted?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ did not merit to be exalted on account of His Passion. For eminence of rank belongs to God alone, just + as knowledge of truth, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.112.4" target="asv"> Ps. 112:4</a>: "The Lord is high above all nations, and His glory above the heavens." But Christ as man had the knowledge of all truth, + not on account of any preceding merit, but from the very union of God and man, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. 1:14</a>: "We saw His glory . . . as + it were of the only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth." Therefore neither had He exaltation from the merit + of the Passion but from the union alone. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ merited for Himself from the first instant of His conception, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q49_A6-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A3.html">Q[34], A[3]</a>). But His love was no greater during the Passion than before. Therefore, since charity is the principle of merit, it seems + that He did not merit exaltation from the Passion more than before. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the glory of the body comes from the glory of the soul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.). But by His Passion + Christ did not merit exaltation as to the glory of His soul, because His soul was beatified from the first instant of His + conception. Therefore neither did He merit exaltation, as to the glory of His body, from the Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv">Phil. 2:8</a>): "He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; for which cause God also exalted Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.4" target="asv">Rom. 4:4</a>): "Now to him that worketh, the reward is reckoned according to debt." But when anyone by reason of his unjust will ascribes + to himself something beyond his due, it is only just that he be deprived of something else which is his due; thus, "when a + man steals a sheep he shall pay back four" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.1" target="asv">Ex. 22:1</a>). And he is said to deserve it, inasmuch + as his unjust will is chastised thereby. So likewise when any man through his just will has stripped himself of what he ought + to have, he deserves that something further be granted to him as the reward of his just will. And hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.14.11" target="asv">Lk. 14:11</a>): "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p7"> Now in His Passion Christ humbled Himself beneath His dignity in four respects. In the first place as to His Passion and + death, to which He was not bound; secondly, as to the place, since His body was laid in a sepulchre and His soul in hell; + thirdly, as to the shame and mockeries He endured; fourthly, as to His being delivered up to man's power, as He Himself said + to Pilate ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.19.11" target="asv">Jn. 19:11</a>): "Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee + from above." And, consequently, He merited a four-fold exaltation from His Passion. First of all, as to His glorious Resurrection: + hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.138.1" target="asv">Ps. 138:1</a>): "Thou hast known my sitting down"---that is, the lowliness of My Passion---"and My rising up." Secondly, as to His ascension + into heaven: hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.9" target="asv">Eph. 4:9</a>): "Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended + is the same also + that ascended above all the heavens." Thirdly, as to the sitting on the right hand of the Father and the showing forth of + His Godhead, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Isa.52.13" target="asv"> Is. 52:13</a>: "He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding high: as many have been astonished at him, so shall His visage + be inglorious among men." Moreover ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p7.5" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.8" target="asv">Phil. 2:8</a>) it is written: "He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross: for which cause also God + hath + exalted Him, and hath given Him a name which is above all names"---that is to say, so that He shall be hailed as God by all; + and all shall pay Him homage as God. And this is expressed in what follows: "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, + of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." Fourthly, as to His judiciary power: for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q49_A6-p7.6" href="./asv.html#Job.36.17" target="asv">Job 36:17</a>): "Thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked cause and judgment Thou shalt recover." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The source of meriting comes of the soul, while the body is the instrument of the meritorious work. And consequently the + perfection of Christ's soul, which was the source of meriting, ought not to be acquired in Him by merit, like the perfection + of the body, which was the subject of suffering, and was thereby the instrument of His merit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ by His previous merits did merit exaltation on behalf of His soul, whose will was animated with charity and the other + virtues; but in the Passion He merited His exaltation by way of recompense even on behalf of His body: since it is only just + that the body, which from charity was subjected to the Passion, should receive recompense in glory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It was owing to a special dispensation in Christ that before the Passion the glory of His soul did not shine out in His body, + in order that He might procure His bodily glory with greater honor, when He had merited it by His Passion. But it was not + beseeming for the glory of His soul to be postponed, since the soul was united immediately with the Word; hence it was beseeming + that its glory should be filled by the Word Himself. But the body was united + with the Word through the soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q49_A6-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q48_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q50" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q50-p0.1">OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q50-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50-p2"> We have now to consider the death of Christ; concerning which there are six subjects of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q50-p3"> (1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?</p> + <p id="TP_Q50-p4"> (2) Whether His death severed the union of Godhead and flesh?</p> + <p id="TP_Q50-p5"> (3) Whether His Godhead was separated from His soul?</p> + <p id="TP_Q50-p6"> (4) Whether Christ was a man during the three days of His death?</p> + <p id="TP_Q50-p7"> (5) Whether His was the same body, living and dead?</p> + <p id="TP_Q50-p8"> (6) Whether His death conduced in any way to our salvation?</p> + <div id="TP_Q50_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q50_A1-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should die. For a first principle in any order is not affected by anything + contrary to such order: thus fire, which is the principle of heat, can never become cold. But the Son of God is the fountain-head + and principle of all life, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.35.10" target="asv"> Ps. 35:10</a>: "With Thee is the fountain of life." Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to die. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, death is a greater defect than sickness, because it is through sickness that one comes to die. But it was not beseeming + for Christ to languish from sickness, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. de Incarn. Verbi] says. Consequently, neither was + it becoming for Christ to die. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.10" target="asv">Jn. 10:10</a>): "I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly." But one opposite does not lead to another. Therefore + it seems that neither was it fitting for Christ to die. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written, ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.11.50" target="asv">Jn. 11:50</a>): "It is expedient that one man should die for the people . . . that the whole nation perish not": which words were spoken + prophetically by Caiphas, as the Evangelist testifies. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting for Christ to die. First of all to satisfy for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on account + of sin, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.2.17" target="asv"> Gn. 2:17</a>: "In what day soever ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] eat of it ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] die the death." Now it is a + fitting way of satisfying for another to submit oneself to the penalty deserved by that other. And so Christ resolved to die, + that by dying He might atone for us, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.18" target="asv">1 Pet. 3:18</a>: "Christ also died once for our sins." Secondly, in order to show the reality of the flesh assumed. For, as Eusebius says + (Orat. de Laud. Constant. xv), "if, after dwelling among men Christ were suddenly to disappear from men's sight, as though + shunning death, then by all men He would be likened to a phantom." Thirdly, that by dying He might deliver us from fearing + death: hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.14" target="asv">Heb. 2:14,15</a>) that He communicated + "to flesh and blood, that through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death and might deliver them who, through + the fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to servitude." Fourthly, that by dying in the body to the likeness of sin---that + is, to its penalty---He might set us the example of dying to sin spiritually. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A1-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.10" target="asv">Rom. 6:10</a>): "For in that He died to sin, He died once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God: so do you also reckon + that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God." Fifthly, that by rising from the dead, and manifesting His power whereby He + overthrew death, He might instill into us the hope of rising from the dead. Hence the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A1-p6.5" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:12</a>): "If Christ be preached that He rose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection from + the dead?" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ is the fountain of life, as God, and not as man: but He died as man, and not as God. Hence Augustine [*Vigilius Tapsensis] + says against Felician: "Far be it from us to suppose that Christ so felt death that He lost His life inasmuch as He is life + in Himself; for, were it so, the fountain of life would have run dry. Accordingly, He experienced death by sharing in our + human feeling, which of His own accord He had taken upon Himself, but He did + not lose the power of His Nature, through which He gives life to all things." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness, lest He should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature: but He + endured death inflicted from without, to which He willingly surrendered Himself, that His death might be shown to be a voluntary + one. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> One opposite does not of itself lead to the other, yet it does so indirectly at times: thus cold sometimes is the indirect + cause of heat: and in this way Christ by His death brought us back to life, when by His death He destroyed our death; just + as he who bears another's punishment takes such punishment away. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q50_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q50_A2-p0.1">Whether the Godhead was separated from the flesh when Christ died?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Godhead was separated from the flesh when Christ died. For as Matthew relates (27:46), when our Lord + was hanging upon the cross He cried out: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" which words Ambrose, commenting on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.46" target="asv"> Lk. 23:46, </a> explains as follows: "The man cried out when about to expire by being severed from the Godhead; for since the Godhead is + immune from death, assuredly death could not be there, except life + departed, for the Godhead is life." And so it seems that when Christ died, the Godhead was separated from His flesh. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, extremes are severed when the mean is removed. But the soul was the mean through which the Godhead was united with + the flesh, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q50_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html">Q[6], A[1]</a>). Therefore since the soul was severed from the flesh by death, it seems that, in consequence, His Godhead was also separated + from it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, God's life-giving power is greater than that of the soul. But the body could not die unless the soul quitted it. + Therefore, much less could it die unless the Godhead departed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q50_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A4.html">Q[16], AA[4]</a>,5), the attributes of human nature are predicated of the Son of God only by reason of the union. But what belongs to the + body of Christ after death is predicated of the Son of God---namely, being buried: as is evident from the Creed, in which + it is said that the Son of God "was conceived and born of a Virgin, suffered, died, and was buried." Therefore Christ's Godhead + was not separated from the flesh + when He died. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> What is bestowed through God's grace is never withdrawn except through fault. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.29" target="asv">Rom. 11:29</a>): "The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance." But the grace of union whereby the Godhead was united to the + flesh in Christ's Person, is greater than the grace of adoption whereby others are sanctified: also it is more enduring of + itself, because this grace is ordained for personal union, whereas the grace of + adoption is referred to a certain affective union. And yet we see that the grace of adoption is never lost without fault. + Since, then there was no sin in Christ, it was impossible for the union of the Godhead with the flesh to be dissolved. Consequently, + as before death Christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the Word of God, it remained so after His death, + so that the hypostasis of the Word of God was not different from that of Christ's flesh after death, as Damascene says + (De Fide Orth. iii). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Such forsaking is not to be referred to the dissolving of the personal union, but to this, that God the Father gave Him up + to the Passion: hence there "to forsake" means simply not to protect from persecutors. or else He says there that He is forsaken, + with reference to the prayer He had made: "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass away from Me," as Augustine explains + it (De Gratia Novi Test.). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Word of God is said to be united with the flesh through the medium of the soul, inasmuch as it is through the soul that + the flesh belongs to human nature, which the Son of God intended to assume; but not as though the soul were the medium linking + them together. But it is due to the soul that the flesh is human even after the soul has been separated from it---namely, + inasmuch as by God's ordinance there remains in the dead flesh a certain relation + to the resurrection. And therefore the union of the Godhead with the flesh is not taken away. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The soul formally possesses the life-giving energy, and therefore, while it is present, and united formally, the body must + necessarily be a living one, whereas the Godhead has not the life-giving energy formally, but effectively; because It cannot + be the form of the body: and therefore it is not necessary for the flesh to be living while the union of the Godhead with + the flesh remains, since God does not act of necessity, but of His own will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q50_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q50_A3-p0.1">Whether in Christ's death there was a severance between His Godhead and His soul?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was a severance in death between Christ's Godhead and His soul, because our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.18" target="asv">Jn. 10:18</a>): "No man taketh away My soul from Me: but I lay it down of Myself, and I have power to lay it down, and I have power to + take it up again." But it does not appear that the body can set the soul aside, by separating the soul from itself, because + the soul is not subject to the power of the body, but rather conversely: and + so it appears that it belongs to Christ, as the Word of God, to lay down His soul: but this is to separate it from Himself. + Consequently, by death His soul was severed from the Godhead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Athanasius [*Vigilius Tapsensis, De Trin. vi; Bardenhewer assigns it to St. Athanasius: 45, iii. The full title + is De Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto] says that he "is accursed who does not confess that the entire man, whom the Son of God + took to Himself, after being assumed once more or delivered by Him, rose again from the dead on the third day." But the entire + man could not be assumed again, unless the entire man was at one time separated from the Word + of God: and the entire man is made of soul and body. Therefore there was a separation made at one time of the Godhead from + both the body and the soul. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Son of God is truly styled a man because of the union with the entire man. If then, when the union of the soul + with the body was dissolved by death, the Word of God continued united with the soul, it would follow that the Son of God + could be truly called a soul. But this is false, because since the soul is the form of the body, it would result in the Word + of God being the form of the body; which is impossible. Therefore, in death the soul of + Christ was separated from the Word of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the separated soul and body are not one hypostasis, but two. Therefore, if the Word of God remained united with + Christ's soul and body, then, when they were severed by Christ's death, it seems to follow that the Word of God was two hypostases + during such time as Christ was dead; which cannot be admitted. Therefore after Christ's death His soul did not continue to + be united with the Word. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Although Christ died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless body, + nevertheless His Godhead remained unseparated from both---from the soul, I mean, and from the body." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The soul is united with the Word of God more immediately and more primarily than the body is, because it is through the soul + that the body is united with the Word of God, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q50_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q6_A1.html">Q[6], A[1]</a>). Since, then, the Word of God was not separated from the body at Christ's death, much less was He separated from the soul. + Accordingly, since what regards the body severed from the soul is affirmed of the Son of God---namely, that "it was + buried"---so is it said of Him in the Creed that "He descended into hell," because His soul when separated from the body did + go down into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine (Tract. xlvii in Joan.), in commenting on the text of John, asks, since Christ is Word and soul and body, "whether + He putteth down His soul, for that He is the Word? Or, for that He is a soul?" Or, again, "for that He is flesh?" And he says + that, "should we say that the Word of God laid down His soul" . . . it would follow that "there was a time when that soul + was severed from the Word"---which is untrue. "For death severed the body and soul + . . . but that the soul was severed from the Word I do not affirm . . . But should we say that the soul laid itself down," + it follows "that it is severed from itself: which is most absurd." It remains, therefore, that "the flesh itself layeth down + its soul and taketh it again, not by its own power, but by the power of the Word dwelling in the flesh": because, as stated + above + <a id="TP_Q50_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q50_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, the Godhead of the Word was not severed from the flesh in death. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In those words Athanasius never meant to say that the whole man was reassumed---that is, as to all his parts---as if the + Word of God had laid aside the parts of human nature by His death; but that the totality of the assumed nature was restored + once more in the resurrection by the resumed union of soul and body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Through being united to human nature, the Word of God is not on that account called human nature: but He is called a man---that + is, one having human nature. Now the soul and the body are essential parts of human nature. Hence it does not follow that + the Word is a soul or a body through being united with both, but that He is one possessing a soul or a body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "In Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided + into two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; + and in death, though severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the + one hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of + the body. For neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the Word: for there was always + one hypostasis of the Word, and never two." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A3-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q50_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q50_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ was a man during the three days of His death?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was a man during the three days of His death, because Augustine says (De Trin. iii): "Such was + the assuming [of nature] as to make God to be man, and man to be God." But this assuming [of nature] did not cease at Christ's + death. Therefore it seems that He did not cease to be a man in consequence of death. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix) that "each man is his intellect"; consequently, when we address the soul of Peter + after his death we say: "Saint Peter, pray for us." But the Son of God after death was not separated from His intellectual + soul. Therefore, during those three days the Son of God was a man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every priest is a man. But during those three days of death Christ was a priest: otherwise what is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.109.4" target="asv"> Ps. 109:4 </a>would not be true: "Thou art a priest for ever." Therefore Christ was a man during those three days. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> When the higher [species] is removed, so is the lower. But the living or animated being is a higher species than animal and + man, because an animal is a sensible animated substance. Now during those three days of death Christ's body was not living + or animated. Therefore He was not a man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It is an article of faith that Christ was truly dead: hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby the truth + of Christ's death is destroyed. Accordingly it is said in the Synodal epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes. P. I, cap. xxvi]: + "If any man does not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death + in the flesh, let him be anathema." Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or + animal that by death the subject ceases to be man or animal; because the death of the man or animal results from the separation + of the soul, which is the formal complement of the man or animal. Consequently, to say that Christ was a man during the three + days of His death simply and without qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can be said that He was "a dead man" during those + three days. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p7"> However, some writers have contended that Christ was a man during those three days, uttering words which are indeed erroneous, + yet without intent of error in faith: as Hugh of Saint Victor, who (De Sacram. ii) contended that Christ, during the three + days that followed His death, was a man, because he held that the soul is a man: but this is false, as was shown in the + <a id="TP_Q50_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q75_A4.html">FP, Q[75], A[4]</a>. Likewise the Master of the Sentences (iii, D, 22) held Christ to be a + man during the three days of His death for quite another reason. For he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be essential + to a man, and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it have a soul and body, whether united or separated: and that + this is likewise false is clear both from what has been said in the + <a id="TP_Q50_A4-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q75_A4.html">FP, Q[75], A[4]</a>, and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union (Q[2] , A[5]). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Word of God assumed a united soul and body: and the result of this assumption was that God is man, and man is God. But + this assumption did not cease by the separation of the Word from the soul or from the flesh; yet the union of soul and flesh + ceased. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Man is said to be his own intellect, not because the intellect is the entire man, but because the intellect is the chief + part of man, in which man's whole disposition lies virtually; just as the ruler of the city may be called the whole city, + since its entire disposal is vested in him. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> That a man is competent to be a priest is by reason of the soul, which is the subject of the character of order: hence a + man does not lose his priestly order by death, and much less does Christ, who is the fount of the entire priesthood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q50_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q50_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ's was identically the same body living and dead?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's was not identically the same body living and dead. For Christ truly died just as other men do. + But the body of everyone else is not simply identically the same, dead and living, because there is an essential difference + between them. Therefore neither is the body of Christ identically the same, dead and living. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, text. 12), things specifically diverse are also numerically diverse. But + Christ's body, living and dead, was specifically diverse: because the eye or flesh of the dead is only called so equivocally, + as is evident from the Philosopher (De Anima ii, text. 9; Metaph. vii). Therefore Christ's body was not simply identically + the same, living and dead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, death is a kind of corruption. But what is corrupted by substantial corruption after being corrupted, exists no + longer, since corruption is change from being to non-being. Therefore, Christ's body, after it was dead, did not remain identically + the same, because death is a substantial corruption. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Athanasius says (Epist. ad Epict.): "In that body which was circumcised and carried, which ate, and toiled, and was nailed + on the tree, there was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God: the same was laid in the tomb." But Christ's living body + was circumcised and nailed on the tree; and Christ's dead body was laid in the tomb. Therefore it was the same body living + and dead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The expression "simply" can be taken in two senses. In the first instance by taking "simply" to be the same as "absolutely"; + thus "that is said simply which is said without addition," as the Philosopher put it (Topic. ii): and in this way the dead + and living body of Christ was simply identically the same: since a thing is said to be "simply" identically the same from + the identity of the subject. But Christ's body living and dead was identical in its + suppositum because alive and dead it had none other besides the Word of God, as was stated above + <a id="TP_Q50_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q50_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. And it is in this sense that Athanasius is speaking in the passage quoted. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p7"> In another way "simply" is the same as "altogether" or "totally": in which sense the body of Christ, dead and alive, was + not "simply" the same identically, because it was not "totally" the same, since life is of the essence of a living body; for + it is an essential and not an accidental predicate: hence it follows that a body which ceases to be living does not remain + totally the same. Moreover, if it were to be said that Christ's dead body did continue "totally" the same, it + would follow that it was not corrupted---I mean, by the corruption of death: which is the heresy of the Gaianites, as Isidore + says (Etym. viii), and is to be found in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. iii). And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that "the term + 'corruption' denotes two things: in one way it is the separation of the soul from the body and other things of the sort; in + another way, the complete dissolving into elements. Consequently it is impious to say with Julian and Gaian that the Lord's + body was incorruptible after the first manner of corruption before the resurrection: because Christ's body would not be consubstantial + with us, nor truly dead, nor would we have been saved in very truth. But in the second way Christ's body was incorrupt." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The dead body of everyone else does not continue united to an abiding hypostasis, as Christ's dead body did; consequently + the dead body of everyone else is not the same "simply," but only in some respect: because it is the same as to its matter, + but not the same as to its form. But Christ's body remains the same simply, on account of the identity of the suppositum, + as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Since a thing is said to be the same identically according to suppositum, but the same specifically according to form: wherever + the suppositum subsists in only one nature, it follows of necessity that when the unity of species is taken away the unity + of identity is also taken away. But the hypostasis of the Word of God subsists in two natures; and consequently, although + in others the body does not remain the same according to the species of human + nature, still it continues identically the same in Christ according to the suppositum of the Word of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Corruption and death do not belong to Christ by reason of the suppositum, from which suppositum follows the unity of identity; + but by reason of the human nature, according to which is found the difference of death and of life in Christ's body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A5-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q50_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q50_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ's death conduced in any way to our salvation?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's death did not conduce in any way to our salvation. For death is a sort of privation, since it + is the privation of life. But privation has not any power of activity, because it is nothing positive. Therefore it could + not work anything for our salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's Passion wrought our salvation by way of merit. But Christ's death could not operate in this way, because + in death the body is separated from the soul, which is the principle of meriting. Consequently, Christ's death did not accomplish + anything towards our salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, what is corporeal is not the cause of what is spiritual. But Christ's death was corporeal. Therefore it could not + be the cause of our salvation, which is something spiritual. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "The one death of our Saviour," namely, that of the body, "saved us from our two deaths," that + is, of the soul and the body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> We may speak of Christ's death in two ways, "in becoming" and "in fact." Death is said to be "in becoming" when anyone from + natural or enforced suffering is tending towards death: and in this way it is the same thing to speak of Christ's death as + of His Passion: so that in this sense Christ's death is the cause of our salvation, according to what has been already said + of the Passion ( + <a id="TP_Q50_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48.html">Q[48])</a>. But death is considered in fact, inasmuch as + the separation of soul and body has already taken place: and it is in this sense that we are now speaking of Christ's death. + In this way Christ's death cannot be the cause of our salvation by way of merit, but only by way of causality, that is to + say, inasmuch as the Godhead was not separated from Christ's flesh by death; and therefore, whatever befell Christ's flesh, + even when the soul was departed, was conducive to salvation in virtue of the Godhead united. But the effect of any cause is + properly estimated according to its resemblance to the cause. Consequently, since death is a kind of privation of one's own + life, the effect of Christ's death is considered in relation to the removal of the obstacles to our salvation: and these are + the death of the soul and of the body. Hence Christ's death is said to have destroyed in us both the death of the soul, caused + by sin, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.25" target="asv"> Rom. 4:25</a>: "He was delivered up [namely unto death] for our sins": and the death + of the body, consisting in the separation of the soul, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q50_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.54" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:54</a>: "Death is swallowed up in victory." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's death wrought our salvation from the power of the Godhead united, and not consisted merely as His death. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Though Christ's death, considered "in fact" did not effect our salvation by way of merit, yet it did so by way of causality, + as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's death was indeed corporeal; but the body was the instrument of the Godhead united to Him, working by Its power, + although dead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q50_A6-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q49_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q51" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q51-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S BURIAL (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q51-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q51-p2"> We have now to consider Christ's burial, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q51-p3"> (1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried?</p> + <p id="TP_Q51-p4"> (2) Concerning the manner of His burial;</p> + <p id="TP_Q51-p5"> (3) Whether His body was decomposed in the tomb?</p> + <p id="TP_Q51-p6"> (4) Concerning the length of time He lay in the tomb.</p> + <div id="TP_Q51_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q51_A1-p0.1">Whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been buried, because it is said of Him ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.87.6" target="asv">Ps. 87:6</a>): "He is [Vulg.: 'I am'] become as a man without help, free among the dead." But the bodies of the dead are enclosed in a + tomb; which seems contrary to liberty. Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to have been buried. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing should be done to Christ except it was helpful to our salvation. But Christ's burial seems in no way to + be conducive to our salvation. Therefore, it was not fitting for Him to be buried. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it seems out of place for God who is above the high heavens to be laid in the earth. But what befalls the dead body + of Christ is attributed to God by reason of the union. Therefore it appears to be unbecoming for Christ to be buried. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.10" target="asv">Mat. 26:10</a>) of the woman who anointed Him: "She has wrought a good work upon Me," and then He added ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.12" target="asv">Mat. 26:12</a>)---"for she, in pouring this ointment upon My body, hath done it for My burial." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting for Christ to be buried. First of all, to establish the truth of His death; for no one is laid in the grave + unless there be certainty of death. Hence we read ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.15.44" target="asv">Mk. 15:44,45</a>), that Pilate by diligent inquiry assured himself of Christ's death before granting leave for His burial. Secondly, because + by Christ's rising from the grave, to them who are in the grave, hope is given of rising again through Him, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.5.25" target="asv"> + Jn. 5:25,28 + </a>: "All that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God . . . and they that hear shall live." Thirdly, as an + example to them who dying spiritually to their sins are hidden away "from the disturbance of men" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.30.21" target="asv">Ps. 30:21</a>). Hence it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A1-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Col.3.3" target="asv">Col. 3:3</a>): "You are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Wherefore the baptized likewise who through Christ's death die + to sins, are as it were buried with Christ by + immersion, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A1-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.4" target="asv"> Rom. 6:4</a>: "We are buried together with Christ by baptism into death." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Though buried, Christ proved Himself "free among the dead": since, although imprisoned in the tomb, He could not be hindered + from going forth by rising again. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Christ's death wrought our salvation, so likewise did His burial. Hence Jerome says (Super Marc. xiv): "By Christ's burial + we rise again"; and on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.9" target="asv"> Is. 53:9</a>: "He shall give the ungodly for His burial," a gloss says: "He shall give to God and the Father the Gentiles who were without + godliness, because He purchased them by His death and burial." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As is said in a discourse made at the Council of Ephesus [*P. iii, cap. 9], "Nothing that saves man is derogatory to God; + showing Him to be not passible, but merciful": and in another discourse of the same Council [*P. iii, cap. 10]: "God does + not repute anything as an injury which is an occasion of men's salvation. Thus thou shalt not deem God's Nature to be so vile, + as though It may sometimes be subjected to injuries." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q51_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q51_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ was buried in a becoming manner?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was buried in an unbecoming manner. For His burial should be in keeping with His death. But Christ + underwent a most shameful death, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.2.20" target="asv"> Wis. 2:20</a>: "Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death." It seems therefore unbecoming for honorable burial to be accorded to Christ, + inasmuch as He was buried by men of position---namely, by Joseph of Arimathea, who was "a noble counselor," to use Mark's + expression + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.15.43" target="asv">Mk. 15:43</a>), and by Nicodemus, who was "a ruler of the Jews," as John states ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p2.3" href="./asv.html#John.3.1" target="asv">Jn. 3:1</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing should be done to Christ which might set an example of wastefulness. But it seems to savor of waste that + in order to bury Christ Nicodemus came "bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes about a hundred pounds weight," as recorded + by John (19:39), especially since a woman came beforehand to anoint His body for the burial, as Mark relates ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.14.28" target="asv">Mk. 14:28</a>). Consequently, this was not done becomingly with regard to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is not becoming for anything done to be inconsistent with itself. But Christ's burial on the one hand was simple, + because "Joseph wrapped His body in a clean linen cloth," as is related by Matthew (27:59), "but not with gold or gems, or + silk," as Jerome observes: yet on the other hand there appears to have been some display, inasmuch as they buried Him with + fragrant spices ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.19.40" target="asv">Jn. 19:40</a>). Consequently, the manner of Christ's + burial does not seem to have been seemly. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "What things soever were written," especially of Christ, "were written for our learning," according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.15.4" target="asv"> Rom. 15:4.</a> But some of the things written in the Gospels touching Christ's burial in no wise seem to pertain to our instruction---as + that He was buried "in a garden . . . "in a tomb which was not His own, which was "new," and "hewed out in a rock." Therefore + the manner of Christ's burial was not becoming. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.11.10" target="asv">Is. 11:10</a>): "And His sepulchre shall be glorious." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The manner of Christ's burial is shown to be seemly in three respects. First, to confirm faith in His death and resurrection. + Secondly, to commend the devotion of those who gave Him burial. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i): "The Gospel mentions + as praiseworthy the deed of those who received His body from the cross, and with due care and reverence wrapped it up and + buried it." Thirdly, as to the mystery whereby those are molded who "are buried together + with Christ into death" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.4" target="asv">Rom. 6:4</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> With regard to Christ's death, His patience and constancy in enduring death are commended, and all the more that His death + was the more despicable: but in His honorable burial we can see the power of the dying Man, who, even in death, frustrated + the intent of His murderers, and was buried with honor: and thereby is foreshadowed the devotion of the faithful who in the + time to come were to serve the dead Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> On that expression of the Evangelist ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#John.19.40" target="asv">Jn. 19:40</a>) that they buried Him "as the manner of the Jews is to bury," Augustine says (Tract. in Joan. cxx): "He admonishes us that + in offices of this kind which are rendered to the dead, the custom of each nation should be observed." Now it was the custom + of this people to anoint bodies with various spices in order the longer to preserve them from corruption [*Cf. Catena Aurea + in Joan. xix]. + Accordingly it is said in De Doctr. Christ. iii that "in all such things, it is not the use thereof, but the luxury of the + user that is at fault"; and, farther on: "what in other persons is frequently criminal, in a divine or prophetic person is + a sign of something great." For myrrh and aloes by their bitterness denote penance, by which man keeps Christ within himself + without the corruption of sin; while the odor of the ointments expresses good report. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Myrrh and aloes were used on Christ's body in order that it might be preserved from corruption, and this seemed to imply + a certain need (in the body): hence the example is set us that we may lawfully use precious things medicinally, from the need + of preserving our body. But the wrapping up of the body was merely a question of becoming propriety. And we ought to content + ourselves with simplicity in such things. Yet, as Jerome observes, by this act was + denoted that "he swathes Jesus in clean linen, who receives Him with a pure soul." Hence, as Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.15.46" target="asv">Mark 15:46</a>: "The Church's custom has prevailed for the sacrifice of the altar to be offered not upon silk, nor upon dyed cloth, but + on linen of the earth; as the Lord's body was buried in a clean winding-sheet." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Christ was buried "in a garden" to express that by His death and burial we are delivered from the death which we incur through + Adam's sin committed in the garden of paradise. But for this "was our Lord buried in the grave of a stranger," as Augustine + says in a sermon (ccxlviii), "because He died for the salvation of others; and a sepulchre is the abode of death." Also the + extent of the poverty endured for us can be thereby estimated: since He who + while living had no home, after death was laid to rest in another's tomb, and being naked was clothed by Joseph. But He is + laid in a "new" sepulchre, as Jerome observes on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.60" target="asv">Mat. 27:60</a>, "lest after the resurrection it might be pretended that someone else had risen, while the other corpses remained. The new + sepulchre can also denote Mary's virginal womb." And furthermore it may be understood that all of us are renewed by Christ's + burial; death and corruption being destroyed. Moreover, He was buried + in a monument "hewn out of a rock," as Jerome says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.64" target="asv"> Mat. 27:64, </a> "lest, if it had been constructed of many stones, they might say that He was stolen away by digging away the foundations + of the tomb." Hence the "great stone" which was set shows that "the tomb could not be opened except by the help of many hands. + Again, if He had been buried in the earth, they might have said: They dug up the soil and stole Him away," as Augustine observes + [*Cf. Catena Aurea]. Hilary + (Comment. in Matth. cap. xxxiii) gives the mystical interpretation, saying that "by the teaching of the apostles, Christ is + borne into the stony heart of the gentile; for it is hewn out by the process of teaching, unpolished and new, untenanted and + open to the entrance of the fear of God. And since naught besides Him must enter into our hearts, a great stone is rolled + against the door." Furthermore, as Origen says (Tract. xxxv in Matth.): "It was not written by hazard: 'Joseph wrapped Christ's + body in a clean winding-sheet, and placed it in a new monument,'" and that "'he rolled a great stone,' because all things + around the body of Jesus are clean, and new, and exceeding great." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q51_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q51_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ's body was reduced to dust in the tomb?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's body was reduced to dust in the tomb. For just as man dies in punishment of his first parent's + sin, so also does he return to dust, since it was said to the first man after his sin: "Dust thou art, and into dust thou + shalt return" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.3.19" target="asv">Gn. 3:19</a>). But Christ endured death in order to deliver us from death. Therefore His body ought to be made to return to dust, so as + to free us from the same penalty. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's body was of the same nature as ours. But directly after death our bodies begin to dissolve into dust, and + are disposed towards putrefaction, because when the natural heat departs, there supervenes heat from without which causes + corruption. Therefore it seems that the same thing happened to Christ's body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q51_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q51_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, Christ willed to be buried in order to furnish men with the hope of rising likewise from the grave. Consequently, He sought + likewise to return to dust so as to give to them who have returned to dust the hope of rising from the dust. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.15.10" target="asv">Ps. 15:10</a>): "Nor wilt Thou suffer Thy holy one to see corruption": and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii) expounds this of the corruption + which comes of dissolving into elements. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was not fitting for Christ's body to putrefy, or in any way be reduced to dust, since the putrefaction of any body comes + of that body's infirmity of nature, which can no longer hold the body together. But as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q51_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q50_A1.html">Q[50], A[1]</a>, ad 2), Christ's death ought not to come from weakness of nature, lest it might not be believed to be voluntary: and therefore + He willed to die, not from sickness, but from suffering inflicted on + Him, to which He gave Himself up willingly. And therefore, lest His death might be ascribed to infirmity of nature, Christ + did not wish His body to putrefy in any way or dissolve no matter how; but for the manifestation of His Divine power He willed + that His body should continue incorrupt. Hence Chrysostom says (Cont. Jud. et Gent. quod 'Christus sit Deus') that "with other + men, especially with such as have wrought strenuously, their deeds shine forth in their lifetime; but as soon as they die, + their deeds go with them. But it is quite the contrary with Christ: because previous to the cross all is sadness and weakness, + but as soon as He is crucified, everything comes to light, in order that you may learn it was not an ordinary man that was + crucified." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Since Christ was not subject to sin, neither was He prone to die or to return to dust. Yet of His own will He endured death + for our salvation, for the reasons alleged above ( + <a id="TP_Q51_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q51_A1.html">Q[51], A[1]</a>). But had His body putrefied or dissolved, this fact would have been detrimental to man's salvation, for it would not have + seemed credible that the Divine power was in Him. Hence it is on His behalf that it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.19.10" target="asv">Ps. + 19:10 + </a>): "What profit is there in my blood, whilst I go down to corruption?" as if He were to say: "If My body corrupt, the profit + of the blood shed will be lost." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's body was a subject of corruption according to the condition of its passible nature, but not as to the deserving + cause of putrefaction, which is sin: but the Divine power preserved Christ's body from putrefying, just as it raised it up + from death. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ rose from the tomb by Divine power, which is not narrowed within bounds. Consequently, His rising from the grave was + a sufficient argument to prove that men are to be raised up by Divine power, not only from their graves, but also from any + dust whatever. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q51_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q51_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ was in the tomb only one day and two nights?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was not in the tomb during only one day and two nights; because He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.40" target="asv">Mat. 12:40</a>): "As Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three + days and three nights." But He was in the heart of the earth while He was in the grave. Therefore He was not in the tomb for + only one day and two nights. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Gregory says in a Paschal Homily (Hom. xxi): "As Samson carried off the gates of Gaza during the night, even so Christ rose + in the night, taking away the gates of hell." But after rising He was not in the tomb. Therefore He was not two whole nights + in the grave. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, light prevailed over darkness by Christ's death. But night belongs to darkness, and day to light. Therefore it was + more fitting for Christ's body to be in the tomb for two days and a night, rather than conversely. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "There were thirty-six hours from the evening of His burial to the dawn of the resurrection, + that is, a whole night with a whole day, and a whole night." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The very time during which Christ remained in the tomb shows forth the effect of His death. For it was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q51_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q50_A6.html">Q[50], A[6]</a>) that by Christ's death we were delivered from a twofold death, namely, from the death of the soul and of the body: and this + is signified by the two nights during which He remained in the tomb. But since His death did not come of sin, but was endured + from charity, it has not the semblance of night, but of + day: consequently it is denoted by the whole day during which Christ was in the sepulchre. And so it was fitting for Christ + to be in the sepulchre during one day and two nights. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "Some men, ignorant of Scriptural language, wished to compute as night those three + hours, from the sixth to the ninth hour, during which the sun was darkened, and as day those other three hours during which + it was restored to the earth, that is, from the ninth hour until its setting: for the coming night of the Sabbath follows, + and if this be reckoned with its day, there will be already two nights and two days. + Now after the Sabbath there follows the night of the first day of the Sabbath, that is, of the dawning Sunday, on which the + Lord rose. Even so, the reckoning of the three days and three nights will not stand. It remains then to find the solution + in the customary usage of speech of the Scriptures, whereby the whole is understood from the part": so that we are able to + take a day and a night as one natural day. And so the first day is computed from its ending, during which Christ died and + was + buried on the Friday; while the second. day is an entire day with twenty-four hours of night and day; while the night following + belongs to the third day. "For as the primitive days were computed from light to night on account of man's future fall, so + these days are computed from the darkness to the daylight on account of man's restoration" (De Trin. iv). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Trin. iv; cf. De Consens. Evang. iii), Christ rose with the dawn, when light appears in part, and still + some part of the darkness of the night remains. Hence it is said of the women that "when it was yet dark" they came "to the + sepulchre" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q51_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.1" target="asv">Jn. 20:1</a>). Therefore, in consequence of this darkness, Gregory says (Hom. xxi) that Christ rose in the middle of the night, not that + night is divided into two equal parts, but during the night + itself: for the expression "early" can be taken as partly night and partly day, from its fittingness with both. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The light prevailed so far in Christ's death (which is denoted by the one day) that it dispelled the darkness of the two + nights, that is, of our twofold death, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q51_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q50_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q52" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q52-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL (EIGHT ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q52-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52-p2"> We have now to consider Christ's descent into hell; concerning which there are eight points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q52-p3"> (1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell?</p> + <p id="TP_Q52-p4"> (2) Into which hell did He descend?</p> + <p id="TP_Q52-p5"> (3) Whether He was entirely in hell?</p> + <p id="TP_Q52-p6"> (4) Whether He made any stay there?</p> + <p id="TP_Q52-p7"> (5) Whether He delivered the Holy Fathers from hell?</p> + <p id="TP_Q52-p8"> (6) Whether He delivered the lost from hell?</p> + <p id="TP_Q52-p9"> (7) Whether He delivered the children who died in original sin?</p> + <p id="TP_Q52-p10"> (8) Whether He delivered men from Purgatory?</p> + <div id="TP_Q52_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q52_A1-p0.1">Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to descend into hell, because Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod. cliv.): "Nor + could I find anywhere in the Scriptures hell mentioned as something good." But Christ's soul did not descend into any evil + place, for neither do the souls of the just. Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ's soul to descend into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it cannot belong to Christ to descend into hell according to His Divine Nature, which is altogether immovable; but + only according to His assumed nature. But that which Christ did or suffered in His assumed nature is ordained for man's salvation: + and to secure this it does not seem necessary for Christ to descend into hell, since He delivered us from both guilt and penalty + by His Passion which He endured in this world, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q52_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html">Q[49], AA[1]</a>,3). Consequently, it was not fitting that Christ should descend into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by Christ's death His soul was separated from His body, and this was laid in the sepulchre, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q52_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q51.html">Q[51])</a>. But it seems that He descended into hell, not according to His soul only, because seemingly the soul, being incorporeal, + cannot be a subject of local motion; for this belongs to bodies, as is proved in Phys. vi, text. 32; while descent implies + corporeal motion. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to descend + into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said in the Creed: "He descended into hell": and the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.9" target="asv">Eph. 4:9</a>): "Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?" And a gloss + adds: "that is---into hell." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p6"> I answer that It was fitting for Christ to descend into hell. First of all, because He came to bear our penalty in order + to free us from penalty, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.53.4" target="asv"> Is. 53:4</a>: "Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows." But through sin man had incurred not only the death of the + body, but also descent into hell. Consequently since it was fitting for Christ to die in order to deliver us from death, so + it was fitting for Him to descend into hell in + order to deliver us also from going down into hell. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Hos.13.14" target="asv">Osee 13:14</a>): "O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite." Secondly, because it was fitting when the devil was overthrown + by the Passion that Christ should deliver the captives detained in hell, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Zech.9.11" target="asv"> Zech. 9:11</a>: "Thou also by the blood of Thy Testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit." And it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A1-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Col.2.15" target="asv">Col. 2:15</a>): + "Despoiling the principalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently." Thirdly, that as He showed forth His power on + earth by living and dying, so also He might manifest it in hell, by visiting it and enlightening it. Accordingly it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A1-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Ps.23.7" target="asv">Ps. 23:7</a>): "Lift up your gates, O ye princes," which the gloss thus interprets: "that is---Ye princes of hell, take away your power, + whereby hitherto you held men fast in hell"; and so "at the name of Jesus every knee should + bow," not only "of them that are in heaven," but likewise "of them that are in hell," as is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A1-p6.6" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.10" target="asv"> Phil. 2:10.</a> + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The name of hell stands for an evil of penalty, and not for an evil of guilt. Hence it was becoming that Christ should descend + into hell, not as liable to punishment Himself, but to deliver them who were. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's Passion was a kind of universal cause of men's salvation, both of the living and of the dead. But a general cause + is applied to particular effects by means of something special. Hence, as the power of the Passion is applied to the living + through the sacraments which make us like unto Christ's Passion, so likewise it is applied to the dead through His descent + into hell. On which account it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Zech.9.11" target="asv">Zech. 9:11</a>) that "He + sent forth prisoners out of the pit, in the blood of His testament," that is, by the power of His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's soul descended into hell not by the same kind of motion as that whereby bodies are moved, but by that kind whereby + the angels are moved, as was said in the + <a id="TP_Q52_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q53_A1.html">FP, Q[53], A[1]</a>. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q52_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q52_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ went down into the hell of the lost?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ went down into the hell of the lost, because it is said by the mouth of Divine Wisdom ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.24.45" target="asv">Ecclus. 24:45</a>): "I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth." But the hell of the lost is computed among the lower parts of the + earth according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.62.10" target="asv"> Ps. 62:10</a>: "They shall go into the lower parts of the earth." Therefore Christ who is the Wisdom of God, went down even into the hell + of the lost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Peter says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.24" target="asv">Acts 2:24</a>) that "God hath raised up Christ, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that He should be holden by it." + But there are no sorrows in the hell of the Fathers, nor in the hell of the children, since they are not punished with sensible + pain on account of any actual sin, but only with the pain of loss on account of original sin. Therefore Christ went down into + the hell of the lost, or else into + Purgatory, where men are tormented with sensible pain on account of actual sins. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.3.19" target="asv">1 Pet. 3:19</a>) that "Christ coming in spirit preached to those spirits that were in prison, which had some time been incredulous": and + this is understood of Christ's descent into hell, as Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.). For he says that "Christ's body was + laid in the sepulchre when He went to preach to those spirits who were in bondage, as Peter said." But it is clear the unbelievers + were in the hell of the lost. + Therefore Christ went down into the hell of the lost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv): "If the sacred Scriptures had said that Christ came into Abraham's bosom, without + naming hell or its woes, I wonder whether any person would dare to assert that He descended into hell. But since evident testimonies + mention hell and its sorrows, there is no reason for believing that Christ went there except to deliver men from the same + woes." But the place of woes is the hell of the lost. Therefore Christ descended + into the hell of the lost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, as Augustine says in a sermon upon the Resurrection: Christ descending into hell "set free all the just who were + held in the bonds of original sin." But among them was Job, who says of himself ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Job.17.16" target="asv">Job 17:16</a>): "All that I have shall go down into the deepest pit." Therefore Christ descended into the deepest pit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p7"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Regarding the hell of the lost it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Job.10.21" target="asv">Job 10:21</a>): "Before I go, and return no more, to a land that is dark and covered with the mist of death." Now there is no "fellowship + of light with darkness," according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.14" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:14.</a> Therefore Christ, who is "the light," did not descend into the hell of the lost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p8"> + <b>I answer that,</b> A thing is said to be in a place in two ways. First of all, through its effect, and in this way Christ descended into each + of the hells, but in different manner. For going down into the hell of the lost He wrought this effect, that by descending + thither He put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness: but to them who were detained in Purgatory He gave hope of + attaining to glory: while upon the holy Fathers detained in hell solely on account of + original sin, He shed the light of glory everlasting. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p9"> In another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence: and in this way Christ's soul descended only into that + part of hell wherein the just were detained. so that He visited them "in place," according to His soul, whom He visited "interiorly + by grace," according to His Godhead. Accordingly, while remaining in one part of hell, He wrought this effect in a measure + in every part of hell, just as while suffering in one part of the earth He delivered the whole world by + His Passion. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, penetrated to all the lower parts of the earth, not passing through them locally with His + soul, but by spreading the effects of His power in a measure to them all: yet so that He enlightened only the just: because + the text quoted continues: "And I will enlighten all that hope in the Lord." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Sorrow is twofold: one is the suffering of pain which men endure for actual sin, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.17.6" target="asv"> Ps. 17:6</a>: "The sorrows of hell encompassed me." Another sorrow comes of hoped-for glory being deferred, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.13.12" target="asv"> Prov. 13:12</a>: "Hope that is deferred afflicteth the soul": and such was the sorrow which the holy Fathers suffered in hell, and Augustine + refers to it in a sermon on the Passion, saying that "they + besought Christ with tearful entreaty." Now by descending into hell Christ took away both sorrows, yet in different ways: + for He did away with the sorrows of pains by preserving souls from them, just as a physician is said to free a man from sickness + by warding it off by means of physic. Likewise He removed the sorrows caused by glory deferred, by bestowing glory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> These words of Peter are referred by some to Christ's descent into hell: and they explain it in this sense: "Christ preached + to them who formerly were unbelievers, and who were shut up in prison"---that is, in hell---"in spirit"---that is, by His + soul. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "As He evangelized them who are upon the earth, so did He those who were in + hell"; not in order to convert unbelievers unto belief, but to put them to shame for + their unbelief, since preaching cannot be understood otherwise than as the open manifesting of His Godhead. which was laid + bare before them in the lower regions by His descending in power into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p13"> Augustine, however, furnishes a better exposition of the text in his Epistle to Evodius quoted above, namely, that the preaching + is not to be referred to Christ's descent into hell, but to the operation of His Godhead, to which He gave effect from the + beginning of the world. Consequently, the sense is, that "to those (spirits) that were in prison"---that is, living in the + mortal body, which is, as it were, the soul's prison-house---"by the spirit" of His Godhead "He came and + preached" by internal inspirations, and from without by the admonitions spoken by the righteous: to those, I say, He preached + "which had been some time incredulous," i.e. not believing in the preaching of Noe, "when they waited for the patience of + God," whereby the chastisement of the Deluge was put off: accordingly (Peter) adds: "In the days of Noe, when the Ark was + being built." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The expression "Abraham's bosom" may be taken in two senses. First of all, as implying that restfulness, existing there, + from sensible pain; so that in this sense it cannot be called hell, nor are there any sorrows there. In another way it can + be taken as implying the privation of longed-for glory: in this sense it has the character of hell and sorrow. Consequently, + that rest of the blessed is now called Abraham's bosom, yet it is not styled hell, nor + are sorrows said to be now in Abraham's bosom. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As Gregory says (Moral. xiii): "Even the higher regions of hell he calls the deepest hell . . . For if relatively to the + height of heaven this darksome air is infernal, then relatively to the height of this same air the earth lying beneath can + be considered as infernal and deep. And again in comparison with the height of the same earth, those parts of hell which are + higher than the other infernal mansions, may in this way be designated as the deepest + hell." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p16"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A2-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q52_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q52_A3-p0.1">Whether the whole Christ was in hell?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the whole Christ was not in hell. For Christ's body is one of His parts. But His body was not in hell. + Therefore, the whole Christ was not in hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing can be termed whole when its parts are severed. But the soul and body, which are the parts of human nature, + were separated at His death, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q52_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q50_A3.html">Q[50], AA[3]</a>,4), and it was after death that He descended into hell. Therefore the whole (Christ) could not be in hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the whole of a thing is said to be in a place when no part of it is outside such place. But there were parts of + Christ outside hell; for instance, His body was in the grave, and His Godhead everywhere. Therefore the whole Christ was not + in hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Symbolo iii): "The whole Son is with the Father, the whole Son in heaven, on earth, in the Virgin's womb, + on the Cross, in hell, in paradise, into which He brought the robber." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It is evident from what was said in the + <a id="TP_Q52_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q31_A2.html">FP, Q[31], A[2]</a>, ad 4, the masculine gender is referred to the hypostasis or person, while the neuter belongs to the nature. Now in the death + of Christ, although the soul was separated from the body, yet neither was separated from the Person of the Son of God, as + stated above (Q[50], A[2]). Consequently, it must be affirmed that during the three days of Christ's death the whole Christ + was in + the tomb, because the whole Person was there through the body united with Him, and likewise He was entirely in hell, because + the whole Person of Christ was there by reason of the soul united with Him, and the whole Christ was then everywhere by reason + of the Divine Nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The body which was then in the grave is not a part of the uncreated Person, but of the assumed nature. Consequently, the + fact of Christ's body not being in hell does not prevent the whole Christ from being there: but proves that not everything + appertaining to human nature was there. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The whole human nature is made up of the united soul and body; not so the Divine Person. Consequently when death severed + the union of the soul with the body, the whole Christ remained, but His whole human nature did not remain. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's Person is whole in each single place, but not wholly, because it is not circumscribed by any place: indeed, all + places put together could not comprise His immensity; rather is it His immensity that embraces all things. But it happens + in those things which are in a place corporeally and circumscriptively, that if a whole be in some place, then no part of + it is outside that place. But this is not the case with God. Hence Augustine says (De + Symbolo iii): "It is not according to times or places that we say that the whole Christ is everywhere, as if He were at one + time whole in one place, at another time whole in another: but as being whole always and everywhere." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q52_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q52_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ made any stay in hell?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not make any stay in hell. For Christ went down into hell to deliver men from thence. But He + accomplished this deliverance at once by His descent, for, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.11.23" target="asv"> Ecclus. 11:23</a>: "It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the poor man rich." Consequently He does not seem to have tarried in + hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion (clx) that "of a sudden at our Lord and Saviour's bidding all 'the bars + of iron were burst'" (Cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.45.2" target="asv"> Is. 45:2</a>). Hence on behalf of the angels accompanying Christ it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.23.7" target="asv">Ps. 23:7</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A4-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.23.9" target="asv">9</a>): "Lift up your gates, O ye princes." Now Christ descended thither in order to break the bolts of hell. Therefore He did + not make any stay in hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is related ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.43" target="asv">Lk. 23:43</a>) that our Lord while hanging on the cross said to the thief: "This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise": from which it + is evident that Christ was in paradise on that very day. But He was not there with His body. for that was in the grave. Therefore + He was there with the soul which had gone down into hell: and consequently it appears that He made no stay in hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Peter says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.24" target="asv">Acts 2:24</a>): "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that He should be held by it." Therefore + it seems that He remained in hell until the hour of the Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Christ, in order to take our penalties upon Himself, willed His body to be laid in the tomb, so likewise He willed His + soul to descend into hell. But the body lay in the tomb for a day and two nights, so as to demonstrate the truth of His death. + Consequently, it is to be believed that His soul was in hell, in order that it might be brought back out of hell simultaneously + with His body from the tomb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When Christ descended into hell He delivered the saints who were there, not by leading them out at once from the confines + of hell, but by enlightening them with the light of glory in hell itself. Nevertheless it was fitting that His soul should + abide in hell as long as His body remained in the tomb. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By the expression "bars of hell" are understood the obstacles which kept the holy Fathers from quitting hell, through the + guilt of our first parent's sin; and these bars Christ burst asunder by the power of His Passion on descending into hell: + nevertheless He chose to remain in hell for some time, for the reason stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Our Lord's expression is not to be understood of the earthly corporeal paradise, but of a spiritual one, in which all are + said to be who enjoy the Divine glory. Accordingly, the thief descended locally into hell with Christ, because it was said + to him: "This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise"; still as to reward he was in paradise, because he enjoyed Christ's Godhead + just as the other saints did. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q52_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q52_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ descending into hell delivered the holy Fathers from thence?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ descending into hell did not deliver the holy Fathers from thence. For Augustine (Epist. ad Evod. + clxiv) says: "I have not yet discovered what Christ descending into hell bestowed upon those righteous ones who were in Abraham's + bosom, from whom I fail to see that He ever departed according to the beatific presence of His Godhead." But had He delivered + them, He would have bestowed much upon them. Therefore it does not appear that + Christ delivered the holy Fathers from hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one is detained in hell except on account of sin. But during life the holy Fathers were justified from sin through + faith in Christ. Consequently they did not need to be delivered from hell on Christ's descent thither. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if you remove the cause, you remove the effect. But that Christ went down into hell was due to sin which was taken + away by the Passion, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q52_A5-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html">Q[49], A[1]</a>). Consequently, the holy Fathers were not delivered on Christ's descent into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says in the sermon on the Passion already quoted that when Christ descended into hell "He broke down the gate and + 'iron bars' of hell, setting at liberty all the righteous who were held fast through original sin." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (A[4], ad 2), when Christ descended into hell He worked through the power of His Passion. But through Christ's + Passion the human race was delivered not only from sin, but also from the debt of its penalty, as stated above (Q[49], AA[1],3). + Now men were held fast by the debt of punishment in two ways: first of all for actual sin which each had committed personally: + secondly, for the sin of the whole human race, which each one in his origin + contracts from our first parent, as stated in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5" target="asv">Rom. 5</a> of which sin the penalty is the death of the body as well as exclusion from glory, as is evident from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.2" target="asv">Gn. 2</a> and 3: because God cast out man from paradise after sin, having beforehand threatened him with death should he sin. Consequently, + when Christ descended into hell, by the power of His Passion He delivered the saints from the penalty whereby they were excluded + from the life of glory, so as to be unable to see God in His Essence, wherein + man's beatitude lies, as stated in the + <a id="TP_Q52_A5-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q3_A8.html">FS, Q[3], A[8]</a>. But the holy Fathers were detained in hell for the reason, that, owing to our first parent's sin, the approach to the life + of glory was not opened. And so when Christ descended into hell He delivered the holy Fathers from thence. And this is what + is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A5-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Zech.9.11" target="asv">Zech. 9:11</a>: "Thou also by the blood of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water." And ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A5-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Col.2.15" target="asv">Col. 2:15</a>) it + is written that "despoiling the principalities and powers," i.e. "of hell, by taking out Isaac and Jacob, and the other just + souls," "He led them," i.e. "He brought them far from this kingdom of darkness into heaven," as the gloss explains. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine is speaking there against such as maintained that the righteous of old were subject to penal sufferings before + Christ's descent into hell. Hence shortly before the passage quoted he says: "Some add that this benefit was also bestowed + upon the saints of old, that on the Lord's coming into hell they were freed from their sufferings. But I fail to see how Abraham, + into whose bosom the poor man was received, was ever in such sufferings." + Consequently, when he afterwards adds that "he had not yet discovered what Christ's descent into hell had brought to the righteous + of old," this must be understood as to their being freed from penal sufferings. Yet Christ bestowed something upon them as + to their attaining glory: and in consequence He dispelled the suffering which they endured through their glory being delayed: + still they had great joy from the very hope thereof, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.56" target="asv"> Jn. 8:56</a>: "Abraham your father + rejoiced that he might see my day." And therefore he adds: "I fail to see that He ever departed, according to the beatific + presence of His Godhead," that is, inasmuch as even before Christ's coming they were happy in hope, although not yet fully + happy in fact. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered from original as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from the + penalty of actual sins, but not from the penalty of original sin, whereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of + man's redemption was not yet paid: just as the faithful are now delivered by baptism from the penalty of actual sins, and + from the penalty of original sin as to exclusion from glory, yet still remain bound + by the penalty of original sin as to the necessity of dying in the body because they are renewed in the spirit, but not yet + in the flesh, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.10" target="asv"> Rom. 8:10</a>: "The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Directly Christ died His soul went down into hell, and bestowed the fruits of His Passion on the saints detained there; although + they did not go out as long as Christ remained in hell, because His presence was part of the fulness of their glory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q52_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A7.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q52_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ delivered any of the lost from hell?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did deliver some of the lost from hell, because it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.24.22" target="asv">Is. 24:22</a>): "And they shall be gathered together as in the gathering of one bundle into the pit, end they shall be shut up there in + prison: and after many days they shall be visited." But there he is speaking of the lost, who "had adored the host of heaven," + according to Jerome's commentary. Consequently it seems that even the lost were visited at + Christ's descent into hell; and this seems to imply their deliverance. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Zech.9.11" target="asv"> Zech. 9:11</a>: "Thou also by the blood of Thy testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water," the gloss observes: + "Thou hast delivered them who were held bound in prisons, where no mercy refreshed them, which that rich man prayed for." + But only the lost are shut up in merciless prisons. Therefore Christ did deliver some from the hell of the lost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's power was not less in hell than in this world, because He worked in every place by the power of His Godhead. + But in this world He delivered some persons of every state. Therefore, in hell also, He delivered some from the state of the + lost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.13.14" target="asv">Osee 13:14</a>): "O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite": upon which the gloss says: "By leading forth the elect, and + leaving there the reprobate." But only the reprobate are in the hell of the lost. Therefore, by Christ's descent into hell + none were delivered from the hell of the lost. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q52_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q52_A5.html">(A[5])</a>, when Christ descended into hell He worked by the power of His Passion. Consequently, His descent into hell brought the fruits + of deliverance to them only who were united to His Passion through faith quickened by charity, whereby sins are taken away. + Now those detained in the hell of the lost either had no faith in Christ's Passion, as infidels; or if they had faith, they + had no conformity with the charity of + the suffering Christ: hence they could not be cleansed from their sins. And on this account Christ's descent into hell brought + them no deliverance from the debt of punishment in hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When Christ descended into hell, all who were in any part of hell were visited in some respect: some to their consolation + and deliverance, others, namely, the lost, to their shame and confusion. Accordingly the passage continues: "And the moon + shall blush, and the sun be put to shame," etc. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p8"> This can also be referred to the visitation which will come upon them in the Day of Judgment, not for their deliverance, + but for their yet greater confusion, according to Sophon. i, 12: "I will visit upon the men that are settled on their lees." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When the gloss says "where no mercy refreshed them," this is to be understood of the refreshing of full deliverance, because + the holy Fathers could not be delivered from this prison of hell before Christ's coming. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It was not due to any lack of power on Christ's part that some were not delivered from every state in hell, as out of every + state among men in this world; but it was owing to the very different condition of each state. For, so long as men live here + below, they can be converted to faith and charity, because in this life men are not confirmed either in good or in evil, as + they are after quitting this life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A6-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A7.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q52_A7" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A8.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q52_A7-p0.1">Whether the children who died in original sin were delivered by Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the children who died in original sin were delivered from hell by Christ's descending thither. For, like + the holy Fathers, the children were kept in hell simply because of original sin. But the holy Fathers were delivered from + hell, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q52_A7-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q52_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. Therefore the children were similarly delivered from hell by Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A7-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.15" target="asv">Rom. 5:15</a>): "If by the offense of one, many died; much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath + abounded unto many." But the children who die with none but original sin are detained in hell owing to their first parent's + sin. Therefore, much more were they delivered from hell through the grace of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Baptism works in virtue of Christ's Passion, so also does Christ's descent into hell, as is clear from what has + been said (A[4], ad 2, AA[5],6). But through Baptism children are delivered from original sin and hell. Therefore, they were + similarly delivered by Christ's descent into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A7-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.25" target="asv">Rom. 3:25</a>): "God hath proposed Christ to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." But the children who had died with only original + sin were in no wise sharers of faith in Christ. Therefore, they did not receive the fruits of Christ's propitiation, so as + to be delivered by Him from hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q52_A7-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q52_A6.html">(A[6])</a>, Christ's descent into hell had its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and charity were united to Christ's + Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had died in original sin + were in no way united to Christ's Passion by faith and love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have no faith + of their own; nor were they cleansed from + original sin either by their parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith. Consequently, Christ's descent into hell did not + deliver the children from thence. And furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory + of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A7-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.23" target="asv"> Rom. 6:23</a>: "The grace of God is life everlasting." Therefore, since children dying in original sin had no grace, they were not delivered + from + hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The holy Fathers, although still held bound by the debt of original sin, in so far as it touches human nature, were nevertheless + delivered from all stain of sin by faith in Christ: consequently, they were capable of that deliverance which Christ brought + by descending into hell. But the same cannot be said of the children, as is evident from what was said above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> When the Apostle says that the grace of God "hath abounded unto many," the word "many" [*The Vulgate reads 'plures,' i.e. + 'many more'] is to be taken, not comparatively, as if more were saved by Christ's grace than lost by Adam's sin: but absolutely, + as if he said that the grace of the one Christ abounded unto many, just as Adam's sin was contracted by many. But as Adam's + sin was contracted by those only who descended seminally from him according to + the flesh, so Christ's grace reached those only who became His members by spiritual regeneration: which does not apply to + children dying in original sin. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Baptism is applied to men in this life, in which man's state can be changed from sin into grace: but Christ's descent into + hell was vouchsafed to the souls after this life when they are no longer capable of the said change. And consequently by baptism + children are delivered from original sin and from hell, but not by Christ's descent into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A7-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A8.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q52_A8" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q52_A8-p0.1">Whether Christ by His descent into hell delivered souls from purgatory?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ by His descent into hell delivered souls from Purgatory---for Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv): + "Because evident testimonies speak of hell and its pains, there is no reason for believing that the Saviour came thither except + to rescue men from those same pains: but I still wish to know whether it was all whom He found there, or some whom He deemed + worthy of such a benefit. Yet I do not doubt that Christ went into hell, and granted + this favor to them who were suffering from its pains." But, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q52_A8-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q52_A6.html">(A[6])</a>, He did not confer the benefit of deliverance upon the lost: and there are no others in a state of penal suffering except + those in Purgatory. Consequently Christ delivered souls from Purgatory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the very presence of Christ's soul had no less effect than His sacraments have. But souls are delivered from Purgatory + by the sacraments, especially by the sacrament of the Eucharist, as shall be shown later ( + <a id="TP_Q52_A8-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q71_A9.html">XP, Q[71], A[9]</a>). Therefore much more were souls delivered from Purgatory by the presence of Christ descending into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Augustine says (De Poenit. ix), those whom Christ healed in this life He healed completely. Also, our Lord says + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A8-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.7.23" target="asv">Jn. 7:23</a>): "I have healed the whole man on the sabbath-day." But Christ delivered them who were in Purgatory from the punishment of + the pain of loss, whereby they were excluded from glory. Therefore, He also delivered them from the punishment of Purgatory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Gregory says (Moral. xiii): "Since our Creator and Redeemer, penetrating the bars of hell, brought out from thence the souls + of the elect, He does not permit us to go thither, from whence He has already by descending set others free." But He permits + us to go to Purgatory. Therefore, by descending into hell, He did not deliver souls from Purgatory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As we have stated more than once (A[4], ad 2, AA[5],6,7), Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance in virtue of + His Passion. Now Christ's Passion had a virtue which was neither temporal nor transitory, but everlasting, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q52_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.14" target="asv"> Heb. 10:14</a>: "For by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." And so it is evident that Christ's Passion had + no greater efficacy then than it has now. Consequently, they who + were such as those who are now in Purgatory, were not set free from Purgatory by Christ's descent into hell. But if any were + found such as are now set free from Purgatory by virtue of Christ's Passion, then there was nothing to hinder them from being + delivered from Purgatory by Christ's descent into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> From this passage of Augustine it cannot be concluded that all who were in Purgatory were delivered from it, but that such + a benefit was bestowed upon some persons, that is to say, upon such as were already cleansed sufficiently, or who in life, + by their faith and devotion towards Christ's death, so merited, that when He descended, they were delivered from the temporal + punishment of Purgatory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's power operates in the sacraments by way of healing and expiation. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist delivers + men from Purgatory inasmuch as it is a satisfactory sacrifice for sin. But Christ's descent into hell was not satisfactory; + yet it operated in virtue of the Passion, which was satisfactory, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q52_A8-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A2.html">Q[48], A[2]</a>), but satisfactory in general, since its virtue had to be applied to each + individual by something specially personal ( + <a id="TP_Q52_A8-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html">Q[49], A[1]</a>, ad 4,5). Consequently, it does not follow of necessity that all were delivered from Purgatory by Christ's descent into hell. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those defects from which Christ altogether delivered men in this world were purely personal, and concerned the individual; + whereas exclusion from God's glory was a general defect and common to all human nature. Consequently, there was nothing to + prevent those detained in Purgatory being delivered by Christ from their privation of glory, but not from the debt of punishment + in Purgatory which pertains to personal defect. Just as on the other hand, the + holy Fathers before Christ's coming were delivered from their personal defects, but not from the common defect, as was stated + above (A[7], ad 1; + <a id="TP_Q52_A8-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A5.html"> Q[49], A[5]</a>, ad 1). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q52_A8-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A7.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q51_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q53" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q53-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q53-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q53-p2"> We have now to consider those things that concern Christ's Exaltation; and we shall deal with (1) His Resurrection; (2) His + Ascension; (3) His sitting at the right hand of God the Father; (4) His Judiciary Power. Under the first heading there is + a fourfold consideration: (1) Christ's Resurrection in itself; (2) the quality of the Person rising; (3) the manifestation + of the Resurrection; (4) its causality. Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry: + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53-p3"> (1) The necessity of His Resurrection;</p> + <p id="TP_Q53-p4"> (2) The time of the Resurrection;</p> + <p id="TP_Q53-p5"> (3) Its order;</p> + <p id="TP_Q53-p6"> (4) Its cause.</p> + <div id="TP_Q53_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q53_A1-p0.1">Whether it was necessary for Christ to rise again?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to rise again. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "Resurrection is + the rising again of an animate being, which was disintegrated and fallen." But Christ did not fall by sinning, nor was His + body dissolved, as is manifest from what was stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q53_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q51_A3.html">Q[51], A[3]</a>). Therefore, it does not properly belong to Him to rise again. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whoever rises again is promoted to a higher state, since to rise is to be uplifted. But after death Christ's body + continued to be united with the Godhead, hence it could not be uplifted to any higher condition. Therefore, it was not due + to it to rise again. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, all that befell Christ's humanity was ordained for our salvation. But Christ's Passion sufficed for our salvation, + since by it we were loosed from guilt and punishment, as is clear from what was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q53_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q49_A1.html">Q[49], A[1]</a>,3). Consequently, it was not necessary for Christ to rise again from the dead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.46" target="asv">Lk. 24:46</a>): "It behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again from the dead." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It behooved Christ to rise again, for five reasons. First of all; for the commendation of Divine Justice, to which it belongs + to exalt them who humble themselves for God's sake, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.52" target="asv"> Lk. 1:52</a>: "He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble." Consequently, because Christ humbled Himself + even to the death of the Cross, from love and obedience to God, it behooved Him to be uplifted by God to a glorious + resurrection; hence it is said in His Person ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.138.2" target="asv">Ps. 138:2</a>): "Thou hast known," i.e. approved, "my sitting down," i.e. My humiliation and Passion, "and my rising up," i.e. My glorification + in the resurrection; as the gloss expounds. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p7"> Secondly, for our instruction in the faith, since our belief in Christ's Godhead is confirmed by His rising again, because, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.13.4" target="asv">2 Cor. 13:4</a>, "although He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God." And therefore it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.14" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:14</a>): "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and our [Vulg.: 'your'] faith is also vain": and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.29.10" target="asv">Ps. 29:10</a>): "What profit is there in my blood?" that is, + in the shedding of My blood, "while I go down," as by various degrees of evils, "into corruption?" As though He were to answer: + "None. 'For if I do not at once rise again but My body be corrupted, I shall preach to no one, I shall gain no one,'" as the + gloss expounds. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p8"> Thirdly, for the raising of our hope, since through seeing Christ, who is our head, rise again, we hope that we likewise + shall rise again. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:12</a>): "Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the + dead?" And ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Job.19.25" target="asv">Job 19:25</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Job.19.27" target="asv">27</a>): "I know," that is with certainty of faith, "that my Redeemer," i.e. Christ, "liveth," having risen from the dead; "and" + therefore "in the last day I shall rise out of the earth . . . this my hope is laid up in my bosom." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p9"> Fourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.4" target="asv">Rom. 6:4</a>: "As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life": and further on; "Christ + rising from the dead dieth now no more; so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive to God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p10"> Fifthly, in order to complete the work of our salvation: because, just as for this reason did He endure evil things in dying + that He might deliver us from evil, so was He glorified in rising again in order to advance us towards good things; according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.25" target="asv"> Rom. 4:25</a>: "He was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although Christ did not fall by sin, yet He fell by death, because as sin is a fall from righteousness, so death is a fall + from life: hence the words of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Mic.7.8" target="asv"> Mic. 7:8 </a>can be taken as though spoken by Christ: "Rejoice not thou, my enemy, over me, because I am fallen: I shall rise again." Likewise, + although Christ's body was not disintegrated by returning to dust, yet the separation of His soul and body was a kind of + disintegration. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Godhead was united with Christ's flesh after death by personal union, but not by natural union; thus the soul is united + with the body as its form, so as to constitute human nature. Consequently, by the union of the body and soul, the body was + uplifted to a higher condition of nature, but not to a higher personal state. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ's Passion wrought our salvation, properly speaking, by removing evils; but the Resurrection did so as the beginning + and exemplar of all good things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A1-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q53_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q53_A2-p0.1">Whether it was fitting for Christ to rise again on the third day?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting that Christ should have risen again on the third day. For the members ought to be in conformity with + their head. But we who are His members do not rise from death on the third day, since our rising is put off until the end + of the world. Therefore, it seems that Christ, who is our head, should not have risen on the third day, but that His Resurrection + ought to have been deferred until the end of the world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Peter said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.24" target="asv">Acts 2:24</a>) that "it was impossible for Christ to be held fast by hell" and death. Therefore it seems that Christ's rising ought not + to have been deferred until the third day, but that He ought to have risen at once on the same day; especially since the gloss + quoted above + <a id="TP_Q53_A2-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q53_A1.html">(A[1])</a> says that "there is no profit in the shedding of Christ's blood, if He did not rise at once." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> The day seems to start with the rising of the sun, the presence of which causes the day. But Christ rose before sunrise: + for it is related ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.1" target="asv">Jn. 20:1</a>) that "Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre": but Christ was already risen, for it goes on + to say: "And she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre." Therefore Christ did not rise on the third day. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.20.19" target="asv">Mat. 20:19</a>): "They shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day He shall rise again." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q53_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q53_A1.html">(A[1])</a> Christ's Resurrection was necessary for the instruction of our faith. But our faith regards Christ's Godhead and humanity, + for it is not enough to believe the one without the other, as is evident from what has been said (Q[36], A[4]; cf. + <a id="TP_Q53_A2-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q2_A7.html">SS, Q[2], AA[7]</a>,8). Consequently, in order that our faith in the truth of His Godhead might be confirmed it was necessary that He should + rise speedily, + and that His Resurrection should not be deferred until the end of the world. But to confirm our faith regarding the truth + of His humanity and death, it was needful that there should be some interval between His death and rising. For if He had risen + directly after death, it might seem that His death was not genuine and consequently neither would His Resurrection be true. + But to establish the truth of Christ's death, it was enough for His rising to be deferred until the third day, for within + that + time some signs of life always appear in one who appears to be dead whereas he is alive. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p7"> Furthermore, by His rising on the third day, the perfection of the number "three" is commended, which is "the number of everything," + as having "beginning, middle, and end," as is said in De Coelo i. Again in the mystical sense we are taught that Christ by + "His one death" (i.e. of the body) which was light, by reason of His righteousness, "destroyed our two deaths" (i.e. of soul + and body), which are as darkness on account of sin; consequently, He remained in death for one day and + two nights, as Augustine observes (De Trin. iv). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p8"> And thereby is also signified that a third epoch began with the Resurrection: for the first was before the Law; the second + under the Law; and the third under grace. Moreover the third state of the saints began with the Resurrection of Christ: for, + the first was under figures of the Law; the second under the truth of faith; while the third will be in the eternity of glory, + which Christ inaugurated by rising again. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The head and members are likened in nature, but not in power; because the power of the head is more excellent than that of + the members. Accordingly, to show forth the excellence of Christ's power, it was fitting that He should rise on the third + day, while the resurrection of the rest is put off until the end of the world. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Detention implies a certain compulsion. But Christ was not held fast by any necessity of death, but was "free among the dead": + and therefore He abode a while in death, not as one held fast, but of His own will, just so long as He deemed necessary for + the instruction of our faith. And a task is said to be done "at once" which is performed within a short space of time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q53_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q51_A4.html">Q[51], A[4]</a>, ad 1,2), Christ rose early when the day was beginning to dawn, to denote that by His Resurrection He brought us to the light + of glory; just as He died when the day was drawing to its close, and nearing to darkness, in order to signify that by His + death He would destroy the darkness of sin and its punishment. Nevertheless He is said to have risen on the third day, taking + day as a natural day which + contains twenty-four hours. And as Augustine says (De Trin. iv): "The night until the dawn, when the Lord's Resurrection was + proclaimed, belongs to the third day. Because God, who made the light to shine forth from darkness, in order that by the grace + of the New Testament and partaking of Christ's rising we might hear this---'once ye were darkness, but now light in the Lord'---insinuates + in a measure to us that day draws its origin from night: for, as the first days are computed from light to + darkness on account of man's coming fall, so these days are reckoned from darkness to light owing to man's restoration." And + so it is evident that even if He had risen at midnight, He could be said to have risen on the third day, taking it as a natural + day. But now that He rose early, it can be affirmed that He rose on the third day, even taking the artificial day which is + caused by the sun's presence, because the sun had already begun to brighten the sky. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.2" target="asv">Mk. + 16:2 + </a>) that "the women come to the sepulchre, the sun being now risen"; which is not contrary to John's statement "when it was + yet dark," as Augustine says (De Cons. Evang. iii), "because, as the day advances the more the light rises, the more are the + remaining shadows dispelled." But when Mark says "'the sun being now risen,' it is not to be taken as if the sun were already + apparent over the horizon, but as coming presently into those parts." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q53_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q53_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ was the first to rise from the dead?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ was not the first to rise from the dead, because we read in the Old Testament of some persons raised + to life by Elias and Eliseus, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.35" target="asv"> Heb. 11:35</a>: "Women received their dead raised to life again": also Christ before His Passion raised three dead persons to life. Therefore + Christ was not the first to rise from the dead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, among the other miracles which happened during the Passion, it is narrated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.52" target="asv">Mat. 27:52</a>) that "the monuments were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had slept rose again." Therefore Christ was not the first + to rise from the dead. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Christ by His own rising is the cause of our resurrection, so by His grace He is the cause of our grace, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv"> Jn. 1:16</a>: "Of His fulness we all have received." But in point of time some others had grace previous to Christ---for instance all + the fathers of the Old Testament. Therefore some others came to the resurrection of the body before Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.20" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:20</a>): "Christ is risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep---because," says the gloss, "He rose first in point + of time and dignity." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Resurrection is a restoring from death to life. Now a man is snatched from death in two ways: first of all, from actual death, + so that he begins in any way to live anew after being actually dead: in another way, so that he is not only rescued from death, + but from the necessity, nay more, from the possibility of dying again. Such is a true and perfect resurrection, because so + long as a man lives, subject to the necessity of dying, death has dominion over him + in a measure, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.10" target="asv"> Rom. 8:10</a>: "The body indeed is dead because of sin." Furthermore, what has the possibility of existence, is said to exist in some respect, + that is, in potentiality. Thus it is evident that the resurrection, whereby one is rescued from actual death only, is but + an imperfect one. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p7"> Consequently, speaking of perfect resurrection, Christ is the first of them who rise, because by rising He was the first + to attain life utterly immortal, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.9" target="asv"> Rom. 6:9</a>: "Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more." But by an imperfect resurrection, some others have risen before Christ, + so as to be a kind of figure of His Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p8"> And thus the answer to the first objection is clear: because both those raised from the dead in the old Testament, and those + raised by Christ, so returned to life that they had to die again. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There are two opinions regarding them who rose with Christ. Some hold that they rose to life so as to die no more, because + it would be a greater torment for them to die a second time than not to rise at all. According to this view, as Jerome observes + on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.52" target="asv"> Mat. 27:52,53, </a> we must understand that "they had not risen before our Lord rose." Hence the Evangelist says that "coming out of the tombs + after His Resurrection, they came into the + holy city, and appeared to many." But Augustine (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv) while giving this opinion, says: "I know that it appears + some, that by the death of Christ the Lord the same resurrection was bestowed upon the righteous as is promised to us in the + end; and if they slept not again by laying aside their bodies, it remains to be seen how Christ can be understood to be 'the + first-born of the dead,' if so many preceded Him unto that resurrection. Now if reply be made that this is said by + anticipation, so that the monuments be understood to have been opened by the earthquake while Christ was still hanging on + the cross, but that the bodies of the just did not rise then but after He had risen, the difficulty still arises---how is + it that Peter asserts that it was predicted not of David but of Christ, that His body would not see corruption, since David's + tomb was in their midst; and thus he did not convince them, if David's body was no longer there; for even if he had risen + soon + after his death, and his flesh had not seen corruption, his tomb might nevertheless remain. Now it seems hard that David from + whose seed Christ is descended, was not in that rising of the just, if an eternal rising was conferred upon them. Also that + saying in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:40) regarding the ancient just would be hard to explain, 'that they should not be + perfected without us,' if they were already established in that incorruption of the resurrection which is promised at the + end + when we shall be made perfect": so that Augustine would seem to think that they rose to die again. In this sense Jerome also + in commenting on Matthew (27:52,53) says: "As Lazarus rose, so also many of the bodies of the saints rose, that they might + bear witness to the risen Christ." Nevertheless in a sermon for the Assumption [*Ep. ix ad Paul. et Eustoch.; among the supposititious + works ascribed to St. Jerome] he seems to leave the matter doubtful. But Augustine's reasons seem to be much more + cogent. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As everything preceding Christ's coming was preparatory for Christ, so is grace a disposition for glory. Consequently, it + behooved all things appertaining to glory, whether they regard the soul, as the perfect fruition of God, or whether they regard + the body, as the glorious resurrection, to be first in Christ as the author of glory: but that grace should be first in those + that were ordained unto Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q53_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q53_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ was the cause of His own Resurrection?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ was not the cause of His own Resurrection. For whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of his + own rising. But Christ was raised up by another, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.2.24" target="asv"> Acts 2:24</a>: "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell": and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.11" target="asv"> Rom. 8:11</a>: "He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies." Therefore Christ is not the cause + of His own Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one is said to merit, or ask from another, that of which he is himself the cause. But Christ by His Passion merited + the Resurrection, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): "The lowliness of the Passion is the meritorious cause of the glory + of the Resurrection." Moreover He asked the Father that He might be raised up again, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.40.11" target="asv"> Ps. 40:11</a>: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up again." Therefore He was + not the cause of His rising again. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. iv), it is not the soul that rises again, but the body, which is stricken by + death. But the body could not unite the soul with itself, since the soul is nobler. Therefore what rose in Christ could not + be the cause of His Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.18" target="asv">Jn. 10:18</a>): "No one taketh My soul from Me, but I lay it down, and I take it up again." But to rise is nothing else than to take the + soul up again. Consequently, it appears that Christ rose again of His own power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q53_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q50_A2.html">Q[50], AA[2]</a>,3) in consequence of death Christ's Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His flesh. Consequently, both the soul + and the flesh of the dead Christ can be considered in two respects: first, in respect of His Godhead; secondly, in respect + of His created nature. Therefore, according to the virtue of the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the soul which + it had laid aside, and the soul + took back again the body which it had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is precisely what is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q53_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.13.4" target="asv">2 Cor. 13:4</a>): "For although He was crucified through" our "weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God." But if we consider the body + and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary + for Christ to be raised up by God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of the Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually + consequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the Father, and by His own power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ by praying besought and merited His Resurrection, as man and not as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> According to its created nature Christ's body is not more powerful than His soul; yet according to its Divine power it is + more powerful. Again the soul by reason of the Godhead united to it is more powerful than the body in respect of its created + nature. Consequently, it was by the Divine power that the body and soul mutually resumed each other, but not by the power + of their created nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q53_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q52_A8.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q54" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q54-p0.1">OF THE QUALITY OF CHRIST RISING AGAIN (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q54-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54-p2"> We have now to consider the quality of the rising Christ, which presents four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q54-p3"> (1) Whether Christ had a true body after His Resurrection?</p> + <p id="TP_Q54-p4"> (2) Whether He rose with His complete body?</p> + <p id="TP_Q54-p5"> (3) Whether His was a glorified body?</p> + <p id="TP_Q54-p6"> (4) Of the scars which showed in His body.</p> + <div id="TP_Q54_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q54_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ had a true body after His Resurrection?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection. For a true body cannot be in the same place at + the same time with another body. But after the Resurrection Christ's body was with another at the same time in the same place: + since He entered among the disciples "the doors being shut," as is related in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.26" target="asv"> Jn. 20:26.</a> Therefore it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a true body does not vanish from the beholder's sight unless perchance it be corrupted. But Christ's body "vanished + out of the sight" of the disciples as they gazed upon Him, as is related in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.31" target="asv">Lk. 24:31</a>. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not have a true body after His Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every true body has its determinate shape. But Christ's body appeared before the disciples "in another shape," as + is evident from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.15.12" target="asv"> Mk. 15:12.</a> Therefore it seems that Christ did not possess a true body after His Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.37" target="asv">Lk. 24:37</a>) that when Christ appeared to His disciples "they being troubled and frightened, supposed that they saw a spirit," as if + He had not a true but an imaginary body: but to remove their fears He presently added: "Handle and see, for a spirit hath + not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." Consequently, He had not an imaginary but a true body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said to rise, which fell. But Christ's body fell by death; namely, inasmuch + as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated from it. Hence, in order for it to be a true resurrection, it was + necessary for the same body of Christ to be once more united with the same soul. And since the truth of the body's nature + is from its form it follows that Christ's body after His Resurrection was a true body, and of + the same nature as it was before. But had His been an imaginary body, then His Resurrection would not have been true, but + apparent. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's body after His Resurrection, not by miracle but from its glorified condition, as some say, entered in among the + disciples while the doors were shut, thus existing with another body in the same place. But whether a glorified body can have + this from some hidden property, so as to be with another body at the same time in the same place, will be discussed later + ( + <a id="TP_Q54_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q83_A4.html">XP, Q[83], A[4]</a>) when the common resurrection will be dealt + with. For the present let it suffice to say that it was not from any property within the body, but by virtue of the Godhead + united to it, that this body, although a true one, entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut. Accordingly Augustine + says in a sermon for Easter (ccxlvii) that some men argue in this fashion: "If it were a body; if what rose from the sepulchre + were what hung upon the tree, how could it enter through closed doors?" And he answers: "If you understand how, it is + no miracle: where reason fails, faith abounds." And (Tract. cxxi super Joan.) he says: "Closed doors were no obstacle to the + substance of a Body wherein was the Godhead; for truly He could enter in by doors not open, in whose Birth His Mother's virginity + remained inviolate." And Gregory says the same in a homily for the octave of Easter (xxvi in Evang.). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q54_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q53_A3.html">Q[53], A[3]</a>), Christ rose to the immortal life of glory. But such is the disposition of a glorified body that it is spiritual, i.e. subject + to the spirit, as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.44" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:44</a>). Now in order for the body to be entirely subject to the spirit, it is necessary for the body's every action to be subject + to the will of the spirit. Again, that an object be seen is due to the action of the visible object + upon the sight, as the Philosopher shows (De Anima ii). Consequently, whoever has a glorified body has it in his power to + be seen when he so wishes, and not to be seen when he does not wish it. Moreover Christ had this not only from the condition + of His glorified body, but also from the power of His Godhead, by which power it may happen that even bodies not glorified + are miraculously unseen: as was by a miracle bestowed on the blessed Bartholomew, that "if he wished he could be seen, and + not be + seen if he did not wish it" [*Apocryphal Historia Apost. viii, 2]. Christ, then, is said to have vanished from the eyes of + the disciples, not as though He were corrupted or dissolved into invisible elements; but because He ceased, of His own will, + to be seen by them, either while He was present or while He was departing by the gift of agility. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Severianus [*Peter Chrysologus: Serm. lxxxii] says in a sermon for Easter: "Let no one suppose that Christ changed His + features at the Resurrection." This is to be understood of the outline of His members; since there was nothing out of keeping + or deformed in the body of Christ which was conceived of the Holy Ghost, that had to be righted at the Resurrection. Nevertheless + He received the glory of clarity in the Resurrection: accordingly the same + writer adds: "but the semblance is changed, when, ceasing to be mortal, it becomes immortal; so that it acquired the glory + of countenance, without losing the substance of the countenance." Yet He did not come to those disciples in glorified appearance; + but, as it lay in His power for His body to be seen or not, so it was within His power to present to the eyes of the beholders + His form either glorified or not glorified, or partly glorified and partly not, or in any fashion whatsoever. Still it + requires but a slight difference for anyone to seem to appear another shape. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q54_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q54_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ's body rose glorified? [*Some editions give this article as the third, following the order of the introduction + to the question. But this is evident from the first sentence of the body of A[3] (A[2] in the aforesaid editions), that the + order of the Leonine edition is correct.] + </h4> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For glorified bodies shine, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.13.43" target="asv"> Mat. 13:43</a>: "Then shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." But shining bodies are seen under the aspect of light, + but not of color. Therefore, since Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color, as it had been hitherto, it seems that + it was not a glorified one. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's body seems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable, + as He Himself says in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.39" target="asv"> Lk. 24:39</a>: "Handle, and see." Now Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi) that "what is handled must be corruptible, and that which is incorruptible + cannot be handled." Consequently, Christ's body was not glorified. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is clear from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 15</a>. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems to have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we read + in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems that Christ's body was not glorified. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.21" target="asv">Phil. 3:21</a>): "He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection, and this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His Resurrection + was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.43" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:43.</a> But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified bodies, as is written in the same place: "It is sown in dishonor, + it shall rise in glory." Hence, since the cause is mightier than the effect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much + more glorious, then, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because He merited the glory of His Resurrection + by the lowliness of His Passion. Hence He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.12.27" target="asv">Jn. 12:27</a>): "Now is My soul troubled," which refers to the Passion; and later He adds: "Father, glorify Thy name," whereby He asks + for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q54_A2-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q34_A4.html">Q[34], A[4]</a>), Christ's soul was glorified from the instant of His conception by + perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q54_A2-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q14_A1.html">Q[14], A[1]</a>, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy that the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that by the Passion + He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption. Consequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was finished, + straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen body in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Whatever is received within a subject is received according to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows from + the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified + body is after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as variously colored glass derives its splendor from the + sun's radiance, according to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power + of a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above (A[1], ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor + be seen or not. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness. And it was in this way that Christ's body + appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> We say that a body can be handled not only because of its resistance, but also on account of its density. But from rarity + and density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and similar contraries, which are the principles of corruption in + elementary bodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human touch is naturally corruptible. But if there be a body + that resists touch, and yet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned, which + are the proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body, then such body cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's + body after the Resurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible qualities such as the nature of a human body requires, + and therefore it could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the nature of a human body, it would likewise be + corruptible. But it had something else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the nature of a heavenly body, as some + maintain, and into which we shall make fuller inquiry later ( + <a id="TP_Q54_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q82_A1.html">XP, Q[82], A[1]</a>), but it was glory flowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor. cxviii): "God made the soul + of such powerful nature, that from its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the body, that is, the vigor + of incorruption." And therefore Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxvi): "Christ's body is shown to be of the same nature, but + of different glory, after the + Resurrection." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): "After the Resurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat with + the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His power." For as Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.41" target="asv"> Lk. 24:41</a>: "The thirsty earth sucks in the water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from need, the latter by its power." + Hence after the Resurrection He ate, "not as needing food, but in order thus to + show the nature of His risen body." Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that stands in need of food. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q54_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q54_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ's body rose again entire?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's body did not rise entire. For flesh and blood belong to the integrity of the body: whereas Christ + seems not to have had both, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.50" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:50</a>): "Flesh and blood can not possess the kingdom of God." But Christ rose in the glory of the kingdom of God. Therefore it + seems that He did not have flesh and blood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, blood is one of the four humors. Consequently, if Christ had blood, with equal reason He also had the other humors, + from which corruption is caused in animal bodies. It would follow, then, that Christ's body was corruptible, which is unseemly. + Therefore Christ did not have flesh and blood. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the body of Christ which rose, ascended to heaven. But some of His blood is kept as relics in various churches. + Therefore Christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its parts. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.39" target="asv">Lk. 24:39</a>) while addressing His disciples after the Resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q54_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q54_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, Christ's body in the Resurrection was "of the same nature, but differed in glory." Accordingly, whatever goes with the nature + of a human body, was entirely in the body of Christ when He rose again. Now it is clear that flesh, bones, blood, and other + such things, are of the very nature of the human body. Consequently, all these things were in Christ's body when He rose again; + and this also integrally, without + any diminution; otherwise it would not have been a complete resurrection, if whatever was lost by death had not been restored. + Hence our Lord assured His faithful ones by saying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.30" target="asv">Mat. 10:30</a>): "The very hairs of your head are all numbered": and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.21.18" target="asv">Lk. 21:18</a>): "A hair of your head shall not perish." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p7"> But to say that Christ's body had neither flesh, nor bones, nor the other natural parts of a human body, belongs to the error + of Eutyches, Bishop of Constantinople, who maintained that "our body in that glory of the resurrection will be impalpable, + and more subtle than wind and air: and that our Lord, after the hearts of the disciples who handled Him were confirmed, brought + back to subtlety whatever could be handled in Him" [*St. Gregory, Moral. in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Job.14.56" target="asv"> Job + 14:56 + </a>]. Now Gregory condemns this in the same book, because Christ's body was not changed after the Resurrection, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.9" target="asv"> Rom. 6:9</a>: "Christ rising from the dead, dieth now no more." Accordingly, the very man who had said these things, himself retracted + them at his death. For, if it be unbecoming for Christ to take a body of another nature in His conception, a heavenly one + for instance, as Valentine asserted, it is much more unbecoming for Him at His + Resurrection to resume a body of another nature, because in His Resurrection He resumed unto an everlasting life, the body + which in His conception He had assumed to a mortal life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the nature of flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and blood, + as Gregory says [*St. Gregory, Moral. in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Job.14.56" target="asv"> Job 14:56</a>], or else for the corruption of flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resur. Carn.), "there will be + neither corruption there, nor mortality of flesh and blood." Therefore flesh according to its substance possesses the kingdom + of God, + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.39" target="asv"> Lk. 24:39</a>: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." But flesh, if understood as to its corruption, will not possess + it; hence it is straightway added in the words of the Apostle: "Neither shall corruption possess incorruption." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says in the same book: "Perchance by reason of the blood some keener critic will press us and say; If the blood + was" in the body of Christ when He rose, "why not the rheum?" that is, the phlegm; "why not also the yellow gall?" that is, + the gall proper; "and why not the black gall?" that is, the bile, "with which four humors the body is tempered, as medical + science bears witness. But whatever anyone may add, let him take heed not to add + corruption, lest he corrupt the health and purity of his own faith; because Divine power is equal to taking away such qualities + as it wills from the visible and tractable body, while allowing others to remain, so that there be no defilement," i.e. of + corruption, "though the features be there; motion without weariness, the power to eat, without need of food." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> All the blood which flowed from Christ's body, belonging as it does to the integrity of human nature, rose again with His + body: and the same reason holds good for all the particles which belong to the truth and integrity of human nature. But the + blood preserved as relics in some churches did not flow from Christ's side, but is said to have flowed from some maltreated + image of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q54_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q54_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ's body ought to have risen with its scars?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's body ought not to have risen with its scars. For it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.52" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:52</a>): "The dead shall rise incorrupt." But scars and wounds imply corruption and defect. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ, + the author of the resurrection, to rise again with scars. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's body rose entire, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q54_A4-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q54_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. But open scars are opposed to bodily integrity, since they interfere with the continuity of the tissue. It does not therefore + seem fitting for the open wounds to remain in Christ's body; although the traces of the wounds might remain, which would satisfy + the beholder; thus it was that Thomas believed, to whom it was said: "Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed" + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#John.20.29" target="asv">Jn. 20:29</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "some things are truly said of Christ after the Resurrection, which He did + not have from nature but from special dispensation, such as the scars, in order to make it sure that it was the body which + had suffered that rose again." Now when the cause ceases, the effect ceases. Therefore it seems that when the disciples were + assured of the Resurrection, He bore the scars no longer. But it ill became the + unchangeableness of His glory that He should assume anything which was not to remain in Him for ever. Consequently, it seems + that He ought not at His Resurrection to have resumed a body with scars. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said to Thomas ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.27" target="asv">Jn. 20:27</a>): "Put in thy finger hither, and see My hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into My side, and be not faithless but + believing." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's + own glory. For Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.40" target="asv"> Lk. 24:40 </a>that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory." Hence + Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): "Perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the wounds + which they bore for Christ's + name: because it will not be a deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them, in the body, + though not of the body." Secondly, to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to "the faith in His Resurrection" (Bede, on + + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.40" target="asv"> Lk. 24:40</a>). Thirdly, "that when He pleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured for us" (Bede, + on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.40" target="asv"> Lk. 24:40</a>). Fourthly, "that He may convince those redeemed in His blood, + how mercifully they have been helped, as He exposes before them the traces of the same death" (Bede, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A4-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.40" target="asv"> Lk. 24:40</a>). Lastly, "that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just condemnation" (Bede, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q54_A4-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.40" target="asv"> Lk. 24:40</a>). Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "Christ knew why He kept the scars in His body. For, as He showed them to Thomas + who would not believe except he handled and saw them, so will He show His wounds to His enemies, so that He who is + the Truth may convict them, saying: 'Behold the man whom you crucified; see the wounds you inflicted; recognize the side you + pierced, since it was opened by you and for you, yet you would not enter.'" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The scars that remained in Christ's body belong neither to corruption nor defect, but to the greater increase of glory, inasmuch + as they are the trophies of His power; and a special comeliness will appear in the places scarred by the wounds. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although those openings of the wounds break the continuity of the tissue, still the greater beauty of glory compensates for + all this, so that the body is not less entire, but more perfected. Thomas, however, not only saw, but handled the wounds, + because as Pope Leo [*Cf. Append. Opp. August., Serm. clxii] says: "It sufficed for his personal faith for him to have seen + what he saw; but it was on our behalf that he touched what he beheld." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ willed the scars of His wounds to remain on His body, not only to confirm the faith of His disciples, but for other + reasons also. From these it seems that those scars will always remain on His body; because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., + De Resurr. Carn.): "I believe our Lord's body to be in heaven, such as it was when He ascended into heaven." And Gregory (Moral. + xiv) says that "if aught could be changed in Christ's body after His + Resurrection, contrary to Paul's truthful teaching, then the Lord after His Resurrection returned to death; and what fool + would dare to say this, save he that denies the true resurrection of the flesh?" Accordingly, it is evident that the scars + which Christ showed on His body after His Resurrection, have never since been removed from His body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q54_A4-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q53_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q55" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q55-p0.1">OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE RESURRECTION (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q55-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55-p2"> We have now to consider the manifestation of the Resurrection: concerning which there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q55-p3"> (1) Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all men or only to some special individuals?</p> + <p id="TP_Q55-p4"> (2) Whether it was fitting that they should see Him rise?</p> + <p id="TP_Q55-p5"> (3) Whether He ought to have lived with the disciples after the Resurrection?</p> + <p id="TP_Q55-p6"> (4) Whether it was fitting for Him to appeal to the disciples "in another shape"?</p> + <p id="TP_Q55-p7"> (5) Whether He ought to have demonstrated the Resurrection by proofs?</p> + <p id="TP_Q55-p8"> (6) Of the cogency of those proofs.</p> + <div id="TP_Q55_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q55_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all. For just as a public penalty is due for public + sin, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.5.20" target="asv">1 Tim. 5:20</a>: "Them that sin reprove before all," so is a public reward due for public merit. But, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.), + "the glory of the Resurrection is the reward of the humility of the Passion." Therefore, since Christ's Passion was manifested + to all while He suffered in + public, it seems that the glory of the Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as Christ's Passion is ordained for our salvation, so also is His Resurrection, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.25" target="asv"> Rom. 4:25</a>: "He rose again for our justification." But what belongs to the public weal ought to be manifested to all. Therefore Christ's + Resurrection ought to have been manifested to all, and not to some specially. