diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 19950.txt | 51453 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 19950.zip | bin | 0 -> 836082 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
5 files changed, 51469 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/19950.txt b/19950.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..278eee7 --- /dev/null +++ b/19950.txt @@ -0,0 +1,51453 @@ +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars), by +Thomas Aquinas + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars) + From the Complete American Edition + +Author: Thomas Aquinas + +Translator: Fathers of the English Dominican Province + +Release Date: November 28, 2006 [EBook #19950] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SUMMA THEOLOGICA, PART III *** + + + + +Produced by Sandra K. Perry, with corrections and +supplementation by David McClamrock + + + + + + +SUMMA THEOLOGICA + +THIRD PART +["III," "Tertia Pars"] + +Translated by +Fathers of the English Dominican Province + +BENZIGER BROTHERS +NEW YORK +________________________ + +DEDICATION + +To the Blessed Virgin +Mary Immaculate +Seat of Wisdom +________________________ + +NOTE TO THIS ELECTRONIC EDITION + +The text of this electronic edition was originally produced by Sandra +K. Perry, Perrysburg, Ohio, and made available through the Christian +Classics Ethereal Library <http://www.ccel.org>. I have eliminated +unnecessary formatting in the text, corrected some errors in +transcription, and added the dedication, tables of contents, +Prologue, and the numbers of the questions and articles, as they +appeared in the printed translation published by Benziger Brothers. +Each article is now designated by part, question number, and article +number in brackets, like this: + +> SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 49, Art. 2] + +> Whether the Supreme Good, God, Is the Cause of Evil? + +In a few places, where obvious errors appeared in the Benziger +Brothers edition, I have corrected them by reference to a Latin text +of the _Summa._ These corrections are indicated by English text in +brackets. For example, in Part I, Question 45, Article 2, the first +sentence in the Benziger Brothers edition begins: "Not only is it +impossible that anything should be created by God...." By reference +to the Latin, "non solum _non_ est impossibile a Deo aliquid creari" +(emphasis added), this has been corrected to "Not only is it [not] +impossible that anything should be created by God...." + +This electronic edition also differs from the Benziger Brothers +edition in the following details (as well as the obvious lack of the +original page numbers and headers): + +* The repetitive expression "We proceed thus to the [next] Article" +does not appear directly below the title of each article. + +* Italics are represented by underscores at the beginning and end, +_like this._ Quotations and other "quotable" matter, however, are +ordinarily set off by quotation marks with no underscores in this +edition, in accordance with common English usage, even where they +were set in italics with no quotation marks in the Benziger Brothers +edition. Titles of books are set off by underscores when they appear +in the text with no parentheses, but not when the books are cited in +parentheses. + +* Bible chapters and verses are cited with arabic numerals separated +by colons, like this: "Dan. 7:10"--not like this: "Dan. vii. 10." +Small roman numerals have been retained where they appear in +citations to books other than the Bible. + +* Any matter that appeared in a footnote in the Benziger Brothers +edition is presented in brackets at the point in the text where the +footnote mark appeared. + +* Greek words are presented in Roman transliteration. + +* Paragraphs are not indented and are separated by blank lines. + +* Numbered topics, set forth at the beginning of each question and +at certain other places, are ordinarily presented on a separate line +for each topic. + +* Titles of questions are in all caps. + +Anything else in this electronic edition that does not correspond to +the content of the Benziger Brothers edition may be regarded as a +defect in this edition and attributed to me (David McClamrock). +_______________________ + +CONTENTS + +THIRD PART (QQ. 1-90) + +Question + +1. Of the Fitness of the Incarnation +2. Of the Mode of Union of the Word Incarnate +3. Of the Mode of Union on the Part of the Person Assuming +4. Of the Mode of Union on the Part of the Human Nature +5. Of the Parts of Human Nature Which Were Assumed +6. Of the Order of Assumption +7. Of the Grace of Christ as an Individual Man +8. Of the Grace of Christ as He Is the Head of the Church +9. Of Christ's Knowledge in General +10. Of the Beatific Knowledge of Christ's Soul +11. Of the Knowledge Imprinted or Infused on the Soul of Christ +12. Of the Acquired or Empiric Knowledge of Christ's Soul +13. Of the Power of Christ's Soul +14. Of the Defects of Body Assumed by the Son of God +15. Of the Defects of Soul Assumed by Christ +16. Of Those Things Which Are Applicable to Christ in His Being + and Becoming +17. Of Christ's Unity of Being +18. Of Christ's Unity of Will +19. Of the Unity of Christ's Operation +20. Of Christ's Subjection to the Father +21. Of Christ's Prayer +22. Of the Priesthood of Christ +23. Of Adoption as Befitting to Christ +24. Of the Predestination of Christ +25. Of the Adoration of Christ +26. Of Christ as Called the Mediator of God and Man +-- Editorial Note: St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception +27. Of the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin +28. Of the Virginity of the Mother of God +29. Of the Espousals of the Mother of God +30. Of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin +31. Of the Matter From Which the Saviour's Body Was Conceived +32. Of the Active Principle in Christ's Conception +33. Of the Mode and Order of Christ's Conception +34. Of the Perfection of the Child Conceived +35. Of Christ's Nativity +36. Of the Manifestation of the Newly Born Christ +37. Of Christ's Circumcision, and of the Other Legal Observances + Accomplished in Regard to the Child Christ +38. Of the Baptism of John +39. Of the Baptizing of Christ +40. Of Christ's Manner of Life +41. Of Christ's Temptation +42. Of Christ's Doctrine +43. Of the Miracles Worked by Christ, in General +44. Of Christ's Miracles Considered Specifically +45. Of Christ's Transfiguration +46. The Passion of Christ +47. Of the Efficient Cause of Christ's Passion +48. Of the Efficiency of Christ's Passion +49. Of the Effects of Christ's Passion +50. Of the Death of Christ +51. Of Christ's Burial +52. Of Christ's Descent into Hell +53. Of Christ's Resurrection +54. Of the Quality of Christ Rising Again +55. Of the Manifestation of the Resurrection +56. Of the Causality of Christ's Resurrection +57. Of the Ascension of Christ +58. Of Christ's Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father +59. Of Christ's Judiciary Power +60. What Is a Sacrament? +61. Of the Necessity of the Sacraments +62. Of the Sacraments' Principal Effect, Which Is Grace +63. Of the Other Effect of the Sacraments, Which Is a Character +64. Of the Causes of the Sacraments +65. Of the Number of the Sacraments +66. Of the Sacrament of Baptism +67. Of the Ministers by Whom the Sacrament of Baptism Is Conferred +68. Of Those Who Receive Baptism +69. Of the Effects of Baptism +70. Of Circumcision +71. Of the Preparations That Accompany Baptism +72. Of the Sacrament of Confirmation +73. Of the Sacrament of the Eucharist +74. Of the Matter of This Sacrament +75. Of the Change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ +76. Of the Way in Which Christ Is in This Sacrament +77. Of the Accidents Which Remain in This Sacrament +78. Of the Form of This Sacrament +79. Of the Effects of This Sacrament +80. Of the Use or Receiving of This Sacrament in General +81. Of the Use Which Christ Made of This Sacrament at Its Institution +82. Of the Minister of This Sacrament +83. Of the Rite of This Sacrament +84. Of the Sacrament of Penance +85. Of Penance as a Virtue +86. Of the Effect of Penance, As Regards the Pardon of Mortal Sin +87. Of the Remission of Venial Sin +88. Of the Return of Sins Which Have Been Taken Away by Penance +89. Of the Recovery of Virtue by Means of Penance +90. Of the Parts of Penance, in General +________________________ + +SUMMA THEOLOGICA + +THIRD PART +["III," "Tertia Pars"] +_______________________ + +PROLOGUE + +Forasmuch as our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, in order to "save His +people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21), as the angel announced, showed +unto us in His own Person the way of truth, whereby we may attain to +the bliss of eternal life by rising again, it is necessary, in order +to complete the work of theology, that after considering the last end +of human life, and the virtues and vices, there should follow the +consideration of the Saviour of all, and of the benefits bestowed by +Him on the human race. + +Concerning this we must consider (1) the Saviour Himself; (2) the +sacraments by which we attain to our salvation; (3) the end of +immortal life to which we attain by the resurrection. + +Concerning the first, a double consideration occurs: the first, about +the mystery of the Incarnation itself, whereby God was made man for +our salvation; the second, about such things as were done and +suffered by our Saviour--i.e. God incarnate. +_______________________ + +TREATISE ON THE INCARNATION (QQ. 1-59) +_______________________ + +QUESTION 1 + +OF THE FITNESS OF THE INCARNATION +(In Six Articles) + +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. + +Under the first head there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it was fitting for God to become incarnate? + +(2) Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race? + +(3) Whether if there had been no sin God would have become incarnate? + +(4) Whether He became incarnate to take away original sin rather than +actual? + +(5) Whether it was fitting for God to become incarnate from the +beginning of the world? + +(6) Whether His Incarnation ought to have been deferred to the end of +the world? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Fitting That God Should Become Incarnate? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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). + +_On the contrary,_ 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 (Rom. +1:20): "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 . . ." + +_I answer that,_ To each thing, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 2] + +Whether It Was Necessary for the Restoration of the Human Race That +the Word of God Should Become Incarnate? + +Objection 1: 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 +(I, Q. 4, AA. 1, 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, to revere God pertains especially to man's +salvation; hence it is written (Mal. 1:6): "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 (Ps. 112:4) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ What frees the human race from perdition is +necessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of the +Incarnation is such; according to John 3:16: "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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." + +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." + +And there are very many other advantages which accrued, above man's +apprehension. + +Reply Obj. 1: This reason has to do with the first kind of necessity, +without which we cannot attain to the end. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 3] + +Whether, If Man Had Not Sinned, God Would Have Become Incarnate? + +Objection 1: 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. 2). +Therefore if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, God's predestination is eternal. But it is said of +Christ (Rom. 1:4): "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. + +Obj. 5: Further, the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed to the +first man, as is plain from Gen. 2:23. "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 Eph. 5:32. 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), +expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, "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 1 Tim. 1:15, +"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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 John 1:14, "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (I, Q. 105, A. 6). 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 (Rom. 5:20): "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!" + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. + +Reply Obj. 5: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 4] + +Whether God Became Incarnate in Order to Take Away Actual Sin, Rather +Than to Take Away Original Sin? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, pain of sense is not due to original sin, but merely +pain of loss, as has been shown (I-II, Q. 87, A. 5). 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 Galatians 2:20: '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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:29): "Behold the Lamb of +God, behold Him Who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world." + +_I answer that,_ 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 John 3:19: +"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 (Rom. 5:15-16): "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." + +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 (I-II, Q. 81, A. 1). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: This reason looks to the intensive greatness of sin. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 5] + +Whether It Was Fitting That God Should Become Incarnate in the +Beginning of the Human Race? + +Objection 1: 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 +Eph. 2:4, 5: "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 +Prov. 3:28: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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 John 1:14: +"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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 4:4): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Matt. 9:12, 13): "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." + +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 Gal. 3:19, "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." + +Secondly, on account of the order of furtherance in good, whereby we +proceed from imperfection to perfection. Hence the Apostle says (1 +Cor. 15:46, 47): "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." + +Thirdly, on account of the dignity of the incarnate Word, for on the +words (Gal. 4:4), "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." + +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 +(Luke 18:8) it is written: "But yet the Son of Man, when He cometh, +shall He find think you, faith on earth?" + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: Augustine replies to this (De Sex Quest. Pagan., Ep. +cii), saying (Q. 2) 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 +(Rom. 9:16), '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]. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 6] + +Whether the Incarnation Ought to Have Been Put Off Till the End of +the World? + +Objection 1: 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 (Ps. +91:11): "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 Ps. 101:14: "For it is time to have mercy on +it." Therefore the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the +end of the world. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Col. 1:19, and 2:9). Therefore +the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Hab. 3:2): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 John 1:16: "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. + +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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says on John 3:11, "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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 2 + +OF THE MODE OF UNION OF THE WORD INCARNATE +(In Twelve Articles) + +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. + +Under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the union of the Word Incarnate took place in the nature? + +(2) Whether it took place in the Person? + +(3) Whether it took place in the suppositum or hypostasis? + +(4) Whether the Person or hypostasis of Christ is composite after the +Incarnation? + +(5) Whether any union of body and soul took place in Christ? + +(6) Whether the human nature was united to the Word accidentally? + +(7) Whether the union itself is something created? + +(8) Whether it is the same as assumption? + +(9) Whether the union of the two natures is the greatest union? + +(10) Whether the union of the two natures in Christ was brought about +by grace? + +(11) Whether any merits preceded it? + +(12) Whether the grace of union was natural to the man Christ? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 1] + +Whether the Union of the Incarnate Word Took Place in the Nature? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. 6). 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. + +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 (I, Q. 9, AA. 1, 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. + +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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (I, Q. 3, +A. 8). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 2] + +Whether the Union of the Incarnate Word Took Place in the Person? + +Objection 1: 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 (I, Q. 39, A. 1). If, therefore, the +union did not take place in the nature, it follows that it did not +take place in the person. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ's human nature has no less dignity than ours. +But personality belongs to dignity, as was stated above (I, Q. 29, A. +3, ad 2). Hence, since our human nature has its proper personality, +much more reason was there that Christ's should have its proper +personality. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ Person has a different meaning from "nature." For +nature, as has been said (A. 1), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 3] + +Whether the Union of the Word Incarnate Took Place in the Suppositum +or Hypostasis? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the hypostasis of the Word is not included in any +genus or species, as is plain from the First Part (Q. 3, A. 5). 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3, 4, 5): "In +our Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures and one hypostasis." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 4] + +Whether After the Incarnation the Person or Hypostasis of Christ Is +Composite? + +Objection 1: 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. 2). +But in the Word, Person and Nature do not differ, as appears from +First Part (Q. 39, A. 1). Therefore since the Nature of the Word is +simple, as was shown above (I, Q. 3, A. 7), it is impossible that the +Person of Christ be composite. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3, 4, 5), "In +the Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures, but one hypostasis +composed from both." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +And thereby the solution to the first is clear. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 5] + +Whether in Christ There Is Any Union of Soul and Body? + +Objection 1: 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 AA. 2, 3. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ Christ is called a man univocally with other men, as +being of the same species, according to the Apostle (Phil. 2:7), +"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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Luke 24:39), "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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 6] + +Whether the Human Nature Was United to the Word of God Accidentally? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the human nature was united to the +Word of God accidentally. For the Apostle says (Phil. 2:7) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. 1). Hence the human +nature must have accrued accidentally to the Son of God. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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?" + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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). + +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. +3). 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 7] + +Whether the Union of the Divine Nature and the Human Is Anything +Created? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (I, Q. 13, A. 7), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 8] + +Whether Union Is the Same As Assumption? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Divine Nature is said to be united, not +assumed. + +_I answer that,_ As was stated above (A. 7), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: Union and assumption have not the same relation to the +term, but a different relation, as was said above. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 9] + +Whether the Union of the Two Natures in Christ Is the Greatest of All +Unions? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: This reason regards the things united, and not the +Person in Whom the union takes place. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +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. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 10] + +Whether the Union of the Incarnation Took Place by Grace? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the Incarnation did not +take place by grace. For grace is an accident, as was shown above +(I-II, Q. 110, A. 2). But the union of the human nature to the Divine +did not take place accidentally, as was shown above (A. 6). Therefore +it seems that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by +grace. + +Obj. 2: Further, the subject of grace is the soul. But it is written +(Col. 2:9): "In Christ [Vulg.: 'Him'] dwelleth all the fulness of the +Godhead corporeally." Therefore it seems that this union did not take +place by grace. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 110, A. 1), 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 +(Col. 2:17) 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. + +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. +_______________________ + +ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 11] + +Whether Any Merits Preceded the Union of the Incarnation? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the union of the Incarnation followed +upon certain merits, because upon Ps. 32:22, "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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 Titus 3:5: "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. + +_I answer that,_ With regard to Christ Himself, it is clear from the +above (A. 10) 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 Luke +1:35: "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. + +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 +John 1:17: "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. + +And thereby the reply to the First Objection is manifest. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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" (John 1:16). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 12] + +Whether the Grace of Union Was Natural to the Man Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. 2). Now a +thing is denominated from its terminus. Therefore this grace ought +rather to be called personal than natural. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Eph. 2:3: "We were by nature children of wrath"; +and Wis. 12:10: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 3 + +OF THE MODE OF UNION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON ASSUMING +(In Eight Articles) + +We must now consider the union on the part of the Person assuming, +and under this head there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether to assume is befitting to a Divine Person? + +(2) Whether it is befitting to the Divine Nature? + +(3) Whether the Nature abstracted from the Personality can assume? + +(4) Whether one Person can assume without another? + +(5) Whether each Person can assume? + +(6) Whether several Persons can assume one individual nature? + +(7) Whether one Person can assume two individual natures? + +(8) Whether it was more fitting for the Person of the Son of God to +assume human nature than for another Divine Person? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 1] + +Whether It Is Befitting for a Divine Person to Assume? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (I, Q. 29, A. 1). +Therefore it is not befitting to a Divine Person to assume, i.e. to +take to Himself. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 2, AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As was said above (Q. 2, A. 1), 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 2] + +Whether It Is Befitting to the Divine Nature to Assume? + +Objection 1: It would seem that it is not befitting to the Divine +Nature to assume. Because, as was said above (A. 1), 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1), 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 3] + +Whether the Nature Abstracted from the Personality Can Assume? + +Objection 1: It would seem that if we abstract the Personality by our +mind, the Nature cannot assume. For it was said above (A. 1) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, assumption implies the term of union, as was said +above (A. 1). 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it has been said above (I, Q. 40, A. 3) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ In the Godhead Personality signifies a personal +property; and this is threefold, viz. Paternity, Filiation and +Procession, as was said above (I, Q. 30, A. 2). Now if we mentally +abstract these, there still remains the omnipotence of God, by which +the Incarnation was wrought, as the angel says (Luke 1:37): "No word +shall be impossible with God." Therefore it seems that if the +Personality be removed, the Divine Nature can still assume. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 4] + +Whether One Person Without Another Can Assume a Created Nature? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, as the human nature in Christ is assumed by God, so +likewise are men assumed by Him through grace, according to Rom. +14:3: "God hath taken him to Him." But this assumption pertains to +all the Persons; therefore the first also. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1), 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. 2). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: This reason regards the operation, and the conclusion +would follow if it implied this operation only, without the term, +which is a Person. + +Reply Obj. 2: The Nature is said to be incarnate, and to assume by +reason of the Person in Whom the union is terminated, as stated above +(AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 2 Pet. 1:4: +"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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 5] + +Whether Each of the Divine Persons Could Have Assumed Human Nature? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, by the Divine Incarnation men have come into +possession of the adoption of sons, according to Rom. 8:15: "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 (Rom. 8:29): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (I, Q. 32, A. 3; First Part, Q. 43, A. 4). Therefore at least +the Person of the Father cannot become incarnate. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Gal. 4:6: +"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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 6] + +Whether Several Divine Persons Can Assume One and the Same Individual +Nature? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the assumption is terminated in the unity of Person, +as has been said above (A. 2). But the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost +are not one Person. Therefore the three Persons cannot assume one +human nature. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 2, A. 5, 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 1 Cor. 6:17: "He who is joined to the +Lord is one spirit." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 7] + +Whether One Divine Person Can Assume Two Human Natures? + +Objection 1: 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 (Q. 2, AA. 3, 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. 6). Hence there +can be a numerical multitude on the part of the nature, on account of +the division of matter, without distinction of supposita. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 2, +A. 6, 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 8] + +Whether it was more fitting that the Person of the Son rather than +any other Divine Person should assume human nature? + +Objection 1: 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 John 18:37: "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 +(John 14:28): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the effect of the Incarnation would seem to be, as +it were, a second creation of human nature, according to Gal. 6:15: +"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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the Incarnation is ordained to the remission of +sins, according to Matt. 1:21: "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 John 20:22, 23: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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 1 Cor. 1:24: +"Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God." Therefore it was +fitting that the Person of the Son should become incarnate. + +_I answer that,_ 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 +(Ecclus. 1:5): "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. + +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 Rom. 8:17: "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 (Rom. 8:29): "For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to +be made conformable to the image of His Son." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing which human malice cannot abuse, since +it even abuses God's goodness, according to Rom. 2:4: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 2 Cor. 5:19: "For God indeed was in Christ reconciling +the world to Himself." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 4 + +OF THE MODE OF UNION ON THE PART OF THE HUMAN NATURE +(In Six Articles) + +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. + +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. + +Under the first head there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether human nature was more capable of being assumed than any +other nature? + +(2) Whether He assumed a person? + +(3) Whether He assumed a man? + +(4) Whether it was becoming that He should assume human nature +abstracted from all individuals? + +(5) Whether it was becoming that He should assume human nature in all +its individuals? + +(6) Whether it was becoming that He should assume human nature in any +man begotten of the stock of Adam? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 1] + +Whether Human Nature Was More Assumable by the Son of God Than Any +Other Nature? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, likeness is the foundation of the fittingness of the +Incarnation of the Divine Person, as above stated (Q. 3, A. 8). 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 Ezech. 28:12: "Thou wast the seal +of resemblance." And sin is found in angels, even as in man, +according to Job 4:18: "And in His angels He found wickedness." +Therefore the angelic nature was as capable of assumption as the +nature of man. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is said (Prov. 8:31) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (I, Q. 64, A. 2). + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 2] + +Whether the Son of God Assumed a Person? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum +ii) that "God assumed the nature, not the person, of man." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 3, AA. 1, +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 (Q. 2, A. 6). Hence +it follows that the Son of God nowise assumed a human person. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 3] + +Whether the Divine Person Assumed a Man? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the Divine Person assumed a man. For +it is written (Ps. 64:5): "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." + +Obj. 2: Further, the word "man" signifies a human nature. But the Son +of God assumed a human nature. Therefore He assumed a man. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As has been said above (A. 2), 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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: The Son of God is not the man whom He assumed, but the +man whose nature He assumed. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 4] + +Whether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed Human Nature Abstracted +from All Individuals? + +Objection 1: 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 (1 Tim. 4:10) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. +3). Now in this way it signifies human nature as it is in +individuals, as is plain from what has been said (A. 3). Therefore +the Son of God assumed human nature as it is separated from +individuals. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Baruch 3:38: "Afterwards He was seen upon earth, +and conversed with men." + +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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 5] + +Whether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed Human Nature in All +Individuals? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Divine Incarnation proceeded from Divine Love; +hence it is written (John 3:16): "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 (Q. 3, A. 7), and +with equal reason all. Hence it was fitting for the Son of God to +assume human nature in all its supposita. + +Obj. 3: 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 Gal. 4:5 (cf. Heb. 2:10). +Therefore human nature ought to have been assumed by God in all its +supposita. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. 3), +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Rom. 5:8: "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 6] + +Whether It Was Fitting for the Son of God to Assume Human Nature of +the Stock of Adam? + +Objection 1: 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 +(Heb. 7:26): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the Gentiles were greater sinners than the Jews, as +a gloss says on Gal. 2:15: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ (Luke 3), the genealogy of our Lord is traced back +to Adam. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Heb. 2:17). 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 +(Wis. 10:2). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Gen. 17:11). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 5 + +OF THE PARTS OF HUMAN NATURE WHICH WERE ASSUMED +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider the assumption of the parts of human nature; and +under this head there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the Son of God ought to have assumed a true body? + +(2) Whether He ought to have assumed an earthly body, i.e. one of +flesh and blood? + +(3) Whether He ought to have assumed a soul? + +(4) Whether He ought to have assumed an intellect? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 1] + +Whether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed a True Body? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a true +body. For it is written (Phil. 2:7), 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 Isa. 60:1: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 4, A. 1), 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 (Luke 24:37, 39), 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Phil. 2:8) 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 2, A. 1): but, the natures remaining distinct, +He assumed a body to the unity of Person. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Col. +2:17): "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is +Christ's." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 2] + +Whether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed a Carnal or Earthly Body? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ had not a carnal or earthly, +but a heavenly body. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:41): "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 Gen. 1. Therefore the second man, i.e. Christ, was +of heaven as regards the body. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is said (1 Cor. 15:50): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord says (Luke 24:39): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 +John 3:13: "No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended +from heaven, the Son of Man, Who is in heaven." + +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). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 clay 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 3] + +Whether the Son of God Assumed a Soul? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a soul. +For John has said, teaching the mystery of the Incarnation (John +1:14): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Ps. 35:10): 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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, +Matt. 26:38: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death"; and John 10:18: +"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 (Isa. 1:14): "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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Isa. 40:5: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 5, Art. 4] + +Whether the Son of God Assumed a Human Mind or Intellect? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 John 1:9, 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 (Prov. 20:27): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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 (Luke 24:39): '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 (John 17): 'I lay down My soul [Douay: 'life'] that I +may take it again.' And He proves that He has an intellect, saying +(Matt. 11:29): 'Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart.' +And God says of Him by the prophet (Isa. 52:13): 'Behold my servant +shall understand.'" + +_I answer that,_ 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 Matt. 8:10). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 6 + +OF THE ORDER OF ASSUMPTION +(In Six Articles) + +We must now consider the order of the foregoing assumption, and under +this head there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the Son of God assumed flesh through the medium of the +soul? + +(2) Whether He assumed the soul through the medium of the spirit or +mind? + +(3) Whether the soul was assumed previous to the flesh? + +(4) Whether the flesh of Christ was assumed by the Word previous to +being united to the soul? + +(5) Whether the whole human nature was assumed through the medium of +the parts? + +(6) Whether it was assumed through the medium of grace? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 1] + +Whether the Son of God Assumed Flesh Through the Medium of the Soul? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 50, AA. 2, 3). Hence the Word was not +joined to flesh through the medium of the soul. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 30, A. 3). 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 (Q. 4, A. 1) that human nature was assumable +before all others. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 2] + +Whether the Son of God Assumed a Soul Through the Medium of the +Spirit or Mind? + +Objection 1: 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 (I, Q. 77, A. 1, ad 1). +Therefore the Son of God did not assume a soul through the medium of +the spirit or mind. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 4, A. 1). Hence it seems that the +Son of God did not assume a soul through the medium of the spirit. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), 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 Eph. 4:23: "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (I, Q. 62, A. 8; +First Part, Q. 64, A. 2). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 3] + +Whether the Soul Was Assumed Before the Flesh by the Son of God? + +Objection 1: 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. 1). Now the medium is +reached before the end. Therefore the Son of God assumed the soul +before the body. + +Obj. 2: Further, the soul of Christ is nobler than the angels, +according to Ps. 96:8: "Adore Him, all you His angels." But the +angels were created in the beginning, as was said above (I, Q. 46, A. +3). 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (John 1:14): "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His +glory'] full of grace and truth," and it is added afterwards that "of +His fulness we have all received" (John 1:16), 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: As was said above (A. 1), 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: Of the fulness of Christ all men receive according to +the faith they have in Him; for it is written (Rom. 3:22) 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 (2 +Cor. 4:13). But the faith which is in Christ has the power of +justifying by reason of the purpose of the grace of God, according to +Rom. 4:5: "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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 4] + +Whether the Flesh of Christ Was Assumed by the Word Before Being +United to the Soul? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 5] + +Whether the Whole Human Nature Was Assumed Through the Medium of the +Parts? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (AA. 3, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: It is a personal union wherein the assumption is +terminated, not a union of nature, which springs from a conjunction +of parts. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 6] + +Whether the Human Nature Was Assumed Through the Medium of Grace? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 1 Cor. +12:4: "Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." + +_On the contrary,_ Grace is an accident in the soul, as was shown +above (I-II, Q. 110, A. 2). 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 John 1:14: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. +32, A. 1). But it does not follow from this that the grace of the +Holy Spirit is the formal medium in the aforesaid union. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 7 + +OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAN +(In Thirteen Articles) + +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. + +Concerning the first, there are three points of consideration: (1) The +grace of Christ; (2) His knowledge; (3) His power. + +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 (Q. 2). + +Under the first head there are thirteen points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether in the soul of Christ there was any habitual grace? + +(2) Whether in Christ there were virtues? + +(3) Whether He had faith? + +(4) Whether He had hope? + +(5) Whether in Christ there were the gifts? + +(6) Whether in Christ there was the gift of fear? + +(7) Whether in Christ there were any gratuitous graces? + +(8) Whether in Christ there was prophecy? + +(9) Whether there was the fulness of grace in Him? + +(10) Whether such fulness was proper to Christ? + +(11) Whether the grace of Christ was infinite? + +(12) Whether it could have been increased? + +(13) How this grace stood towards the union? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 1] + +Whether in the Soul of Christ There Was Any Habitual Grace? + +Objection 1: 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 2 Pet. 1:4: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, grace is necessary to man, that he may operate well, +according to 1 Cor. 15:10: "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 Rom. 6:23: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 11:2): "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 (I, Q. 8, A. 3; Q. 43, AA. 3, 6). +Therefore there was habitual grace in Christ. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Ps. 83:12: "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, 1 Tim. 2:5; and hence it behooved Him to have +grace which would overflow upon others, according to John 1:16: "And +of His fulness we have all received, and grace for grace." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Q. 2, AA. 1, 2), the soul of Christ is not +essentially Divine. Hence it behooves it to be Divine by +participation, which is by grace. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 19, A. 1), it was necessary +for Him to have habitual grace, whereby this operation might be +perfect in Him. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 2] + +Whether in Christ There Were Virtues? + +Objection 1: 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 2 Cor. 12:9: "My grace is sufficient for +thee." Therefore there were no virtues in Christ. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, as was said above (I-II, Q. 65, AA. 1, 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 Matt. 8:20: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ on Ps. 1:2, "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. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 110, AA. 3, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. I-II, Q. 61, A. 5). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (John 13:21), "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 (Q. 15, AA. 1, 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 3] + +Whether in Christ There Was Faith? + +Objection 1: 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. 2). Much +more, therefore, was there faith in Him. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ did not teach virtues which He had not +Himself, according to Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But +of Christ it is said (Heb. 12:2) that He is "the author and finisher +of our faith." Therefore there was faith in Him before all others. + +Obj. 3: Further, everything imperfect is excluded from the blessed. +But in the blessed there is faith; for on Rom. 1:17, "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 11:1): "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 (John 21:17): "Thou +knowest all things." Therefore there was no faith in Christ. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (II-II, Q. 1, A. 4), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: The merit of faith consists in this--that man through +obedience assents to what things he does not see, according to Rom. +1:5: "For obedience to the faith in all nations for His name." Now +Christ had most perfect obedience to God, according to Phil. 2:8: +"Becoming obedient unto death." And hence He taught nothing +pertaining to merit which He did not fulfil more perfectly Himself. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7. Art. 4] + +Whether in Christ There Was Hope? + +Objection 1: It would seem that there was hope in Christ. For it is +said in the Person of Christ (Ps. 30:1): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, hope is the expectation of the bliss to come, as was +shown above (II-II, Q. 17, A. 5, ad 3). But Christ awaited something +pertaining to bliss, viz. the glorifying of His body. Therefore it +seems there was hope in Him. + +Obj. 3: 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 Eph. 4:12: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 8:24): "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. 1): neither, consequently, was there hope. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 34, A. 4), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (I-II, Q. 4, A. +6). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 5] + +Whether in Christ There Were the Gifts? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Ps. 67:19. "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 4:1): "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." + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 68, A. 1), the gifts, +properly, are certain perfections of the soul's powers, inasmuch as +these have a natural aptitude to be moved by the Holy Ghost, +according to Luke 4:1: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (I-II, Q. 68, A. 6). +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 6] + +Whether in Christ There Was the Gift of Fear? + +Objection 1: 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 (I-II, Q. +40, A. 1; I-II, Q. 42, A. 1). But in Christ there was not the virtue +of hope, as was said above (A. 4). Hence, likewise, there was not the +gift of fear in Him. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 15, AA. 1, 2). Now fear is not of +the impossible. Therefore in Christ there was not the gift of fear. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (1 John 4:18) that "perfect charity +casteth out fear." But in Christ there was most perfect charity, +according to Eph. 3:19: "The charity of Christ which surpasseth all +knowledge." Therefore in Christ there was not the gift of fear. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 11:3): "And He shall be filled +with the spirit of the fear of the Lord." + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 42, A. 1), 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 (Heb. 5:7) 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: This reason is based on fear in so far as it regards +the evil object. + +Reply Obj. 3: Perfect charity casts out servile fear, which +principally regards punishment. But this kind of fear was not in +Christ. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 7] + +Whether the Gratuitous Graces Were in Christ? + +Objection 1: 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 John 1:14: "Full of grace and truth." But the +gratuitous graces would seem to be certain participations, bestowed +distributively and particularly upon divers subjects, according to 1 +Cor. 12:4: "Now there are diversities of graces." Therefore it would +seem that there were no gratuitous graces in Christ. + +Obj. 2: 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 1 Cor. 1:24. Therefore it was not fitting for +Christ to have the gratuitous graces. + +Obj. 3: 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 Ecclus. 20:32: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan. cclxxxvii) that "as +in the head are all the senses, so in Christ were all the graces." + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 3, AA. 1, 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 Heb. 2:3, 4: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Matt. 15:24): "I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of +the house of Israel"; and the Apostle says (Rom. 15:8): "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 (Q. 10, A. 2). 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. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 8] + +Whether in Christ There Was the Gift of Prophecy? + +Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of +prophecy. For prophecy implies a certain obscure and imperfect +knowledge, according to Num. 12:6: "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" (Num. 6:8). Therefore we ought not to +admit prophecy in Christ. + +Obj. 2: 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 (AA. 3, 4). Hence prophecy also ought not to be +admitted in Christ. + +Obj. 3: Further, a prophet is in an inferior order to an angel; hence +Moses, who was the greatest of the prophets, as was said above +(II-II, Q. 174, A. 4) is said (Acts 7:38) 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 Heb. 2:9. Therefore it seems that Christ was +not a prophet. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written of Him (Deut. 18:15): "Thy God will +raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren," and He +says of Himself (Matt. 13:57; John 4:44): "A prophet is not without +honor, save in his own country." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (4 Kings 5:26) 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 Isa. 44:28. 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Deut. 24:10: +"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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: Angels, being "comprehensors," are above prophets, who +are merely "wayfarers"; but not above Christ, Who was both a +"comprehensor" and a "wayfarer." +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 9] + +Whether in Christ There Was the Fulness of Grace? + +Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the fulness +of grace. For the virtues flow from grace, as was said above (I-II, +Q. 110, A. 4). But in Christ there were not all the virtues; for +there was neither faith nor hope in Him, as was shown above (AA. 3, +4). Therefore in Christ there was not the fulness of grace. + +Obj. 2: Further, as is plain from what was said above (I-II, Q. 111, +A. 2), 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (James 1:17): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:14): "We saw Him [Vulg.: +'His glory'] full of grace and truth." + +_I answer that,_ 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. 