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, they to whom it was manifested were witnesses of the Resurrection: hence it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.3.15" target="asv">Acts 3:15</a>): "Whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses." Now they bore witness by preaching in public: and this + is unbecoming in women, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.14.34" target="asv">1 Cor. 14:34</a>: "Let women keep silence in the churches": and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p4.3" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.12" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:12</a>: "I suffer not a woman to teach." Therefore, it does not seem + becoming for Christ's Resurrection to be manifested first of all to the women and afterwards to mankind in general. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.40" target="asv">Acts 10:40</a>): "Him God raised up the third day, and gave Him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained + by God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Some things come to our knowledge by nature's common law, others by special favor of grace, as things divinely revealed. + Now, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv), the divinely established law of such things is that they be revealed immediately + by God to higher persons, through whom they are imparted to others, as is evident in the ordering of the heavenly spirits. + But such things as concern future glory are beyond the common ken of mankind, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.64.4" target="asv"> Is. 64:4</a>: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee." Consequently, + such things are not known by man except through Divine revelation, as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:10</a>): "God hath revealed them to us by His spirit." Since, then, Christ rose by a glorious Resurrection, consequently His Resurrection + was not manifested to everyone, but to some, by whose testimony it could be brought to the + knowledge of others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's Passion was consummated in a body that still had a passible nature, which is known to all by general laws: consequently + His Passion could be directly manifested to all. But the Resurrection was accomplished "through the glory of the Father," + as the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.4" target="asv">Rom. 6:4</a>). Therefore it was manifested directly to some, but not to all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p8"> But that a public penance is imposed upon public sinners, is to be understood of the punishment of this present life. And + in like manner public merits should be rewarded in public, in order that others may be stirred to emulation. But the punishments + and rewards of the future life are not publicly manifested to all, but to those specially who are preordained thereto by God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as Christ's Resurrection is for the common salvation of all, so it came to the knowledge of all; yet not so that it + was directly manifested to all, but only to some, through whose testimony it could be brought to the knowledge of all. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A woman is not to be allowed to teach publicly in church; but she may be permitted to give familiar instruction to some privately. + And therefore as Ambrose says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.22" target="asv"> Lk. 24:22, </a> "a woman is sent to them who are of her household," but not to the people to bear witness to the Resurrection. But Christ + appeared to the woman first, for this reason, that as a woman was the first to bring the source of death to man, so she might + be the + first to announce the dawn of Christ's glorious Resurrection. Hence Cyril says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#John.20.17" target="asv"> Jn. 20:17</a>: "Woman who formerly was the minister of death, is the first to see and proclaim the adorable mystery of the Resurrection: + thus womankind has procured absolution from ignominy, and removal of the curse." Hereby, moreover, it is shown, so far as + the state of glory is concerned, that the female sex shall suffer no hurt; but if women burn with greater charity, they shall + also attain + greater glory from the Divine vision: because the women whose love for our Lord was more persistent---so much so that "when + even the disciples withdrew" from the sepulchre "they did not depart" [*Gregory, Hom. xxv in Evang.]---were the first to see + Him rising in glory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A1-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q55_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q55_A2-p0.1">Whether it was fitting that the disciples should see Him rise again?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem fitting that the disciples should have seen Him rise again, because it was their office to bear witness to + the Resurrection, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.4.33" target="asv"> Acts 4:33</a>: "With great power did the apostles give testimony to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord." But the surest witness + of all is an eye-witness. Therefore it would have been fitting for them to see the very Resurrection of Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in order to have the certainty of faith the disciples saw Christ ascend into heaven, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.9" target="asv"> Acts 1:9</a>: "While they looked on, He was raised up." But it was also necessary for them to have faith in the Resurrection. Therefore + it seems that Christ ought to have risen in sight of the disciples. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the raising of Lazarus was a sign of Christ's coming Resurrection. But the Lord raised up Lazarus in sight of the + disciples. Consequently, it seems that Christ ought to have risen in sight of the disciples. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.9" target="asv">Mk. 16:9</a>): The Lord "rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen." Now Mary Magdalen did not see Him rise; + but, while searching for Him in the sepulchre, she heard from the angel: "He is risen, He is not here." Therefore no one saw + Him rise again. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv">Rom. 13:1</a>): "Those things that are of God, are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God]." Now the divinely established + order is this, that things above men's ken are revealed to them by angels, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). But Christ + on rising did not return to the familiar manner of life, but to a kind of immortal and God-like condition, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.10" target="asv"> Rom. 6:10</a>: "For in + that He liveth, He liveth unto God." And therefore it was fitting for Christ's Resurrection not to be witnessed by men directly, + but to be proclaimed to them by angels. Accordingly, Hilary (Comment. Matth. cap. ult.) says: "An angel is therefore the first + herald of the Resurrection, that it might be declared out of obedience to the Father's will." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The apostles were able to testify to the Resurrection even by sight, because from the testimony of their own eyes they saw + Christ alive, whom they had known to be dead. But just as man comes from the hearing of faith to the beatific vision, so did + men come to the sight of the risen Christ through the message already received from angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's Ascension as to its term wherefrom, was not above men's common knowledge, but only as to its term whereunto. Consequently, + the disciples were able to behold Christ's Ascension as to the term wherefrom, that is, according as He was uplifted from + the earth; but they did not behold Him as to the term whereunto, because they did not see how He was received into heaven. + But Christ's Resurrection transcended common knowledge as to the term + wherefrom, according as His soul returned from hell and His body from the closed sepulchre; and likewise as to the term whereunto, + according as He attained to the life of glory. Consequently, the Resurrection ought not to be accomplished so as to be seen + by man. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Lazarus was raised so that he returned to the same life as before, which life is not beyond man's common ken. Consequently, + there is no parity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q55_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q55_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ ought to have lived constantly with His disciples after the Resurrection?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ ought to have lived constantly with His Disciples, because He appeared to them after His Resurrection + in order to confirm their faith in the Resurrection, and to bring them comfort in their disturbed state, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.20" target="asv"> Jn. 20:20</a>: "The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord." But they would have been more assured and consoled had He constantly shown + them His presence. Therefore it seems that He ought to have + lived constantly with them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ rising from the dead did not at once ascend to heaven, but after forty days, as is narrated in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.3" target="asv"> Acts 1:3.</a> But meanwhile He could have been in no more suitable place than where the disciples were met together. Therefore it seems + that He ought to have lived with them continually. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii), we read how Christ appeared five times on the very day of His Resurrection: + first "to the women at the sepulchre; secondly to the same on the way from the sepulchre; thirdly to Peter; fourthly to the + two disciples going to the town; fifthly to several of them in Jerusalem when Thomas was not present." Therefore it also seems + that He ought to have appeared several times on the other days before the + Ascension. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, our Lord had said to them before the Passion ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.32" target="asv">Mat. 26:32</a>): "But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee"; moreover an angel and our Lord Himself repeated + the same to the women after the Resurrection: nevertheless He was seen by them in Jerusalem on the very day of the Resurrection, + as stated above (OBJ[3]); also on the eighth day, as we read in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#John.20.26" target="asv"> Jn. 20:26.</a> It seems, therefore, that He did not live with the + disciples in a fitting way after the Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.26" target="asv">Jn. 20:26</a>) that "after eight days" Christ appeared to the disciples. Therefore He did not live constantly with them. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Concerning the Resurrection two things had to be manifested to the disciples, namely, the truth of the Resurrection, and + the glory of Him who rose. Now in order to manifest the truth of the Resurrection, it sufficed for Him to appear several times + before them, to speak familiarly to them, to eat and drink, and let them touch Him. But in order to manifest the glory of + the risen Christ, He was not desirous of living with them constantly as He had done before, + lest it might seem that He rose unto the same life as before. Hence ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.44" target="asv">Lk. 24:44</a>) He said to them: "These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you." For He was there with them by His + bodily presence, but hitherto He had been with them not merely by His bodily presence, but also in mortal semblance. Hence + Bede in explaining those words of Luke, "while I was with you," says: "that is, while I was still in mortal flesh, in which + you are yet: for He had then + risen in the same flesh, but was not in the same state of mortality as they." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's frequent appearing served to assure the disciples of the truth of the Resurrection; but continual intercourse might + have led them into the error of believing that He had risen to the same life as was His before. Yet by His constant presence + He promised them comfort in another life, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.22" target="asv"> Jn. 16:22</a>: "I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man shall take from you." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> That Christ did not stay continually with the disciples was not because He deemed it more expedient for Him to be elsewhere: + but because He judged it to be more suitable for the apostles' instruction that He should not abide continually with them, + for the reason given above. But it is quite unknown in what places He was bodily present in the meantime, since Scripture + is silent, and His dominion is in every place (Cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.102.22" target="asv"> Ps. + 102:22 + </a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> He appeared oftener on the first day, because the disciples were to be admonished by many proofs to accept the faith in His + Resurrection from the very out set: but after they had once accepted it, they had no further need of being instructed by so + many apparitions. Accordingly one reads in the Gospel that after the first day He appeared again only five times. For, as + Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii), after the first five apparitions "He came + again a sixth time when Thomas saw Him; a seventh time was by the sea of Tiberias at the capture of the fishes; the eighth + was on the mountain of Galilee, according to Matthew; the ninth occasion is expressed by Mark, 'at length when they were at + table,' because no more were they going to eat with Him upon earth; the tenth was on the very day, when no longer upon the + earth, but uplifted into the cloud, He was ascending into heaven. But, as John admits, not all things were written down. And + He + visited them frequently before He went up to heaven," in order to comfort them. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:6,7</a>) that "He was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once . . . after that He was seen by James"; of which apparitions + no mention is made in the Gospels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Chrysostom in explaining + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.26.32" target="asv"> Mat. 26:32</a>---"after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee," says (Hom. lxxxiii in Matth.), "He goes not to some + far off region in order to appear to them, but among His own people, and in those very places" in which for the most part + they had lived with Him; "in order that they might thereby believe that He who was crucified was the same as He who rose again." + And on this account "He + said that He would go into Galilee, that they might be delivered from fear of the Jews." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p12"> Consequently, as Ambrose says (Expos. in Luc.), "The Lord had sent word to the disciples that they were to see Him in Galilee; + yet He showed Himself first to them when they were assembled together in the room out of fear. (Nor is there any breaking + of a promise here, but rather a hastened fulfilling out of kindness)" [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Luc. xxiv, 36]: "afterwards, however, + when their minds were comforted, they went into Galilee. Nor is there any reason to prevent us from + supposing that there were few in the room, and many more on the mountain." For, as Eusebius [*Of Caesarea; Cf. Migne, P. G., + xxii, 1003] says, "Two Evangelists, Luke and John, write that He appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven only; but the other two + said that an angel and our Saviour commanded not merely the eleven, but all the disciples and brethren, to go into Galilee. + Paul makes mention of them when he says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:6</a>): 'Then He appeared to more then five hundred + brethren at once.'" The truer solution, however, is this, that while they were in hiding in Jerusalem He appeared to them + at first in order to comfort them; but in Galilee it was not secretly, nor once or twice, that He made Himself known to them + with great power, "showing Himself to them alive after His Passion, by many proofs," as Luke says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A3-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.3" target="asv">Acts 1:3</a>). Or as Augustine writes (De Consens. Evang. iii): "What was said by the angel and by our Lord---that He would 'go before + them into Galilee,' must be taken prophetically. For if we take Galilee as meaning 'a passing,' we must understand that they + were going to pass from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, who would not believe in the preaching of the apostles unless + He prepared the way for them in men's hearts: and this is signified by the words 'He shall go before you into Galilee.' But + if by Galilee we understand 'revelation,' we are to understand this as applying to Him not in the form of a servant, but in + that form wherein He is equal to the Father, and which He has promised to them that love Him. Although He has gone before + us in this sense, He has not abandoned us." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A3-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q55_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q55_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ should have appeared to the disciples "in another shape"?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ ought not to have appeared to the disciples "in another shape." For a thing cannot appear in very + truth other than it is. But there was only one shape in Christ. Therefore if He appeared under another, it was not a true + but a false apparition. Now this is not at all fitting, because as Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 14): "If He deceives He + is not the Truth; yet Christ is the Truth." Consequently, it seems that Christ ought not to + have appeared to the disciples "in another shape." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing can appear in another shape than the one it has, except the beholder's eyes be captivated by some illusions. + But since such illusions are brought about by magical arts, they are unbecoming in Christ, according to what is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.15" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:15</a>): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to have appeared in another shape. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as our faith receives its surety from Scripture, so were the disciples assured of their faith in the Resurrection + by Christ appearing to them. But, as Augustine says in an Epistle to Jerome (xxviii), if but one untruth be admitted into + the Sacred Scripture, the whole authority of the Scriptures is weakened. Consequently, if Christ appeared to the disciples, + in but one apparition, otherwise than He was, then whatever they saw in Christ after the + Resurrection will be of less import, which is not fitting. Therefore He ought not to have appeared in another shape. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.12" target="asv">Mk. 16:12</a>): "After that He appeared in another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the country." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q55_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q55_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), Christ's Resurrection was to be manifested to men in the same way as Divine things are revealed. But Divine things are + revealed to men in various ways, according as they are variously disposed. For, those who have minds well disposed, perceive + Divine things rightly, whereas those not so disposed perceive them with a certain confusion of doubt or error: "for, the sensual + men perceiveth not those things that + are of the Spirit of God," as is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.14" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:14.</a> Consequently, after His Resurrection Christ appeared in His own shape to some who were well disposed to belief, while He + appeared in another shape to them who seemed to be already growing tepid in their faith: hence these said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.21" target="asv">Lk. 24:21</a>): "We hoped that it was He that should have redeemed Israel." Hence Gregory says (Hom. xxiii in Evang.), that "He showed + Himself to them in body such as He was in + their minds: for, because He was as yet a stranger to faith in their hearts, He made pretense of going on farther," that is, + as if He were a stranger. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii), "not everything of which we make pretense is a falsehood; but when what we pretend + has no meaning then is it a falsehood. But when our pretense has some signification, it is not a lie, but a figure of the + truth; otherwise everything said figuratively by wise and holy men, or even by our Lord Himself, would be set down as a falsehood, + because it is not customary to take such expressions in the literal sense. And + deeds, like words, are feigned without falsehood, in order to denote something else." And so it happened here. as has been + said. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "Our Lord could change His flesh so that His shape really was other than they + were accustomed to behold; for, before His Passion He was transfigured on the mountain, so that His face shone like the sun. + But it did not happen thus now." For not without reason do we "understand this hindrance in their eyes to have been of Satan's + doing, lest Jesus might be recognized." Hence Luke says (24:16) that "their eyes + were held, that they should not know Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Such an argument would prove, if they had not been brought back from the sight of a strange shape to that of Christ's true + countenance. For, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "The permission was granted by Christ," namely, that their eyes + should be held fast in the aforesaid way, "until the Sacrament of the bread; that when they had shared in the unity of His + body, the enemy's hindrance may be understood to have been taken away, so that + Christ might be recognized." Hence he goes on to say that "'their eyes were opened, and they knew Him'; not that they were + hitherto walking with their eyes shut; but there was something in them whereby they were not permitted to recognize what they + saw. This could be caused by the darkness or by some kind of humor." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A4-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q55_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q55_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ should have demonstrated the truth of His Resurrection by proofs?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ should not have demonstrated the truth of His Resurrection by proofs. For Ambrose says (De Fide, + ad Gratian. i): "Let there be no proofs where faith is required." But faith is required regarding the Resurrection. Therefore + proofs are out of place there. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxvi): "Faith has no merit where human reason supplies the test." But it was no part of Christ's + office to void the merit of faith. Consequently, it was not for Him to confirm the Resurrection by proofs. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ came into the world in order that men might attain beatitude through Him, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.10" target="asv"> Jn. 10:10</a>: "I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly." But supplying proofs seems to be a hindrance in the + way of man's beatitude; because our Lord Himself said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.20.29" target="asv">Jn. 20:29</a>): "Blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed." Consequently, it seems that Christ ought not to manifest His + Resurrection by any proofs. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is related in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.3" target="asv"> Acts 1:3, </a> that Christ appeared to His disciples "for forty days by many proofs, speaking of the Kingdom of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The word "proof" is susceptible of a twofold meaning: sometimes it is employed to designate any sort "of reason in confirmation + of what is a matter of doubt" [*Tully, Topic. ii]: and sometimes it means a sensible sign employed to manifest the truth; + thus also Aristotle occasionally uses the term in his works [*Cf. Prior. Anal. ii; Rhetor. i]. Taking "proof" in the first + sense, Christ did not demonstrate His Resurrection to the disciples by proofs, because + such argumentative proof would have to be grounded on some principles: and if these were not known to the disciples, nothing + would thereby be demonstrated to them, because nothing can be known from the unknown. And if such principles were known to + them, they would not go beyond human reason, and consequently would not be efficacious for establishing faith in the Resurrection, + which is beyond human reason, since principles must be assumed which are of the same order, according to 1 Poster. But + it was from the authority of the Sacred Scriptures that He proved to them the truth of His Resurrection, which authority is + the basis of faith, when He said: "All things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and in the prophets, and + in the Psalms, concerning Me": as is set forth + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.44" target="asv"> Lk. 24:44.</a> + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p7"> But if the term "proof" be taken in the second sense, then Christ is said to have demonstrated His Resurrection by proofs, + inasmuch as by most evident signs He showed that He was truly risen. Hence where our version has "by many proofs," the Greek + text, instead of proof has {tekmerion}, i.e. "an evident sign affording positive proof" [*Cf. Prior. Anal. ii]. Now Christ + showed these signs of the Resurrection to His disciples, for two reasons. First, because their hearts were not + disposed so as to accept readily the faith in the Resurrection. Hence He says Himself ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.25" target="asv">Lk. 24:25</a>): "O foolish and slow of heart to believe": and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.14" target="asv">Mk. 16:14</a>): "He upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart." Secondly, that their testimony might be rendered more + efficacious through the signs shown them, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p7.3" href="./asv.html#iJohn.1.1" target="asv">1 Jn. 1:1</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p7.4" href="./asv.html#iJohn.1.3" target="asv">3</a>: "That which we have seen, and have heard, and our hands have handled . . . we declare." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Ambrose is speaking there of proofs drawn from human reason, which are useless for demonstrating things of faith, as was + shown above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The merit of faith arises from this, that at God's bidding man believes what he does not see. Accordingly, only that reason + debars merit of faith which enables one to see by knowledge what is proposed for belief: and this is demonstrative argument. + But Christ did not make use of any such argument for demonstrating His Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated already (ad 2), the merit of beatitude, which comes of faith, is not entirely excluded except a man refuse to believe + only such things as he can see. But for a man to believe from visible signs the things he does not see, does not entirely + deprive him of faith nor of the merit of faith: just as Thomas, to whom it was said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.29" target="asv">Jn. 20:29</a>): "'Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed,' saw one thing and believed another" [*Gregory, + Hom. xxvi]: the wounds were what he saw, God was the object of His belief. But his is the more perfect faith who does not + require such helps for belief. Hence, to put to shame the faith of some men, our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A5-p10.2" href="./asv.html#John.4.48" target="asv">Jn. 4:48</a>): "Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not." From this one can learn how they who are so ready to believe God, + even without beholding signs, are blessed in comparison with them who do not believe except they see the like. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A5-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q55_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q55_A6-p0.1">Whether the proofs which Christ made use of manifested sufficiently the truth of His Resurrection?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the proofs which Christ made use of did not sufficiently manifest the truth of His Resurrection. For after + the Resurrection Christ showed nothing to His disciples which angels appearing to men did not or could not show; because angels + have frequently shown themselves to men under human aspect, have spoken and lived with them, and eaten with them, just as + if they were truly men, as is evident from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.18" target="asv">Genesis 18</a>, of the angels whom Abraham + entertained. and in the Book of Tobias, of the angel who "conducted" him "and brought" him back. Nevertheless, angels have + not true bodies naturally united to them; which is required for a resurrection. Consequently, the signs which Christ showed + His disciples were not sufficient for manifesting His Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ rose again gloriously, that is, having a human nature with glory. But some of the things which Christ showed + to His disciples seem contrary to human nature, as for instance, that "He vanished out of their sight," and entered in among + them "when the doors were shut": and some other things seem contrary to glory, as for instance, that He ate and drank, and + bore the scars of His wounds. Consequently, it seems that those proofs were neither + sufficient nor fitting for establishing faith in the Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, after the Resurrection Christ's body was such that it ought not to be touched by mortal man; hence He said to Magdalen + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.17" target="asv">Jn. 20:17</a>): "Do not touch Me; for I am not yet ascended to My Father." Consequently, it was not fitting for manifesting the truth of + His Resurrection, that He should permit Himself to be handled by His disciples. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, clarity seems to be the principal of the qualities of a glorified body: yet He gave no sign thereof in His Resurrection. + Therefore it seems that those proofs were insufficient for showing the quality of Christ's Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p6"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> [*This objection is wanting in the older codices, and in the text of the Leonine edition, which, however, gives it in a note + as taken from one of the more recent codices of the Vatican.] + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p7"> Further, the angels introduced as witnesses for the Resurrection seem insufficient from the want of agreement on the part + of the Evangelists. Because in Matthew's account the angel is described as sitting upon the stone rolled back, while Mark + states that he was seen after the women had entered the tomb; and again, whereas these mention one angel, John says that there + were two sitting, and Luke says that there were two standing. Consequently, the arguments for the Resurrection + do not seem to agree. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p8"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, "ordereth all things sweetly" and in a fitting manner, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.8.1" target="asv"> Wis. 8:1.</a> + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ manifested His Resurrection in two ways: namely, by testimony; and by proof or sign: and each manifestation was sufficient + in its own class. For in order to manifest His Resurrection He made use of a double testimony, neither of which can be rebutted. + The first of these was the angels' testimony, who announced the Resurrection to the women, as is seen in all the Evangelists: + the other was the testimony of the Scriptures, which He set before them to + show the truth of the Resurrection, as is narrated in the last chapter of Luke. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p10"> Again, the proofs were sufficient for showing that the Resurrection was both true and glorious. That it was a true Resurrection + He shows first on the part of the body; and this He shows in three respects; first of all, that it was a true and solid body, + and not phantastic or rarefied, like the air. And He establishes this by offering His body to be handled; hence He says in + the last chapter of Luke (39): "Handle and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to + have." Secondly, He shows that it was a human body, by presenting His true features for them to behold. Thirdly, He shows + that it was identically the same body which He had before, by showing them the scars of the wounds; hence, as we read in the + last chapter of Luke (39) he said to them: "See My hands and feet, that it is I Myself." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p11"> Secondly, He showed them the truth of His Resurrection on the part of His soul reunited with His body: and He showed this + by the works of the threefold life. First of all, in the operations of the nutritive life, by eating and drinking with His + disciples, as we read in the last chapter of Luke. Secondly, in the works of the sensitive life, by replying to His disciples' + questions, and by greeting them when they were in His presence, showing thereby that He both saw and heard; + thirdly, in the works of the intellective life by their conversing with Him, and discoursing on the Scriptures. And, in order + that nothing might be wanting to make the manifestation complete, He also showed that He had the Divine Nature, by working + the miracle of the draught of fishes, and further by ascending into heaven while they were beholding Him: because, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A6-p11.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.13" target="asv"> Jn. 3:13</a>: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is + in heaven." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p12"> He also showed His disciples the glory of His Resurrection by entering in among them when the doors were closed: as Gregory + says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.): "Our Lord allowed them to handle His flesh which He had brought through closed doors, to show + that His body was of the same nature but of different glory." It likewise was part of the property of glory that "He vanished + suddenly from their eyes," as related in the last chapter of Luke; because thereby it was shown that it lay in + His power to be seen or not seen; and this belongs to a glorified body, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q55_A6-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q54_A1.html">Q[54], A[1]</a>, ad 2, A[2], ad 1). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Each separate argument would not suffice of itself for showing perfectly Christ's Resurrection, yet all taken collectively + establish it completely, especially owing to the testimonies of the Scriptures, the sayings of the angels, and even Christ's + own assertion supported by miracles. As to the angels who appeared, they did not say they were men, as Christ asserted that + He was truly a man. Moreover, the manner of eating was different in Christ and the + angels: for since the bodies assumed by the angels were neither living nor animated, there was no true eating, although the + food was really masticated and passed into the interior of the assumed body: hence the angels said to Tobias (12:18,19): "When + I was with you . . . I seemed indeed to eat and drink with you; but I use an invisible meat." But since Christ's body was + truly animated, His eating was genuine. For, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xiii), "it is not the power but the need of + eating that shall be taken away from the bodies of them who rise again." Hence Bede says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A6-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.41" target="asv">Lk. 24:41</a>: "Christ ate because He could, not because He needed." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As was observed above, some proofs were employed by Christ to prove the truth of His human nature, and others to show forth + His glory in rising again. But the condition of human nature, as considered in itself, namely, as to its present state, is + opposite to the condition of glory, as is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q55_A6-p14.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.43" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:43</a>: "It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power." Consequently, the proofs brought forward for showing the condition of + glory, seem to be in opposition to nature, not absolutely, but according to the present state, and conversely. Hence Gregory + says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.): "The Lord manifested two wonders, which are mutually contrary according to human reason, when + after the Resurrection He showed His body as incorruptible and at the same time palpable." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Tract. cxxi super Joan.), "these words of our Lord, 'Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My + Father,'" show "that in that woman there is a figure of the Church of the Gentiles, which did not believe in Christ until + He was ascended to the Father. Or Jesus would have men to believe in Him, i.e. to touch Him spiritually, as being Himself + one with the Father. For to that man's innermost perceptions He is, in some sort, ascended + unto the Father, who has become so far proficient in Him, as to recognize in Him the equal with the Father . . . whereas she + as yet believed in Him but carnally, since she wept for Him as for a man." But when one reads elsewhere of Mary having touched + Him, when with the other women, she "'came up and took hold of His feet,' that matters little," as Severianus says [*Chrysologus, + Serm. lxxvi], "for, the first act relates to figure, the other to sex; the former is of Divine grace, the latter of + human nature." Or as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxvi in Joan.): "This woman wanted to converse with Christ just as before the + Passion, and out of joy was thinking of nothing great, although Christ's flesh had become much nobler by rising again." And + therefore He said: "I have not yet ascended to My Father"; as if to say: "Do not suppose I am leading an earthly life; for + if you see Me upon earth, it is because I have not yet ascended to My Father, but I am going to ascend shortly." Hence He + goes on + to say: "I ascend to My Father, and to your Father." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p16"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Augustine says ad Orosium (Dial. lxv, Qq.): "Our Lord rose in clarified flesh; yet He did not wish to appear before the + disciples in that condition of clarity, because their eyes could not gaze upon that brilliancy. For if before He died for + us and rose again the disciples could not look upon Him when He was transfigured upon the mountain, how much less were they + able to gaze upon Him when our Lord's flesh was glorified." It must also be borne in + mind that after His Resurrection our Lord wished especially to show that He was the same as had died; which the manifestation + of His brightness would have hindered considerably: because change of features shows more than anything else the difference + in the person seen: and this is because sight specially judges of the common sensibles, among which is one and many, or the + same and different. But before the Passion, lest His disciples might despise its weakness, Christ meant to show them the + glory of His majesty; and this the brightness of the body specially indicates. Consequently, before the Passion He showed + the disciples His glory by brightness, but after the Resurrection by other tokens. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p17"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): "We can understand one angel to have been seen by the women, according to both + Matthew and Mark, if we take them as having entered the sepulchre, that is, into some sort of walled enclosure, and that there + they saw an angel sitting upon the stone which was rolled back from the monument, as Matthew says; and that this is Mark's + expression---'sitting on the right side'; afterwards when they scanned the spot + where the Lord's body had lain, they beheld two angels, who were at first seated, as John says, and who afterwards rose so + as to be seen standing, as Luke relates." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p18"></p> + <p id="TP_Q55_A6-p19"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q54_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q56" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q56-p0.1">OF THE CAUSALITY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION (TWO ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q56-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q56-p2"> We have now to consider the causality of Christ's Resurrection, concerning which there are two points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q56-p3"> (1) Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of our resurrection?</p> + <p id="TP_Q56-p4"> (2) Whether it is the cause of our justification?</p> + <div id="TP_Q56_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q56_A1-p0.1">Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of our bodies?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of our bodies, because, given a sufficient + cause, the effect must follow of necessity. If, then, Christ's Resurrection be the sufficient cause of the resurrection of + our bodies, then all the dead should have risen again as soon as He rose. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Divine justice is the cause of the resurrection of the dead, so that the body may be rewarded or punished together + with the soul, since they shared in merit or sin, as Dionysius says (Eccles. Hier. vii) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv). + But God's justice must necessarily be accomplished, even if Christ had not risen. Therefore the dead would rise again even + though Christ did not. Consequently Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection + of our bodies. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if Christ's Resurrection be the cause of the resurrection of our bodies, it would be either the exemplar, or the + efficient, or the meritorious cause. Now it is not the exemplar cause; because it is God who will bring about the resurrection + of our bodies, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.21" target="asv"> Jn. 5:21</a>: "The Father raiseth up the dead": and God has no need to look at any exemplar cause outside Himself. In like manner it is + not the efficient cause; because + an efficient cause acts only through contact, whether spiritual or corporeal. Now it is evident that Christ's Resurrection + has no corporeal contact with the dead who shall rise again, owing to distance of time and place; and similarly it has no + spiritual contact, which is through faith and charity, because even unbelievers and sinners shall rise again. Nor again is + it the meritorious cause, because when Christ rose He was no longer a wayfarer, and consequently not in a state of merit. + Therefore, Christ's Resurrection does not appear to be in any way the cause of ours. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, since death is the privation of life, then to destroy death seems to be nothing else than to bring life back again; + and this is resurrection. But "by dying, Christ destroyed our death" [*Preface of Mass in Paschal Time]. Consequently, Christ's + death, not His Resurrection, is the cause of our resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:12</a>: "Now if Christ be preached, that He rose again from the dead," the gloss says: "Who is the efficient cause of our resurrection." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in 2 Metaphysics, text 4: "Whatever is first in any order, is the cause of all that come after it." But Christ's + Resurrection was the first in the order of our resurrection, as is evident from what was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q56_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q53_A3.html">Q[53], A[3]</a>). Hence Christ's Resurrection must be the cause of ours: and this is what the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.20" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:20,21</a>): "Christ is risen from the dead, the first-fruits of them that sleep; + for by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p8"> And this is reasonable. Because the principle of human life-giving is the Word of God, of whom it is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.35.10" target="asv">Ps. 35:10</a>): "With Thee is the fountain of life": hence He Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#John.5.21" target="asv">Jn. 5:21</a>): "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life; so the Son also giveth life to whom He will." Now the divinely established + natural order is that every cause operates first upon what is nearest to it, and through it upon others which are more + remote; just as fire first heats the nearest air, and through it it heats bodies that are further off: and God Himself first + enlightens those substances which are closer to Him, and through them others that are more remote, as Dionysius says (Coel. + Hier. xiii). Consequently, the Word of God first bestows immortal life upon that body which is naturally united with Himself, + and through it works the resurrection in all other bodies. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As was stated above, Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours through the power of the united Word, who operates according + to His will. And consequently, it is not necessary for the effect to follow at once, but according as the Word of God disposes, + namely, that first of all we be conformed to the suffering and dying Christ in this suffering and mortal life; and afterwards + may come to share in the likeness of His Resurrection. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> God's justice is the first cause of our resurrection, whereas Christ's Resurrection is the secondary, and as it were the + instrumental cause. But although the power of the principal cause is not restricted to one instrument determinately, nevertheless + since it works through this instrument, such instrument causes the effect. So, then, the Divine justice in itself is not tied + down to Christ's Resurrection as a means of bringing about our resurrection: + because God could deliver us in some other way than through Christ's Passion and Resurrection, as already stated ( + <a id="TP_Q56_A1-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q46_A2.html">Q[46], A[2]</a>). But having once decreed to deliver us in this way, it is evident that Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Properly speaking, Christ's Resurrection is not the meritorious cause, but the efficient and exemplar cause of our resurrection. + It is the efficient cause, inasmuch as Christ's humanity, according to which He rose again, is as it were the instrument of + His Godhead, and works by Its power, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q56_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q13_A2.html">Q[13], AA[2]</a>,3). And therefore, just as all other things which Christ did and endured in His humanity are profitable to our + salvation through the power of the Godhead, as already stated ( + <a id="TP_Q56_A1-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A6.html">Q[48], A[6]</a>), so also is Christ's Resurrection the efficient cause of ours, through the Divine power whose office it is to quicken the + dead; and this power by its presence is in touch with all places and times; and such virtual contact suffices for its efficiency. + And since, as was stated above (ad 2), the primary cause of human resurrection is the Divine justice, from which Christ has + "the power of passing + judgment, because He is the Son of Man" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A1-p11.3" href="./asv.html#John.5.27" target="asv">Jn. 5:27</a>); the efficient power of His Resurrection extends to the good and wicked alike, who are subject to His judgment. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p12"> But just as the Resurrection of Christ's body, through its personal union with the Word, is first in point of time, so also + is it first in dignity and perfection; as the gloss says on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.20" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:20,23.</a> But whatever is most perfect is always the exemplar, which the less perfect copies according to its mode; consequently Christ's + Resurrection is the exemplar of ours. And this is necessary, not on the part of Him who rose again, who needs no exemplar, + but on the + part of them who are raised up, who must be likened to that Resurrection, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.21" target="asv"> Phil. 3:21</a>: "He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory." Now although the efficiency of Christ's Resurrection + extends to the resurrection of the good and wicked alike, still its exemplarity extends properly only to the just, who are + made conformable with His Sonship, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A1-p12.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.29" target="asv"> Rom. 8:29.</a> + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Considered on the part of their efficiency, which is dependent on the Divine power, both Christ's death and His Resurrection + are the cause both of the destruction of death and of the renewal of life: but considered as exemplar causes, Christ's death---by + which He withdrew from mortal life---is the cause of the destruction of our death; while His Resurrection, whereby He inaugurated + immortal life, is the cause of the repairing of our life. But Christ's + Passion is furthermore a meritorious cause, as stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q56_A1-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html">Q[48], A[1]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p14"></p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A1-p15"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q56_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q56_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of the resurrection of souls?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of souls, because Augustine says (Tract. xxiii + super Joan.) that "bodies rise by His human dispensation, but souls rise by the Substance of God." But Christ's Resurrection + does not belong to God's Substance, but to the dispensation of His humanity. Therefore, although Christ's Resurrection is + the cause of bodies rising, nevertheless it does not seem to be the cause of the + resurrection of souls. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a body does not act upon a spirit. But the Resurrection belongs to His body, which death laid low. Therefore His + Resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of souls. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, since Christ's Resurrection is the cause why bodies rise again, the bodies of all men shall rise again, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.51" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:51</a>: "We shall all indeed rise again." But the souls of all will not rise again, because according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.46" target="asv"> Mat. 25:46</a>: "some shall go into everlasting punishment." Therefore Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of souls. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the resurrection of souls comes of the forgiveness of sins. But this was effected by Christ's Passion, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.1.5" target="asv"> Apoc. 1:5</a>: "He washed us from our sins in His own blood." Consequently, Christ's Passion even more than His Resurrection is the cause + of the resurrection of souls. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.25" target="asv">Rom. 4:25</a>): "He rose again for our justification," which is nothing else than the resurrection of souls: and on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.29.6" target="asv"> Ps. 29:6</a>: "In the evening weeping shall have place," the gloss says, "Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours, both of the soul + at present, and of the body in the future." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above, Christ's Resurrection works in virtue of the Godhead; now this virtue extends not only to the resurrection + of bodies, but also to that of souls: for it comes of God that the soul lives by grace, and that the body lives by the soul. + Consequently, Christ's Resurrection has instrumentally an effective power not only with regard to the resurrection of bodies, + but also with respect to the resurrection of souls. In like fashion it is an exemplar + cause with regard to the resurrection of souls, because even in our souls we must be conformed with the rising Christ: as + the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.4" target="asv">Rom. 6:4-11</a>) "Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life": and as He, "rising again + from the dead, dieth now no more, so let us reckon that we (Vulg.: 'you')" are dead to sin, that we may "live together with + Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine says that the resurrection of souls is wrought by God's Substance, as to participation, because souls become good + and just by sharing in the Divine goodness, but not by sharing in anything created. Accordingly, after saying that souls rise + by the Divine Substance, he adds: the soul is beatified by a participation with God, and not by a participation with a holy + soul. But our bodies are made glorious by sharing in the glory of Christ's + body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The efficacy of Christ's Resurrection reaches souls not from any special virtue of His risen body, but from the virtue of + the Godhead personally united with it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The resurrection of souls pertains to merit, which is the effect of justification; but the resurrection of bodies is ordained + for punishment or reward, which are the effects of Him who judges. Now it belongs to Christ, not to justify all men, but to + judge them: and therefore He raises up all as to their bodies, but not as to their souls. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Two things concur in the justification of souls, namely, forgiveness of sin and newness of life through grace. Consequently, + as to efficacy, which comes of the Divine power, the Passion as well as the Resurrection of Christ is the cause of justification + as to both the above. But as to exemplarity, properly speaking Christ's Passion and death are the cause of the forgiveness + of guilt, by which forgiveness we die unto sin: whereas Christ's Resurrection + is the cause of newness of life, which comes through grace or justice: consequently, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q56_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.25" target="asv">Rom. 4:25</a>) that "He was delivered up," i.e. to death, "for our sins," i.e. to take them away, "and rose again for our justification." + But Christ's Passion was also a meritorious cause, as stated above (A[1], ad 4; + <a id="TP_Q56_A2-p11.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q48_A1.html"> Q[48], A[1]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q56_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q55_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q57" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q57-p0.1">OF THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q57-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57-p2"> We have now to consider Christ's Ascension: concerning which there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q57-p3"> (1) Whether it belonged for Christ to ascend into heaven?</p> + <p id="TP_Q57-p4"> (2) According to which nature did it become Him to ascend?</p> + <p id="TP_Q57-p5"> (3) Whether He ascended by His own power?</p> + <p id="TP_Q57-p6"> (4) Whether He ascended above all the corporeal heavens?</p> + <p id="TP_Q57-p7"> (5) Whether He ascended above all spiritual creatures?</p> + <p id="TP_Q57-p8"> (6) Of the effect of the Ascension.</p> + <p id="TP_Q57-p9"></p> + <div id="TP_Q57_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q57_A1-p0.1">Whether it was fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to ascend into heaven. For the Philosopher says (De Coelo ii) that "things + which are in a state of perfection possess their good without movement." But Christ was in a state of perfection, since He + is the Sovereign Good in respect of His Divine Nature, and sovereignly glorified in respect of His human nature. Consequently, + He has His good without movement. But ascension is movement. Therefore it was not fitting + for Christ to ascend. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is moved, is moved on account of something better. But it was no better thing for Christ to be in heaven + than upon earth, because He gained nothing either in soul or in body by being in heaven. Therefore it seems that Christ should + not have ascended into heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Son of God took human flesh for our salvation. But it would have been more beneficial for men if He had tarried + always with us upon earth; thus He said to His disciples ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.17.22" target="asv">Lk. 17:22</a>): "The days will come when you shall desire to see one day of the Son of man; and you shall not see it." Therefore it seems + unfitting for Christ to have ascended into heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, as Gregory says (Moral. xiv), Christ's body was in no way changed after the Resurrection. But He did not ascend + into heaven immediately after rising again, for He said after the Resurrection ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.17" target="asv">Jn. 20:17</a>): "I am not yet ascended to My Father." Therefore it seems that neither should He have ascended after forty days. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Are the words of our Lord ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.17" target="asv">Jn. 20:17</a>): "I ascend to My Father and to your Father." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The place ought to be in keeping with what is contained therein. Now by His Resurrection Christ entered upon an immortal + and incorruptible life. But whereas our dwelling-place is one of generation and corruption, the heavenly place is one of incorruption. + And consequently it was not fitting that Christ should remain upon earth after the Resurrection; but it was fitting that He + should ascend to heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> That which is best and possesses its good without movement is God Himself, because He is utterly unchangeable, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Mal.3.6" target="asv">Malachi 3:6</a>: "I am the Lord, and I change not." But every creature is changeable in some respect, as is evident from Augustine (Gen. + ad lit. viii). And since the nature assumed by the Son of God remained a creature, as is clear from what was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q57_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q2_A7.html">Q[2], A[7]</a>; + <a id="TP_Q57_A1-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q16_A8.html"> Q[16], + AA[8] + </a>,10; + <a id="TP_Q57_A1-p8.4" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q20_A1.html"> Q[20], A[1]</a> ), it is not unbecoming if some movement be attributed to it. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By ascending into heaven Christ acquired no addition to His essential glory either in body or in soul: nevertheless He did + acquire something as to the fittingness of place, which pertains to the well-being of glory: not that His body acquired anything + from a heavenly body by way of perfection or preservation; but merely out of a certain fittingness. Now this in a measure + belonged to His glory; and He had a certain kind of joy from such fittingness, + not indeed that He then began to derive joy from it when He ascended into heaven, but that He rejoiced thereat in a new way, + as at a thing completed. Hence, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.15.11" target="asv"> Ps. 15:11</a>: "At Thy right hand are delights even unto the end," the gloss says: "I shall delight in sitting nigh to Thee, when I shall + be taken away from the sight of men." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although Christ's bodily presence was withdrawn from the faithful by the Ascension, still the presence of His Godhead is + ever with the faithful, as He Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.20" target="asv">Mat. 28:20</a>): "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." For, "by ascending into heaven He did not abandon + those whom He adopted," as Pope Leo says (De Resurrec., Serm. ii). But Christ's Ascension into heaven, whereby He withdrew + His bodily + presence from us, was more profitable for us than His bodily presence would have been. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p11"> First of all, in order to increase our faith, which is of things unseen. Hence our Lord said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#John.26" target="asv">Jn. 26</a>) that the Holy Ghost shall come and "convince the world . . . of justice," that is, of the justice "of those that believe," + as Augustine says (Tract. xcv super Joan.): "For even to put the faithful beside the unbeliever is to put the unbeliever to + shame"; wherefore he goes on to say (10): "'Because I go to the Father; and you shall see Me no longer'"---"For 'blessed are + they that + see not, yet believe.' Hence it is of our justice that the world is reproved: because 'you will believe in Me whom you shall + not see.'" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p12"> Secondly, to uplift our hope: hence He says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.3" target="asv">Jn. 14:3</a>): "If I shall go, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you to Myself; that where I am, you also + may be." For by placing in heaven the human nature which He assumed, Christ gave us the hope of going thither; since "wheresoever + the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together," as is written in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.28" target="asv"> Mat. 24:28.</a> Hence it is written likewise + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p12.3" href="./asv.html#Mic.2.13" target="asv">Mic. 2:13</a>): "He shall go up that shall open the way before them." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p13"> Thirdly, in order to direct the fervor of our charity to heavenly things. Hence the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Col.3.1" target="asv">Col. 3:1,2</a>): "Seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Mind the things that are above, not + the things that are upon the earth": for as is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.21" target="asv">Mat. 6:21</a>): "Where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also." And since the Holy Ghost is love drawing us up to heavenly things, therefore + our Lord said to His + disciples ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p13.3" href="./asv.html#John.16.7" target="asv">Jn. 16:7</a>): "It is expedient to you that I go; for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to + you." On which words Augustine says (Tract. xciv super Joan.): "Ye cannot receive the Spirit, so long as ye persist in knowing + Christ according to the flesh. But when Christ withdrew in body, not only + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p14"> the Holy Ghost, but both Father and Son were present with them spiritually."</p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although a heavenly place befitted Christ when He rose to immortal life, nevertheless He delayed the Ascension in order to + confirm the truth of His Resurrection. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A1-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.3" target="asv">Acts 1:3</a>), that "He showed Himself alive after His Passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them": upon which the gloss + says that "because He was dead for forty hours, during forty days He established the fact of His being alive again. Or + the forty days may be understood as a figure of this world, wherein Christ dwells in His Church: inasmuch as man is made out + of the four elements, and is cautioned not to transgress the Decalogue." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p16"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A1-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q57_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q57_A2-p0.1">Whether Christ's Ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His Divine Nature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Ascension into heaven belonged to Him according to His Divine Nature. For, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.46.6" target="asv">Ps. 46:6</a>): "God is ascended with jubilee": and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.33.26" target="asv">Dt. 33:26</a>): "He that is mounted upon the heaven is thy helper." But these words were spoken of God even before Christ's Incarnation. + Therefore it belongs to Christ to ascend into heaven as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it belongs to the same person to ascend into heaven as to descend from heaven, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.13" target="asv"> Jn. 3:13</a>: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven": and + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.10" target="asv"> Eph. 4:10</a>: "He that descended is the same also that ascended." But Christ came down from heaven not as man, but as God: because previously + His Nature in heaven was not human, but Divine. Therefore it seems that Christ ascended into + heaven as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by His Ascension Christ ascended to the Father. But it was not as man that He rose to equality with the Father; + for in this respect He says: "He is greater than I," as is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.28" target="asv"> Jn. 14:28.</a> Therefore it seems that Christ ascended as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.10" target="asv"> Eph. 4:10</a>: "That He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended," a gloss says: "It is clear that He descended and ascended + according to His humanity." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The expression "according to" can denote two things; the condition of the one who ascends, and the cause of his ascension. + When taken to express the condition of the one ascending, the Ascension in no wise belongs to Christ according to the condition + of His Divine Nature; both because there is nothing higher than the Divine Nature to which He can ascend; and because ascension + is local motion, a thing not in keeping with the Divine Nature, which is immovable + and outside all place. Yet the Ascension is in keeping with Christ according to His human nature, which is limited by place, + and can be the subject of motion. In this sense, then, we can say that Christ ascended into heaven as man, but not as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p7"> But if the phrase "according to" denote the cause of the Ascension, since Christ ascended into heaven in virtue of His Godhead, + and not in virtue of His human nature, then it must be said that Christ ascended into heaven not as man, but as God. Hence + Augustine says in a sermon on the Ascension: "It was our doing that the Son of man hung upon the cross; but it was His own + doing that He ascended." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> These utterances were spoken prophetically of God who was one day to become incarnate. Still it can be said that although + to ascend does not belong to the Divine Nature properly, yet it can metaphorically; as, for instance, it is said "to ascend + in the heart of man" (cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.83.6" target="asv">Ps. 83:6</a>), when his heart submits and humbles itself before God: and in the same way God is said to ascend metaphorically with regard + to every creature, since He subjects it to + Himself. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> He who ascended is the same as He who descended. For Augustine says (De Symb. iv): "Who is it that descends? The God-Man. + Who is it that ascends? The self-same God-Man." Nevertheless a twofold descent is attributed to Christ; one, whereby He is + said to have descended from heaven, which is attributed to the God-Man according as He is God: for He is not to be understood + as having descended by any local movement, but as having "emptied Himself," since + "when He was in the form of God He took the form of a servant." For just as He is said to be emptied, not by losing His fulness, + but because He took our littleness upon Himself, so likewise He is said to have descended from heaven, not that He deserted + heaven, but because He assumed human nature in unity of person. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p10"> And there is another descent whereby He descended "into the lower regions of the earth," as is written + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.9" target="asv"> Eph. 4:9</a>; and this is local descent: hence this belongs to Christ according to the condition of human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ is said to ascend to the Father, inasmuch as He ascends to sit on the right hand of the Father; and this is befitting + Christ in a measure according to His Divine Nature, and in a measure according to His human nature, as will be said later + ( + <a id="TP_Q57_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q58_A3.html">Q[58], A[3]</a>) + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q57_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q57_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ ascended by His own power?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not ascend by His own power, because it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Mark.16.19" target="asv">Mk. 16:19</a>) that "the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven"; and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.9" target="asv">Acts 1:9</a>) that, "while they looked on, He was raised up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight." But what is taken up, and lifted + up, appears to be moved by another. Consequently, it was not by His own power, but by another's that Christ was + taken up into heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Christ's was an earthly body, like to ours. But it is contrary to the nature of an earthly body to be borne upwards. + Moreover, what is moved contrary to its nature is nowise moved by its own power. Therefore Christ did not ascend to heaven + by His own power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ's own power is Divine. But this motion does not seem to have been Divine, because, whereas the Divine power + is infinite, such motion would be instantaneous; consequently, He would not have been uplifted to heaven "while" the disciples + "looked on," as is stated in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.9" target="asv"> Acts 1:9.</a> Therefore, it seems that Christ did not ascend to heaven by His own power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.63.1" target="asv">Is. 63:1</a>): "This beautiful one in his robe, walking in the greatness of his strength." Also Gregory says in a Homily on the Ascension + (xxix): "It is to be noted that we read of Elias having ascended in a chariot, that it might be shown that one who was mere + man needed another's help. But we do not read of our Saviour being lifted up either in a chariot or by angels, because He + who had made all things was taken up above + all things by His own power." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There is a twofold nature in Christ, to wit, the Divine and the human. Hence His own power can be accepted according to both. + Likewise a twofold power can be accepted regarding His human nature: one is natural, flowing from the principles of nature; + and it is quite evident that Christ did not ascend into heaven by such power as this. The other is the power of glory, which + is in Christ's human nature; and it was according to this that He ascended to + heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p7"> Now there are some who endeavor to assign the cause of this power to the nature of the fifth essence. This, as they say, + is light, which they make out to be of the composition of the human body, and by which they contend that contrary elements + are reconciled; so that in the state of this mortality, elemental nature is predominant in human bodies: so that, according + to the nature of this predominating element the human body is borne downwards by its own power: but in the + condition of glory the heavenly nature will predominate, by whose tendency and power Christ's body and the bodies of the saints + are lifted up to heaven. But we have already treated of this opinion in the + <a id="TP_Q57_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q76_A7.html">FP, Q[76], A[7]</a>, and shall deal with it more fully in treating of the general resurrection ( + <a id="TP_Q57_A3-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.XP_Q84_A1.html">XP, Q[84], A[1]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p8"> Setting this opinion aside, others assign as the cause of this power the glorified soul itself, from whose overflow the body + will be glorified, as Augustine writes to Dioscorus (Ep. cxviii). For the glorified body will be so submissive to the glorified + soul, that, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii), "wheresoever the spirit listeth, thither the body will be on the instant; + nor will the spirit desire anything unbecoming to the soul or the body." Now it is befitting the glorified + and immortal body for it to be in a heavenly place, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q57_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q57_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Consequently, Christ's body ascended into heaven by the power of His soul willing it. But as the body is made glorious by + participation with the soul, even so, as Augustine says (Tract. xxiii in Joan.), "the soul is beatified by participating in + God." Consequently, the Divine power is the first source of the ascent into heaven. Therefore Christ ascended into heaven + by His own power, first of all + by His Divine power, and secondly by the power of His glorified soul moving His body at will. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Christ is said to have risen by His own power, though He was raised to life by the power of the Father, since the Father's + power is the same as the Son's; so also Christ ascended into heaven by His own power, and yet was raised up and taken up to + heaven by the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument proves that Christ did not ascend into heaven by His own power, i.e. that which is natural to human nature: + yet He did ascend by His own power, i.e. His Divine power, as well as by His own power, i.e. the power of His beatified soul. + And although to mount upwards is contrary to the nature of a human body in its present condition, in which the body is not + entirely dominated by the soul, still it will not be unnatural or forced in a + glorified body, whose entire nature is utterly under the control of the spirit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the Divine power be infinite, and operate infinitely, so far as the worker is concerned, still the effect thereof + is received in things according to their capacity, and as God disposes. Now a body is incapable of being moved locally in + an instant, because it must be commensurate with space, according to the division of which time is reckoned, as is proved + in Physics vi. Consequently, it is not necessary for a body moved by God to be moved + instantaneously, but with such speed as God disposes. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A3-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q57_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q57_A4-p0.1">Whether Christ ascended above all the heavens?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not ascend above all the heavens, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.10.5" target="asv">Ps. 10:5</a>): "The Lord is in His holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven." But what is in heaven is not above heaven. Therefore + Christ did not ascend above all the heavens. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> [*This objection with its solution is omitted in the Leonine edition as not being in the original manuscript.] + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p4"> Further, there is no place above the heavens, as is proved in De Coelo i. But every body must occupy a place. Therefore Christ's + body did not ascend above all the heavens. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p5"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, two bodies cannot occupy the same place. Since, then, there is no passing from place to place except through the + middle space, it seems that Christ could not have ascended above all the heavens unless heaven were divided; which is impossible. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p6"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is narrated ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.9" target="asv">Acts 1:9</a>) that "a cloud received Him out of their sight." But clouds cannot be uplifted beyond heaven. Consequently, Christ did not + ascend above all the heavens. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p7"> + <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, we believe that Christ will dwell for ever in the place whither He has ascended. But what is against nature cannot + last for ever, because what is according to nature is more prevalent and of more frequent occurrence. Therefore, since it + is contrary to nature for an earthly body to be above heaven, it seems that Christ's body did not ascend above heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p8"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.10" target="asv">Eph. 4:10</a>): "He ascended above all the heavens that He might fill all things." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p9"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The more fully anything corporeal shares in the Divine goodness, the higher its place in the corporeal order, which is order + of place. Hence we see that the more formal bodies are naturally the higher, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv; De + Coelo ii), since it is by its form that every body partakes of the Divine Essence, as is shown in Physics i. But through glory + the body derives a greater share in the Divine goodness than any other natural body + does through its natural form; while among other glorious bodies it is manifest that Christ's body shines with greater glory. + Hence it was most fitting for it to be set above all bodies. Thus it is that on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.8" target="asv"> Eph. 4:8</a>: "Ascending on high," the gloss says: "in place and dignity." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God's seat is said to be in heaven, not as though heaven contained Him, but rather because it is contained by Him. Hence + it is not necessary for any part of heaven to be higher, but for Him to be above all the heavens; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.8.2" target="asv"> Ps. 8:2</a>: "For Thy magnificence is elevated above the heavens, O God!" + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> [*Omitted in Leonine edition; see OBJ[2]] + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p12"> A place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container has the formality of first place, and such is the first + heaven. Therefore bodies need in themselves to be in a place, in so far as they are contained by a heavenly body. But glorified + bodies, Christ's especially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies, + but from God through the soul. So there is nothing to prevent Christ's body from being beyond the + containing radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing place. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, + since there is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a body, but the potentiality of reaching thither + lies in Christ. So when Aristotle proves (De Coelo ii) that there is no body beyond heaven, this must be understood of bodies + which are in a state of pure nature, as is seen from the proofs. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p13"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although it is not of the nature of a body for it to be in the same place with another body, yet God can bring it about miraculously + that a body be with another in the same place, as Christ did when He went forth from the Virgin's sealed womb, also when He + entered among the disciples through closed doors, as Gregory says (Hom. xxvi). Therefore Christ's body can be in the same + place with another body, not through some inherent property in the body, but + through the assistance and operation of the Divine power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p14"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> That cloud afforded no support as a vehicle to the ascending Christ: but it appeared as a sign of the Godhead, just as God's + glory appeared to Israel in a cloud over the Tabernacle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A4-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.40.32" target="asv">Ex. 40:32</a>; + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A4-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Num.9.15" target="asv">Num. 9:15</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p15"> + <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> A glorified body has the power to be in heaven or above heaven. not from its natural principles, but from the beatified soul, + from which it derives its glory: and just as the upward motion of a glorified body is not violent, so neither is its rest + violent: consequently, there is nothing to prevent it from being everlasting. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p16"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A4-p17"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q57_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q57_A5-p0.1">Whether Christ's body ascended above every spiritual creature?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's body did not ascend above every spiritual creature. For no fitting comparison can be made between + things which have no common ratio. But place is not predicated in the same ratio of bodies and of spiritual creatures, as + is evident from what was said in the + <a id="TP_Q57_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q8_A2.html">FP, Q[8], A[2]</a>, ad 1,2; + <a id="TP_Q57_A5-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q52_A1.html">FP, Q[52], A[1]</a>. Therefore it seems that Christ's body cannot be said to have ascended above every + spiritual creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. lv) that a spirit always takes precedence over a body. But the higher place is due + to the higher things. Therefore it does not seem that Christ ascended above every spiritual creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in every place a body exists, since there is no such thing as a vacuum in nature. Therefore if no body obtains a + higher place than a spirit in the order of natural bodies, then there will be no place above every spiritual creature. Consequently, + Christ's body could not ascend above every spiritual creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.1.21" target="asv">Eph. 1:21</a>): "God set Him above all principality, and Power, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that + which is to come." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The more exalted place is due to the nobler subject, whether it be a place according to bodily contact, as regards bodies, + or whether it be by way of spiritual contact, as regards spiritual substances; thus a heavenly place which is the highest + of places is becomingly due to spiritual substances, since they are highest in the order of substances. But although Christ's + body is beneath spiritual substances, if we weigh the conditions of its corporeal nature, + nevertheless it surpasses all spiritual substances in dignity, when we call to mind its dignity of union whereby it is united + personally with God. Consequently, owing to this very fittingness, a higher place is due to it above every spiritual creature. + Hence Gregory says in a Homily on the Ascension (xxix in Evang.) that "He who had made all things, was by His own power raised + up above all things." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although a place is differently attributed to corporeal and spiritual substances, still in either case this remains in common, + that the higher place is assigned to the worthier. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument holds good of Christ's body according to the conditions of its corporeal nature, but not according to its formality + of union. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This comparison may be considered either on the part of the places; and thus there is no place so high as to exceed the dignity + of a spiritual substance: in this sense the objection runs. Or it may be considered on the part of the dignity of the things + to which a place is attributed: and in this way it is due to the body of Christ to be above spiritual creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A5-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q57_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q57_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's Ascension is not the cause of our salvation. For, Christ was the cause of our salvation in so + far as He merited it. But He merited nothing for us by His Ascension, because His Ascension belongs to the reward of His exaltation: + and the same thing is not both merit and reward, just as neither are a road and its terminus the same. Therefore it seems + that Christ's Ascension is not the cause of our salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if Christ's Ascension be the cause of our salvation, it seems that this is principally due to the fact that His + Ascension is the cause of ours. But this was bestowed upon us by His Passion, for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.19" target="asv">Heb. 10:19</a>): "We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] confidence in the entering into the holies by" His "blood." Therefore it seems that Christ's + Ascension was not the cause of our salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the salvation which Christ bestows is an everlasting one, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.51.6" target="asv"> Is. 51:6</a>: "My salvation shall be for ever." But Christ did not ascend into heaven to remain there eternally; for it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.11" target="asv">Acts 1:11</a>): "He shall so come as you have seen Him going, into heaven." Besides, we read of Him showing Himself to many holy people + on earth after He went up to heaven. to Paul, for instance ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.9" target="asv">Acts 9</a>). Consequently, + it seems that Christ's Ascension is not the cause of our salvation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> He Himself said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.7" target="asv">Jn. 16:7</a>): "It is expedient to you that I go"; i.e. that I should leave you and ascend into heaven. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation in two ways: first of all, on our part; secondly, on His. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p7"> On our part, in so far as by the Ascension our souls are uplifted to Him; because, as stated above (A[1], ad 3), His Ascension + fosters, first, faith; secondly, hope; thirdly, charity. Fourthly, our reverence for Him is thereby increased, since we no + longer deem Him an earthly man, but the God of heaven; thus the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.16" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:16</a>): "If we have known Christ according to the flesh---'that is, as mortal, whereby we reputed Him as a mere man,'" as the + gloss interprets the words---"but now we know Him so no longer." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p8"> On His part, in regard to those things which, in ascending, He did for our salvation. First, He prepared the way for our + ascent into heaven, according to His own saying ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.2" target="asv">Jn. 14:2</a>): "I go to prepare a place for you," and the words of Micheas (2:13), "He shall go up that shall open the way before them." + For since He is our Head the members must follow whither the Head has gone: hence He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p8.2" href="./asv.html#John.14.3" target="asv">Jn. 14:3</a>): "That where I am, you also may be." + In sign whereof He took to heaven the souls of the saints delivered from hell, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.67.19" target="asv"> Ps. 67:19 </a>(Cf. + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p8.4" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.8" target="asv"> Eph. 4:8</a>): "Ascending on high, He led captivity captive," because He took with Him to heaven those who had been held captives by the + devil---to heaven, as to a place strange to human nature. captives in deed of a happy taking, since they were acquired by + His victory. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p9"> Secondly, because as the high-priest under the Old Testament entered the holy place to stand before God for the people, so + also Christ entered heaven "to make intercession for us," as is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.25" target="asv"> Heb. 7:25.</a> Because the very showing of Himself in the human nature which He took with Him to heaven is a pleading for us. so that for + the very reason that God so exalted human nature in Christ, He may take pity on them for whom the Son of God took human nature. + Thirdly, that being established in His heavenly seat as God and Lord, He might send down gifts upon men, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.4.10" target="asv"> Eph. 4:10</a>: "He ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things," that is, "with His gifts," according to the gloss. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation by way not of merit, but of efficiency, as was stated above regarding His + Resurrection ( + <a id="TP_Q57_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q56_A1.html">Q[56], A[1]</a>, ad 3,4). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ's Passion is the cause of our ascending to heaven, properly speaking, by removing the hindrance which is sin, and + also by way of merit: whereas Christ's Ascension is the direct cause of our ascension, as by beginning it in Him who is our + Head, with whom the members must be united. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ by once ascending into heaven acquired for Himself and for us in perpetuity the right and worthiness of a heavenly + dwelling-place; which worthiness suffers in no way, if, from some special dispensation, He sometimes comes down in body to + earth; either in order to show Himself to the whole world, as at the judgment; or else to show Himself particularly to some + individual, e.g. in Paul's case, as we read in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.9" target="asv">Acts 9</a>. And lest any man may think that + Christ was not bodily present when this occurred, the contrary is shown from what the Apostle says in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q57_A6-p12.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.14.8" target="asv">1 Cor. 14:8, </a> to confirm faith in the Resurrection: "Last of all He was seen also by me, as by one born out of due time": which vision + would not confirm the truth of the Resurrection except he had beheld Christ's very body. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q57_A6-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q56_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q58" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q58-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q58-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q58-p2"> WE have now to consider Christ's sitting at the right hand of the Father, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q58-p3"> (1) Whether Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father?</p> + <p id="TP_Q58-p4"> (2) Whether this belongs to Him according to the Divine Nature?</p> + <p id="TP_Q58-p5"> (3) Whether it belongs to Him according to His human nature?</p> + <p id="TP_Q58-p6"> (4) Whether it is something proper to Christ?</p> + <div id="TP_Q58_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q58_A1-p0.1">Whether it is fitting that Christ should sit at the right hand of God the Father?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem unfitting that Christ should sit at the right hand of God the Father. For right and left are differences of + bodily position. But nothing corporeal can be applied to God, since "God is a spirit," as we read in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.4.24" target="asv"> Jn. 4:24.</a> Therefore it seems that Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, if anyone sits at another's right hand, then the latter is seated on his left. Consequently, if Christ sits at the + right hand of the Father, it follows that the Father is seated on the left of the Son; which is unseemly. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, sitting and standing savor of opposition. But Stephen ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.7.55" target="asv">Acts 7:55</a>) said: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." Therefore it seems that + Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written in the last chapter of Mark (16:19): "The Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven, + and sitteth on the right hand of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The word "sitting" may have a twofold meaning; namely, "abiding" as in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.49" target="asv"> Lk. 24:49</a>: "Sit [Douay: 'Stay'] you in the city": and royal or judiciary "power," as in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.20.8" target="asv"> Prov. 20:8</a>: "The king, that sitteth on the throne of judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look." Now in either sense it belongs + to Christ to sit at the Father's right hand. First of all inasmuch as He abides eternally unchangeable in the Father's bliss, + which is termed His right hand, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.15.11" target="asv"> Ps. 15:11</a>: "At Thy right hand are delights even to the end." Hence Augustine says (De Symb. i): "'Sitteth at the right hand of the + Father': To sit means to dwell, just as we say of any man: 'He sat in that country for three years': Believe, then, that Christ + dwells so at the right hand of the Father: for He is happy, and the Father's right hand is the name for His bliss." Secondly, + Christ is said to sit at the right hand of the + Father inasmuch as He reigns together with the Father, and has judiciary power from Him; just as he who sits at the king's + right hand helps him in ruling and judging. Hence Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "By the expression 'right hand,' understand + the power which this Man, chosen of God, received, that He might come to judge, who before had come to be judged." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "We do not speak of the Father's right hand as of a place, for how can a place be designated + by His right hand, who Himself is beyond all place? Right and left belong to things definable by limit. But we style, as the + Father's right hand, the glory and honor of the Godhead." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The argument holds good if sitting at the right hand be taken corporeally. Hence Augustine says (De Symb. i): "If we accept + it in a carnal sense that Christ sits at the Father's right hand, then the Father will be on the left. But there"---that is, + in eternal bliss, "it is all right hand, since no misery is there." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Gregory says in a Homily on the Ascension (Hom. xxix in Evang.), "it is the judge's place to sit, while to stand is the + place of the combatant or helper. Consequently, Stephen in his toil of combat saw Him standing whom He had as his helper. + But Mark describes Him as seated after the Ascension, because after the glory of His Ascension He will at the end be seen + as judge." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A1-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q58_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q58_A2-p0.1">Whether it belongs to Christ as God to sit at the right hand of the Father?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as God to sit at the right hand of the Father. For, as God, Christ is the + Father's right hand. But it does not appear to be the same thing to be the right hand of anyone and to sit on his right hand. + Therefore, as God, Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the last chapter of Mark (16:19) it is said that "the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the + right hand of God." But it was not as God that Christ was taken up to heaven. Therefore neither does He, as God, sit at the + right hand of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ as God is the equal of the Father and of the Holy Ghost. Consequently, if Christ sits as God at the right + hand of the Father, with equal reason the Holy Ghost sits at the right hand of the Father and of the Son, and the Father Himself + on the right hand of the Son; which no one is found to say. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that "what we style as the Father's right hand, is the glory and honor of the Godhead, + wherein the Son of God existed before ages as God and as consubstantial with the Father." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As may be gathered from what has been said + <a id="TP_Q58_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q58_A1.html">(A[1])</a> three things can be understood under the expression "right hand." First of all, as Damascene takes it, "the glory of the + Godhead": secondly, according to Augustine "the beatitude of the Father": thirdly, according to the same authority, "judiciary + power." Now as we observed + <a id="TP_Q58_A2-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q58_A1.html">(A[1])</a> "sitting denotes" either abiding, or royal or judiciary dignity. Hence, to sit + on the right hand of the Father is nothing else than to share in the glory of the Godhead with the Father, and to possess + beatitude and judiciary power, and that unchangeably and royally. But this belongs to the Son as God. Hence it is manifest + that Christ as God sits at the right hand of the Father; yet so that this preposition "at," which is a transitive one, implies + merely personal distinction and order of origin, but not degree of nature or dignity, for there is no such thing in the Divine + Persons, as was shown in the + <a id="TP_Q58_A2-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q42_A3.html">FP, Q[42], AA[3]</a>,4. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Son of God is called the Father's "right hand" by appropriation, just as He is called the "Power" of the Father ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.1.24" target="asv">1 Cor. 1:24</a>). But "right hand of the Father," in its three meanings given above, is something common to the three Persons. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ as man is exalted to Divine honor; and this is signified in the aforesaid sitting; nevertheless such honor belongs + to Him as God, not through any assumption, but through His origin from eternity. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In no way can it be said that the Father is seated at the right hand of the Son or of the Holy Ghost; because the Son and + the Holy Ghost derive their origin from the Father, and not conversely. The Holy Ghost, however, can be said properly to sit + at the right hand of the Father or of the Son, in the aforesaid sense, although by a kind of appropriation it is attributed + to the Son, to whom equality is appropriated; thus Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. + i) that "in the Father there is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Ghost the connection of unity with equality." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A2-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q58_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q58_A3-p0.1">Whether it belongs to Christ as man to sit at the right hand of the Father?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man to sit at the right hand of the Father, because, as Damascene says + (De Fide Orth. iv): "What we call the Father's right hand is the glory and honor of the Godhead." But the glory and honor + of the Godhead do not belong to Christ as man. Consequently, it seems that Christ as man does not sit at the right hand of + the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, to sit on the ruler's right hand seems to exclude subjection, because one so sitting seems in a measure to be reigning + with him. But Christ as man is "subject unto" the Father, as is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.28" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:28.</a> Therefore it seems that Christ as man does not sit at the Father's right hand. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.34" target="asv"> Rom. 8:34</a>: "Who is at the right hand of God," the gloss adds: "that is, equal to the Father in that honor, whereby God is the Father: + or, on the right hand of the Father, that is, in the mightier gifts of God." And on + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.3" target="asv"> Heb. 1:3</a>: "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high," the gloss adds, "that is, in equality with the Father over all things, + both in place and dignity." But equality with God does not + belong to Christ as man; for in this respect Christ Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A3-p4.3" href="./asv.html#John.14.28" target="asv">Jn. 14:28</a>): "The Father is greater than I." Consequently, it appears unseemly for Christ as man to sit on the Father's right hand. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "By the expression 'right hand' understand the power which this Man, chosen of God, received, + that He might come as judge, who before had come to be judged." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q58_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q58_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, by the expression "right hand" is understood either the glory of His Godhead, or His eternal beatitude, or His judicial + and royal power. Now this preposition "at" signifies a kind of approach to the right hand; thus denoting something in common, + and yet with a distinction, as already observed (De Symb. ii). And this can be in three ways: first of all, by something common + in nature, and a distinction in person; + and thus Christ as the Son of God, sits at the right hand of the Father, because He has the same Nature as the Father: hence + these things belong to the Son essentially, just as to the Father; and this is to be in equality with the Father. Secondly, + according to the grace of union, which, on the contrary, implies distinction of nature, and unity of person. According to + this, Christ as man is the Son of God, and consequently sits at the Father's right hand; yet so that the expression "as" does + not denote condition of nature, but unity of suppositum, as explained above (Q[16], AA[10],11). Thirdly, the said approach + can be understood according to habitual grace, which is more fully in Christ than in all other creatures, so much so that + human nature in Christ is more blessed than all other creatures, and possesses over all other creatures royal and judiciary + power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p7"> So, then, if "as" denote condition of nature, then Christ, as God, sits "at the Father's right hand," that is, "in equality + with the Father"; but as man, He sits "at the right hand of the Father," that is, "in the Father's mightier gifts beyond all + other creatures," that is to say, "in greater beatitude," and "exercising judiciary power." But if "as" denote unity of person, + thus again as man, He sits at the Father's right hand "as to equality of honor," inasmuch as with the same + honor we venerate the Son of God with His assumed nature, as was said above ( + <a id="TP_Q58_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q25_A1.html">Q[25], A[1]</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Christ's humanity according to the conditions of His nature has not the glory or honor of the Godhead, which it has nevertheless + by reason of the Person with whom it is united. Hence Damascene adds in the passage quoted: "In which," that is, in the glory + of the Godhead, "the Son of God existing before ages, as God and consubstantial with the Father, sits in His conglorified + flesh; for, under one adoration the one hypostasis, together with His flesh, + is adored by every creature." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Christ as man is subject to the Father, if "as" denote the condition of nature: in which respect it does not belong to Him + as man to sit at the Father's right hand, by reason of their mutual equality. But it does thus belong to Him to sit at the + right hand of the Father, according as is thereby denoted the excellence of beatitude and His judiciary power over every creature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It does not belong to Christ's human nature to be in equality with the Father, but only to the Person who assumed it; but + it does belong even to the assumed human nature to share in God's mightier gifts, in so far as it implies exaltation above + other creatures. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A3-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q58_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q58_A4-p0.1">Whether it is proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father, because the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.2.4" target="asv">Eph. 2:4</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.2.6" target="asv">6</a>): "God . . . hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places through Christ Jesus." But + to be raised up is not proper to Christ. Therefore for like reason neither is it proper to Him to sit "on the right hand" + of God "on high" ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A4-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.3" target="asv">Heb. 1:3</a>). + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as Augustine says (De Symb. i): "For Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father, is to dwell in His beatitude." + But many more share in this. Therefore it does not appear to be proper to Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Christ Himself says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.3.21" target="asv">Apoc. 3:21</a>): "To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with Me in My throne: as I also have overcome, and am set down with My + Father in His throne." But it is by sitting on His Father's throne that Christ is seated at His right hand. Therefore others + who overcome likewise, sit at the Father's right hand. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p5"> + <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.20.23" target="asv">Mat. 20:23</a>): "To sit on My right or left hand, is not Mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by My Father." But no + purpose would be served by saying this, unless it was prepared for some. Consequently, to sit at the right hand is not proper + to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p6"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.13" target="asv">Heb. 1:13</a>): "To which of the angels said He at any time: Sit thou on My right hand, i.e. 'in My mightier gifts,'" or "'as my equal + in the Godhead'"? [*The comment is from the gloss of Peter Lombard] as if to answer: "To none." But angels are higher than + other creatures. Therefore, much less does it belong to anyone save Christ to sit at the Father's right hand. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p7"> + <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above + <a id="TP_Q58_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q58_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, Christ is said to sit at the Father's right hand inasmuch as He is on equality with the Father in respect of His Divine + Nature, while in respect of His humanity, He excels all creatures in the possession of Divine gifts. But each of these belongs + exclusively to Christ. Consequently, it belongs to no one else, angel or man, but to Christ alone, to sit at the right hand + of the Father. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Since Christ is our Head, then what was bestowed on Christ is bestowed on us through Him. And on this account, since He is + already raised up, the Apostle says that God has, so to speak, "raised us up together with Him," still we ourselves are not + raised up yet, but are to be raised up, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.11" target="asv"> Rom. 8:11</a>: "He who raised up Jesus from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies": and after the same manner of speech the + Apostle adds that "He has made us to sit together with Him, in the heavenly places"; namely, for the very reason that Christ + our Head sits there. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Since the right hand is the Divine beatitude, then "to sit on the right hand" does not mean simply to be in beatitude, but + to possess beatitude with a kind of dominative power, as a property and part of one's nature. This belongs to Christ alone, + and to no other creature. Yet it can be said that every saint in bliss is placed on God's right hand; hence it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.33" target="asv">Mat. 25:33</a>): "He shall set the sheep on His right hand." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> By the "throne" is meant the judiciary power which Christ has from the Father: and in this sense He is said "to sit in the + Father's throne." But other saints have it from Christ; and in this respect they are said "to sit on Christ's throne"; according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q58_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.28" target="asv"> Mat. 19:28</a>: "You also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth.), "that place," to wit, sitting at the right hand, "is closed not only to all men, + but likewise to angels: for, Paul declares it to be the prerogative of Christ, saying: 'To which of the angels said He at + any time: Sit on My right hand?'" Our Lord therefore "replied not as though some were going to sit there one day, but condescending + to the supplication of the questioners; since more than others they sought this + one thing alone, to stand nigh to Him." Still it can be said that the sons of Zebedee sought for higher excellence in sharing + His judiciary power; hence they did not ask to sit on the Father's right hand or left, but on Christ's. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q58_A4-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q57_A6.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q59" class="div3"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A1.html"></a> + <h3 id="TP_Q59-p0.1">OF CHRIST'S JUDICIARY POWER (SIX ARTICLES)</h3> + <p id="TP_Q59-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59-p2"> We have now to consider Christ's judiciary power. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p> + <p id="TP_Q59-p3"> (1) Whether judiciary power is to be attributed to Christ?</p> + <p id="TP_Q59-p4"> (2) Whether it belongs to Him as man?</p> + <p id="TP_Q59-p5"> (3) Whether He acquired it by merits?</p> + <p id="TP_Q59-p6"> (4) Whether His judiciary power is universal with regard to all men?</p> + <p id="TP_Q59-p7"> (5) Whether besides the judgment that takes place now in time, we are to expect Him in the future general judgment?</p> + <p id="TP_Q59-p8"> (6) Whether His judiciary power extends likewise to the angels?</p> + <p id="TP_Q59-p9"> It will be more suitable to consider the execution of the Last Judgment when we treat of things pertaining to the end of + the world [*See XP, QQ[88], seqq.]. For the present it will be enough to touch on those points that concern Christ's dignity. + </p> + <div id="TP_Q59_A1" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A2.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q59_A1-p0.1">Whether judiciary power is to be specially attributed to Christ?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that judiciary power is not to be specially attributed to Christ. For judgment of others seems to belong to + their lord; hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.4" target="asv">Rom. 14:4</a>): "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" But, it belongs to the entire Trinity to be Lord over creatures. Therefore + judiciary power ought not to be attributed specially to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Dan.7.9" target="asv">Dan. 7:9</a>): "The Ancient of days sat"; and further on ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Dan.7.10" target="asv">Dan. 7:10</a>), "the judgment sat, and the books were opened." But the Ancient of days is understood to be the Father, because as Hilary + says (De Trin. ii): "Eternity is in the Father." Consequently, judiciary power ought rather to be attributed to the Father + than to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it seems to belong to the same person to judge as it does to convince. But it belongs to the Holy Ghost to convince: + for our Lord says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.8" target="asv">Jn. 16:8</a>): "And when He is come," i.e. the Holy Ghost, "He will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment." Therefore + judiciary power ought to be attributed to the Holy Ghost rather than to Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said of Christ ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.42" target="asv">Acts 10:42</a>): "It is He who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living end of the dead." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Three things are required for passing judgment: first, the power of coercing subjects; hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.7.6" target="asv">Ecclus. 7:6</a>): "Seek not to be made a judge unless thou have strength enough to extirpate iniquities." The second thing required is upright + zeal, so as to pass judgment not out of hatred or malice, but from love of justice, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.3.12" target="asv"> Prov. 3:12</a>: "For whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth: and as a father in the + son He pleaseth Himself." Thirdly, wisdom is needed, upon which judgment is based, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Sir.10.1" target="asv"> Ecclus. 10:1</a>: "A wise judge shall judge his people." The first two are conditions for judging; but on the third the very rule of judgment + is based, because the standard of judgment is the law of wisdom or truth, according to which the judgment is passed. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p7"> Now because the Son is Wisdom begotten, and Truth proceeding from the Father, and His perfect Image, consequently, judiciary + power is properly attributed to the Son of God. Accordingly Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): "This is that unchangeable + Truth, which is rightly styled the law of all arts, and the art of the Almighty Craftsman. But even as we and all rational + souls judge aright of the things beneath us, so does He who alone is Truth itself pass judgment on us, when we + cling to Him. But the Father judges Him not, for He is the Truth no less than Himself. Consequently, whatever the Father judges, + He judges through It." Further on he concludes by saying: "Therefore the Father judges no man, but has given all judgment + to the Son." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument proves that judiciary power is common to the entire Trinity, which is quite true: still by special appropriation + such power is attributed to the Son, as stated above. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Trin. vi), eternity is attributed to the Father, because He is the Principle, which is implied in the + idea of eternity. And in the same place Augustine says that the Son is the art of the Father. So, then, judiciary authority + is attributed to the Father, inasmuch as He is the Principle of the Son, but the very rule of judgment is attributed to the + Son who is the art and wisdom of the Father, so that as the Father does all things + through the Son, inasmuch as the Son is His art, so He judges all things through the Son, inasmuch as the Son is His wisdom + and truth. And this is implied by Daniel, when he says in the first passage that "the Ancient of days sat," and when he subsequently + adds that the Son of Man "came even to the Ancient of days, who gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom": and thereby we + are given to understand that the authority for judging lies with the Father, from whom the Son received the power to + judge. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine says (Tract. xcv in Joan.): "Christ said that the Holy Ghost shall convince the world of sin, as if to say 'He + shall pour out charity upon your hearts.' For thus, when fear is driven away, you shall have freedom for convincing." Consequently, + then, judgment is attributed to the Holy Ghost, not as regards the rule of judgment, but as regards man's desire to judge + others aright. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A1-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A2.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q59_A2" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A3.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q59_A2-p0.1">Whether judiciary power belongs to Christ as man?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man. For Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi) that judgment + is attributed to the Son inasmuch as He is the law of the first truth. But this is Christ's attribute as God. Consequently, + judiciary power does not belong to Christ as man but as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it belongs to judiciary power to reward the good, just as to punish the wicked. But eternal beatitude, which is + the reward of good works, is bestowed by God alone: thus Augustine says (Tract. xxiii super Joan.) that "the soul is made + blessed by participation of God, and not by participation of a holy soul." Therefore it seems that judiciary power does not + belong to Christ as man, but as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it belongs to Christ's judiciary power to judge secrets of hearts, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.4.5" target="asv">1 Cor. 4:5</a>: "Judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make + manifest the counsels of the hearts." But this belongs exclusively to the Divine power, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.17.9" target="asv"> Jer. 17:9,10</a>: "The heart of man is perverse and unsearchable, who can know it? I am the Lord who + search the heart, and prove the reins: who give to every one according to his way." Therefore judiciary power does not belong + to Christ as man but as God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.27" target="asv">Jn. 5:27</a>): "He hath given Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Chrysostom (Hom. xxxix in Joan.) seems to think that judiciary power belongs to Christ not as man, but only as God. Accordingly + he thus explains the passage just quoted from John: "'He gave Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man: wonder + not at this.' For He received judiciary power, not because He is man; but because He is the Son of the ineffable God, therefore + is He judge. But since the expressions used were greater than those appertaining + to man, He said in explanation: 'Wonder not at this, because He is the Son of man, for He is likewise the Son of God.'" And + he proves this by the effect of the Resurrection: wherefore He adds: "Because the hour cometh when the dead in their graves + shall hear the voice of the Son of God." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p7"> But it must be observed that although the primary authority of judging rests with God, nevertheless the power to judge is + committed to men with regard to those subject to their jurisdiction. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.1.16" target="asv">Dt. 1:16</a>): "Judge that which is just"; and further on ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.1.17" target="asv">Dt. 1:17</a>): "Because it is the judgment of God," that is to say, it is by His authority that you judge. Now it was said before ( + <a id="TP_Q59_A2-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q8_A1.html">Q[8], AA[1]</a>,4) that Christ even in His human + nature is Head of the entire Church, and that God has "put all things under His feet." Consequently, it belongs to Him, even + according to His human nature, to exercise judiciary power. on this account. it seems that the authority of Scripture quoted + above must be interpreted thus: "He gave Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of Man"; not on account of the condition + of His nature, for thus all men would have this kind of power, as Chrysostom objects (Hom. xxxix in Joan.); but because + this belongs to the grace of the Head, which Christ received in His human nature. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p8"> Now judiciary power belongs to Christ in this way according to His human nature on three accounts. First, because of His + likeness and kinship with men; for, as God works through intermediary causes, as being closer to the effects, so He judges + men through the Man Christ, that His judgment may be sweeter to men. Hence ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.4.15" target="asv">Heb. 4:15</a>) the Apostle says: "For we have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities; but one tempted in all + things like + as we are, without sin. Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of His grace." Secondly, because at the last judgment, + as Augustine says (Tract. xix in Joan.), "there will be a resurrection of dead bodies, which God will raise up through the + Son of Man"; just as by "the same Christ He raises souls," inasmuch as "He is the Son of God." Thirdly, because, as Augustine + observes (De Verb. Dom., Serm. cxxvii): "It was but right that those who were to be judged should see their judge. But + those to be judged were the good and the bad. It follows that the form of a servant should be shown in the judgment to both + good and wicked, while the form of God should be kept for the good alone." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Judgment belongs to truth as its standard, while it belongs to the man imbued with truth, according as he is as it were one + with truth, as a kind of law and "living justice" [*Aristotle, Ethic. v]. Hence Augustine quotes (De Verb. Dom., Serm. cxxvii) + the saying of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:15</a>: "The spiritual man judgeth all things." But beyond all creatures Christ's soul was more closely united with truth, and more + full of truth; according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv"> Jn. + 1:14 + </a>: "We saw Him . . . full of grace and truth." And according to this it belongs principally to the soul of Christ to judge + all things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It belongs to God alone to bestow beatitude upon souls by a participation with Himself; but it is Christ's prerogative to + bring them to such beatitude, inasmuch as He is their Head and the author of their salvation, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.10" target="asv"> Heb. 2:10</a>: "Who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by His Passion." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To know and judge the secrets of hearts, of itself belongs to God alone; but from the overflow of the Godhead into Christ's + soul it belongs to Him also to know and to judge the secrets of hearts, as we stated above ( + <a id="TP_Q59_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q10_A2.html">Q[10], A[2]</a>), when dealing with the knowledge of Christ. Hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.16" target="asv">Rom. 2:16</a>): "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p12"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A2-p13"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A1.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A3.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q59_A3" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A4.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q59_A3-p0.1">Whether Christ acquired His judiciary power by His merits?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ did not acquire His judiciary power by His merits. For judiciary power flows from the royal dignity: + according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.20.8" target="asv"> Prov. 20:8</a>: "The king that sitteth on the throne of judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look." But it was without merits that + Christ acquired royal power, for it is His due as God's Only-begotten Son: thus it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.1.32" target="asv">Lk. 1:32</a>): "The Lord God shall give unto Him the + throne of David His father, and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever." Therefore Christ did not obtain judiciary + power by His merits. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as stated above + <a id="TP_Q59_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.TP_Q59_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, judiciary power is Christ's due inasmuch as He is our Head. But the grace of headship does not belong to Christ by reason + of merit, but follows the personal union of the Divine and human natures: according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>, + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A3-p3.3" href="./asv.html#John.1.16" target="asv">16</a>: "We saw His glory . . . as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth . . . and of His fulness we all have + received": and this pertains to the notion of headship. + Consequently, it seems that Christ did not have judiciary power from merits. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:15</a>): "The spiritual man judgeth all things." But a man becomes spiritual through grace, which is not from merits; otherwise + it is "no more grace," as is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.11.6" target="asv"> Rom. 11:6.</a> Therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs neither to Christ nor to others from any merits, but from grace alone. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Job.36.17" target="asv">Job 36:17</a>): "Thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked, cause and judgment thou shalt recover." And Augustine says (Serm. cxxvii): + "The Judge shall sit, who stood before a judge; He shall condemn the truly wicked, who Himself was falsely reputed wicked." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> There is nothing to hinder one and the same thing from being due to some one from various causes: as the glory of the body + in rising was due to Christ not only as befitting His Godhead and His soul's glory, but likewise "from the merit of the lowliness + of His Passion" [*Cf. Augustine, Tract. civ in Joan.]. And in the same way it must be said that judiciary power belongs to + the Man Christ on account of both His Divine personality, and the dignity of His + headship, and the fulness of His habitual grace: and yet He obtained it from merit, so that, in accordance with the Divine + justice, He should be judge who fought for God's justice, and conquered, and was unjustly condemned. Hence He Himself says + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.3.21" target="asv">Apoc. 3:21</a>): "I have overcome and am set down in My Father's throne [Vulg.: 'with My Father in His throne']." Now judiciary power is + understood by "throne," according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.9.5" target="asv"> Ps. 9:5</a>: "Thou hast sat on the throne, + who judgest justice." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument holds good of judiciary power according as it is due to Christ by reason of the union with the Word of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument is based on the ground of His grace as Head. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument holds good in regard to habitual grace, which perfects Christ's soul. But although judiciary power be Christ's + due in these ways, it is not hindered from being His due from merit. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p10"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A3-p11"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A2.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A4.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q59_A4" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A5.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q59_A4-p0.1">Whether judiciary power belongs to Christ with respect to all human affairs?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that judiciary power concerning all human affairs does not belong to Christ. For as we read in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.12.13" target="asv"> Lk. 12:13,14, </a> when one of the crowd said to Christ: "Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me; He said to him: Man, who + hath appointed Me judge, or divider over you?" Consequently, He does not exercise judgment over all human affairs. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, no one exercises judgment except over his own subjects. But, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.8" target="asv"> Heb. 2:8, </a> "we see not as yet all things subject to" Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ has not judgment over all human affairs. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx) that it is part of Divine judgment for the good to be afflicted sometimes in this + world, and sometimes to prosper, and in like manner the wicked. But the same was the case also before the Incarnation. Consequently, + not all God's judgments regarding human affairs are included in Christ's judiciary power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.22" target="asv">Jn. 5:22</a>): "The Father hath given all judgment to the Son." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> If we speak of Christ according to His Divine Nature, it is evident that every judgment of the Father belongs to the Son; + for, as the Father does all things through His Word, so He judges all things through His Word. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p7"> But if we speak of Christ in His human nature, thus again is it evident that all things are subject to His judgment. This + is made clear if we consider first of all the relationship subsisting between Christ's soul and the Word of God; for, if "the + spiritual man judgeth all things," as is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.15" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:15, </a> inasmuch as his soul clings to the Word of God, how much more Christ's soul, which is filled with the truth of the Word of + God, passes judgment upon all + things. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p8"> Secondly, the same appears from the merit of His death; because, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.9" target="asv"> Rom. 14:9</a>: "To this end Christ died and rose again; that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living." And therefore He has + judgment over all men; and on this account the Apostle adds ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.10" target="asv">Rom. 14:10</a>): "We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ": and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Dan.7.14" target="asv">Dan. 7:14</a>) it is written that "He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom; + and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p9"> Thirdly, the same thing is evident from comparison of human affairs with the end of human salvation. For, to whomsoever the + substance is entrusted, the accessory is likewise committed. Now all human affairs are ordered for the end of beatitude, which + is everlasting salvation, to which men are admitted, or from which they are excluded by Christ's judgment, as is evident from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.31" target="asv"> Mat. 25:31,40.</a> Consequently, it is manifest that all human affairs are included in + Christ's judiciary power. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p10"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As was said above (A[3], OBJ[1]), judiciary power goes with royal dignity. Now Christ, although established king by God, + did not wish while living on earth to govern temporarily an earthly kingdom; consequently He said ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.18.36" target="asv">Jn. 18:36</a>): "My kingdom is not of this world." In like fashion He did not wish to exercise judiciary power over temporal concerns, + since He came to raise men to Divine things. Hence Ambrose observes on this passage + in Luke: "It is well that He who came down with a Divine purpose should hold Himself aloof from temporal concerns; nor does + He deign to be a judge of quarrels and an arbiter of property, since He is judge of the quick and the dead, and the arbitrator + of merits." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All things are subject to Christ in respect of that power, which He received from the Father, over all things, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.28.18" target="asv">Mat. 28:18</a>: "All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth." But as to the exercise of this power, all things are not yet subject + to Him: this will come to pass in the future, when He shall fulfil His will regarding all things, by saving some and punishing + others. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Judgments of this kind were exercised by Christ before His Incarnation, inasmuch as He is the Word of God: and the soul united + with Him personally became a partaker of this power by the Incarnation. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A4-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A3.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A5.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q59_A5" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A6.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q59_A5-p0.1">Whether after the Judgment that takes place in the present time, there remains yet another General Judgment?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that after the Judgment that takes place in the present time, there does not remain another General Judgment. + For a judgment serves no purpose after the final allotment of rewards and punishments. But rewards and punishments are allotted + in this present time: for our Lord said to the thief on the cross ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.23.43" target="asv">Lk. 23:43</a>): "This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise": and ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A5-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.16.22" target="asv">Lk. 16:22</a>) it is said that "the rich man + died and was buried in hell." Therefore it is useless to look forward to a final Judgment. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to another (the Septuagint) version of + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Nah.1.9" target="asv">Nahum 1:9</a>, "God shall not judge the same thing a second time." But in the present time God judges both temporal and spiritual matters. + Therefore, it does not seem that another final judgment is to be expected. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, reward and punishment correspond with merit and demerit. But merit and demerit bear relation to the body only in + so far as it is the instrument of the soul. Therefore reward or punishment is not due to the body save as the soul's instrument. + Therefore no other Judgment is called for at the end (of the world) to requite man with reward or punishment in the body, + besides that Judgment in which souls are now punished or rewarded. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.12.48" target="asv"> Jn. 12:48</a>: "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge you [Vulg.: 'him'] in the last day." Therefore there will be a Judgment + at the last day besides that which takes place in the present time. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> Judgment cannot be passed perfectly upon any changeable subject before its consummation: just as judgment cannot be given + perfectly regarding the quality of any action before its completion in itself and in its results: because many actions appear + to be profitable, which in their effects prove to be hurtful. And in the same way perfect judgment cannot be passed upon any + man before the close of his life, since he can be changed in many respects from good to + evil, or conversely, or from good to better, or from evil to worse. Hence the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.27" target="asv">Heb. 9:27</a>): "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the Judgment." + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p7"> But it must be observed that although man's temporal life in itself ends with death, still it continues dependent in a measure + on what comes after it in the future. In one way, as it still lives on in men's memories, in which sometimes, contrary to + the truth, good or evil reputations linger on. In another way in a man's children, who are so to speak something of their + parent, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.30.4" target="asv"> Ecclus. 30:4</a>: "His father is dead, and he is as if he were not dead, + for he hath left one behind him that is like himself." And yet many good men have wicked sons, and conversely. Thirdly, as + to the result of his actions: just as from the deceit of Arius and other false leaders unbelief continues to flourish down + to the close of the world; and even until then faith will continue to derive its progress from the preaching of the apostles. + In a fourth way, as to the body, which is sometimes buried with honor and sometimes left unburied, and finally falls to dust + utterly. In a fifth way, as to the things upon which a man's heart is set, such as temporal concerns, for example, some of + which quickly lapse, while others endure longer. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p8"> Now all these things are submitted to the verdict of the Divine Judgment; and consequently, a perfect and public Judgment + cannot be made of all these things during the course of this present time. Wherefore, there must be a final Judgment at the + last day, in which everything concerning every man in every respect shall be perfectly and publicly judged. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Some men have held the opinion that the souls of the saints shall not be rewarded in heaven, nor the souls of the lost punished + in hell, until the Judgment-day. That this is false appears from the testimony of the Apostle ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.5.8" target="asv">2 Cor. 5:8</a>), where he says: "We are confident and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord": + that is, not to "walk by faith" but "by sight," as appears from the + context. But this is to see God in His Essence, wherein consists "eternal life," as is clear from + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A5-p9.2" href="./asv.html#John.17.3" target="asv"> Jn. 17:3.</a> Hence it is manifest that the souls separated from bodies are in eternal life. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p10"> Consequently, it must be maintained that after death man enters into an unchangeable state as to all that concerns the soul: + and therefore there is no need for postponing judgment as to the reward of the soul. But since there are some other things + pertaining to a man which go on through the whole course of time, and which are not foreign to the Divine judgment, all these + things must be brought to judgment at the end of time. For although in regard to such things a man neither + merits nor demerits, still in a measure they accompany his reward or punishment. Consequently all these things must be weighed + in the final judgment. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p11"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> "God shall not judge twice the same thing," i.e. in the same respect; but it is not unseemly for God to judge twice according + to different respects. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p12"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the reward or punishment of the body depends upon the reward or punishment of the soul, nevertheless, since the + soul is changeable only accidentally, on account of the body, once it is separated from the body it enters into an unchangeable + condition, and receives its judgment. But the body remains subject to change down to the close of time: and therefore it must + receive its reward or punishment then, in the last Judgment. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p13"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A5-p14"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A6.html"></a> + </div> + <div id="TP_Q59_A6" class="div4"> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP.iii.html"></a> + <h4 id="TP_Q59_A6-p0.1">Whether Christ's judiciary power extends to the angels?</h4> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p1"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p2"> + <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Christ's judiciary power does not extend to the angels, because the good and wicked angels alike were + judged in the beginning of the world, when some fell through sin while others were confirmed in bliss. But those already judged + have no need of being judged again. Therefore Christ's judiciary power does not extend to the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p3"> + <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the same person cannot be both judge and judged. But the angels will come to judge with Christ, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.25.31" target="asv"> Mat. 25:31</a>: "When the Son of Man shall come in His majesty, and all the angels with Him." Therefore it seems that the angels will not + be judged by Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p4"> + <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the angels are higher than other creatures. If Christ, then, be judge not only of men but likewise of angels, then + for the same reason He will be judge of all creatures; which seems to be false, since this belongs to God's providence: hence + it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Job.34.13" target="asv">Job 34:13</a>): "What other hath He appointed over the earth? or whom hath He set over the world which He made?" Therefore Christ is not + the judge of the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p5"> + <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.6.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 6:3</a>): "Know you not that we shall judge angels?" But the saints judge only by Christ's authority. Therefore, much more does Christ + possess judiciary power over the angels. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p6"> + <b>I answer that,</b> The angels are subjects of Christ's judiciary power, not only with regard to His Divine Nature, as He is the Word of God, + but also with regard to His human nature. And this is evident from three considerations. First of all, from the closeness + of His assumed nature to God; because, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.16" target="asv"> Heb. 2:16</a>: "For nowhere doth He take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold." Consequently, Christ's soul is + more filled + with the truth of the Word of God than any angel: for which reason He also enlightens the angels, as Dionysius says (Coel. + Hier. vii), and so He has power to judge them. Secondly, because by the lowliness of His Passion, human nature in Christ merited + to be exalted above the angels; so that, as is said in + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Phil.2.10" target="asv"> Phil. 2:10</a>: "In the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." And therefore + Christ has judiciary power even over + the good and wicked angels: in token whereof it is said in the Apocalypse (7:11) that "all the angels stood round about the + throne." Thirdly, on account of what they do for men, of whom Christ is the Head in a special manner. Hence it is written + ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.14" target="asv">Heb. 1:14</a>): "They are [Vulg.: 'Are they not'] all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritance + of salvation (?)." But they are submitted to Christ's judgment, first, as regards the dispensing of + those things which are done through them; which dispensing is likewise done by the Man Christ, to whom the angels ministered, + as related ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.11" target="asv">Mat. 4:11</a>), and from whom the devils besought that they might be sent into the swine, according to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p6.5" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.31" target="asv"> Mat. 8:31.</a> Secondly, as to other accidental rewards of the good angels, such as the joy which they have at the salvation of men, according + to + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p6.6" href="./asv.html#Luke.15.10" target="asv"> Lk. 15:10</a>: "There shall be joy before the angels of God + upon one sinner doing penance": and furthermore as to the accidental punishments of the devils wherewith they are either tormented + here, or are shut up in hell; and this also belongs to the Man Christ: hence it is written ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p6.7" href="./asv.html#Mark.1.24" target="asv">Mk. 1:24</a>) that the devil cried out: "What have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? art Thou come to destroy us?" Thirdly, as to + the essential reward of the good angels, which is everlasting bliss; and as to the essential punishment of the wicked + angels, which is everlasting damnation. But this was done by Christ from the beginning of the world, inasmuch as He is the + Word of God. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p7"> + <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument considers judgment as to the essential reward and chief punishment. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p8"> + <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): "Although the spiritual man judgeth all things, still he is judged by Truth Itself." + Consequently, although the angels judge, as being spiritual creatures, still they are judged by Christ, inasmuch as He is + the Truth. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p9"> + <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Christ judges not only the angels, but also the administration of all creatures. For if, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii) + the lower things are ruled by God through the higher, in a certain order, it must be said that all things are ruled by Christ's + soul, which is above every creature. Hence the Apostle says ( + <a class="scripRef" id="TP_Q59_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.5" target="asv">Heb. 2:5</a>): "For God hath not subjected unto angels the world to come"---subject namely to Christ---"of whom we speak" + [Douay: 'whereof we speak'] [*The words "subject namely to Christ" are from a gloss]. Nor does it follow that God set another + over the earth; since one and the same Person is God and Man, our Lord Jesus Christ. + </p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p10"> Let what has been said of the Mystery of His Incarnation suffice for the present.</p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p11"></p> + <p id="TP_Q59_A6-p12"></p> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A5.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP.iii.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP_Q58_A4.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q59_A1.html"></a> + </div> + <a href="summa.TP.i.html"></a> + <a href="summa.TP_Q1.html"></a> + ` + </div> \ No newline at end of file