1) +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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 10] + +Whether the Fulness of Grace Is Proper to Christ? + +Objection 1: 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 (Luke 1:28): "Hail, full of grace"; and again it is +written (Acts 6:8): "Stephen, full of grace and fortitude." Therefore +the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Eph. +3:19): "That you may be filled unto all the fulness of God." +Therefore the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ. + +Obj. 3: 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 John 1:14: "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Eph. 4:1: "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 (Eph. +3:8): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 11] + +Whether the Grace of Christ Is Infinite? + +Objection 1: 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 (John 3:34): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (1 John 2:2). Therefore the +grace of Christ is infinite. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Job 28:17): "Gold nor crystal cannot equal it," as Gregory +expounds it (Moral. xviii). Therefore the grace of Christ is infinite. + +_On the contrary,_ Grace is something created in the soul. But every +created thing is finite, according to Wis. 11:21: "Thou hast ordered +all things in measure and number and weight." Therefore the grace of +Christ is not infinite. + +_I answer that,_ As was made clear above (Q. 2, A. 10), a twofold +grace may be considered in Christ; the first being the grace of +union, which, as was said (Q. 6, A. 6), 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 +Eph. 1:5, 6, "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 12] + +Whether the Grace of Christ Could Increase? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is by Divine power that grace is increased, +according to 2 Cor. 9:8: "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Luke 2:52) that the child "Jesus +advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men." Therefore the +grace of Christ could increase. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:14): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Wis. 11:21: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRTEENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 13] + +Whether the Habitual Grace of Christ Followed After the Union? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 42:1): "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. + +_I answer that,_ The union of the human nature with the Divine +Person, which, as we have said above (Q. 2, A. 10; Q. 6, A. 6), 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 (Ezech. 43:2): "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 Q. 4, A. 2. Therefore the grace of union +precedes, in thought, habitual grace. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 8 + +OF THE GRACE OF CHRIST, AS HE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH +(In Eight Articles) + +We must now consider the grace of Christ as the Head of the Church; +and under this head there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ is the Head of the Church? + +(2) Whether He is the Head of men as regards their bodies or only as +regards their souls? + +(3) Whether He is the Head of all men? + +(4) Whether He is the Head of the angels? + +(5) Whether the grace of Christ as Head of the Church is the same as +His habitual grace as an individual man? + +(6) Whether to be Head of the Church is proper to Christ? + +(7) Whether the devil is the head of all the wicked? + +(8) Whether Antichrist can be called the head of all the wicked? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Is the Head of the Church? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is not fitting for the head to have a head. But +God is the Head of Christ, as man, according to 1 Cor. 11:3, "The +Head of Christ is God." Therefore Christ Himself is not a head. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 1:22): "And He . . . hath made +Him head over all the Church." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12), 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 Ezech. 16:25: +"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 (Isa. 9:15): "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 1 Kings 15:17: "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 Rom. 8:29: "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 John 1:14, "We saw +Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] . . . full of grace and truth," as was shown +(Q. 7, A. 9). Thirdly, He has the power of bestowing grace on all the +members of the Church, according to John 1:16: "Of His fulness we +have all received." And thus it is plain that Christ is fittingly +called the Head of the Church. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Gal. 3:5: "He . . . +who giveth to you the Spirit." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Is the Head of Men As to Their Bodies or Only As to +Their Souls? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ took His body from other men, as is clear +from Matt. 1 and Luke 3. 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 3:21): "Who will reform the +body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 6, A. 1). 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 (Rom. 6:13): secondly, inasmuch as the life of glory +flows from the soul on to the body, according to Rom. 8:11: "He that +raised up Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, +because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you." + +Reply Obj. 1: The spiritual sense of grace does not reach to the body +first and principally, but secondarily and instrumentally, as was +said above. + +Reply Obj. 2: The body of an animal has no relation to a rational +soul, as the human body has. Hence there is no parity. + +Reply Obj. 3: Although Christ drew the matter of His body from other +men, yet all draw from Him the immortal life of their body, according +to 1 Cor. 15:22: "And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall +be made alive." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Is the Head of All Men? + +Objection 1: 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 (Eph. 1:23). Therefore Christ is not the +Head of all men. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the Old Law are compared to Christ +as the shadow to the body, as is written (Col. 2:17). But the fathers +of the Old Testament in their day served unto these sacraments, +according to Heb. 8:5: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Tim. 4:10): "Who is the Saviour +of all men, especially of the faithful," and (1 John 2:2): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (1 John 1:8). +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 (James 2:20): +"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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Is the Head of the Angels? + +Objection 1: 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 (Heb. 2:16): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ is the head of such as belong to the Church, +which is His Body, as is written (Eph. 1:23). 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 (2 Cor. 5:6, 7). Therefore Christ as man +is not head of the angels. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Col. 2:10), "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Eph. 1:20-22): 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 +(Matt. 4:11) that "angels came and ministered to Him." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 5] + +Whether the Grace of Christ, As Head of the Church, Is the Same As +His Habitual Grace, Inasmuch As He Is Man? + +Objection 1: 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 (Rom. 5:15): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, as was said above (Q. 6, A. 6), 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:16): "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 (Q. 7, A. 9). Hence His +capital and personal grace are not distinct. + +_I answer that,_ 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. 1; 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 6] + +Whether It Is Proper to Christ to Be Head of the Church? + +Objection 1: It seems that it is not proper to Christ to be Head of +the Church. For it is written (1 Kings 15:17): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Eph. 4:29: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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 1 +Pet. 5:4, "And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall +receive a never-fading crown of glory"; nor the name of Foundation, +according to Apoc. 21:14: "And the wall of the city had twelve +foundations." Therefore it seems that He did not retain the name of +Head for Himself alone. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Col. 2:19): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Amos 6:1, +"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 2 Cor. 2:10, +"For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your +sakes I have done it in the person of Christ," and 2 Cor. 5:20, "For +Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God, as it were, exhorting by +us." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: Man does not distribute grace by interior influx, but +by exteriorly persuading to the effects of grace. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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" (Rom. +5:2); but by the other names above-mentioned there may be implied not +merely the principal but also the secondary authority. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 7] + +Whether the Devil Is the Head of All the Wicked? + +Objection 1: 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 Eph. 1:22, "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ A gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xiv] on Job 18:17, +"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. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 6), 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. 6); 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 (Job 41:25): "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 Jer. 2:20: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: Although the devil does not influence the rational mind +interiorly, yet he beguiles it to evil by persuasion. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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" (1 John 3:8), 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 Wis. 2:24, 25: "By +the envy of the devil, death came into the world. And they follow him +that are of his side." + +Reply Obj. 3: All sins agree in aversion from God, although they +differ by conversion to different changeable goods. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 8] + +Whether Antichrist May Be Called the Head of All the Wicked? + +Objection 1: 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 Antichrist is not +their head. + +Obj. 2: Further, Antichrist is a member of the devil. Now the head is +distinguished from the members. Therefore Antichrist is not the head +of the wicked. + +Obj. 3: Further, the head has an influence over the members. But +Antichrist has no influence over the wicked who have preceded him. +Therefore Antichrist is not the head of the wicked. + +_On the contrary,_ A gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xv] on Job 21:29, +"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 +Antichrist the head of all evil-doers." + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1), in the head are found +three things: order, perfection, and the power of influencing. But as +regards the order of the body, Antichrist 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 2 +Thess. 2:4, "Showing himself as if he were God," a gloss says: "As in +Christ dwelt the fulness of the Godhead, so in Antichrist 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 Antichrist, according to 2 +Thess. 2:7, "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh." + +Reply Obj. 1: The devil and Antichrist are not two heads, but one; +since Antichrist is called the head, inasmuch as the wickedness of +the devil is most fully impressed on him. Hence, on 2 Thess. 2:4, +"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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Antichrist is +a member of the devil and yet is head of the wicked. + +Reply Obj. 3: Antichrist 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 9 + +OF CHRIST'S KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL +(In Four Articles) + +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. + +Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ had any knowledge besides the Divine? + +(2) Whether He had the knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors +have? + +(3) Whether He had an imprinted or infused knowledge? + +(4) Whether He had any acquired knowledge? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Had Any Knowledge Besides the Divine? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the union of the human nature with the Divine took +place in the Person, as is clear from Q. 2, A. 2. 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As said above (Q. 5), 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 (Q. 5). And hence the Sixth +Council [*Third Council of Constantinople, Act. 4] condemned the +opinion of those who denied that in Christ there are two knowledges +or wisdoms. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 +John 1:9. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 3, +AA. 1, 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Had the Knowledge Which the Blessed or Comprehensors +Have? + +Objection 1: 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 Ps. 35:10: "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 Col. 2:9: "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead +corporeally." Therefore in Christ there was not the knowledge of the +blessed. + +Obj. 2: Further, the knowledge of the blessed makes them blessed, +according to John 17:3: "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 Ps. 64:5: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The knowledge of the blessed consists in the +knowledge of God. But He knew God fully, even as He was man, +according to John 8:55: "I do know Him, and do keep His word." +Therefore in Christ there was the knowledge of the blessed. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Heb. +2:10: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Had an Imprinted or Infused Knowledge? + +Objection 1: 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 1 Cor. 13:10, 12. +Since, therefore, in Christ there was the beatific knowledge, as +stated above (A. 2), it would seem that there could not be any other +imprinted knowledge. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Col. 2:3) that in Christ "are hid +all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (II-II, Q. 1, A. 4). But +cognition by infused species includes no opposition to beatific +cognition. Therefore there is no parity. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 First Part +(Q. 12, A. 2); 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Had Any Acquired Knowledge? + +Objection 1: 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 +(John 7:15): "The Jews wondered, saying: How doth this Man know +letters, having never learned?" Therefore it seems that in Christ +there was no acquired knowledge. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 5:8): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 First Part (Q. 12, A. 4). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Joel 2:23: "Be joyful in the Lord your God, because He +hath given you a Teacher of justice." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 10 + +OF THE BEATIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST'S SOUL +(In Four Articles) + +Now we must consider each of the aforesaid knowledges. Since, +however, we have treated of the Divine knowledge in the First Part +(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. + +But again, because much has been said in the First Part (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: + +(1) Whether the soul of Christ comprehended the Word or the Divine +Essence? + +(2) Whether it knew all things in the Word? + +(3) Whether the soul of Christ knew the infinite in the Word? + +(4) Whether it saw the Word or the Divine Essence clearer than did +any other creature? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 10, Art. 1] + +Whether the Soul of Christ Comprehended the Word or the Divine +Essence? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 First Part (Q. 12, AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 He 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 First Part (Q. 12, A. 7). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 10, Art. 2] + +Whether the Son of God Knew All Things in the Word? + +Obj. 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ does not know all +things in the Word. For it is written (Mk. 13:32): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ on Apoc. 5:12, "The Lamb that was slain is worthy +to receive . . . divinity and wisdom," a gloss says, i.e. "the +knowledge of all things." + +_I answer that,_ 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 John 5:27; 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 (John 2:25), +"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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Q. 9, A. 1), 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 John 1:3, and, amongst other things, all times were made +by Him. Now He is not ignorant of anything that was made by Him. + +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 (Acts 1:7), He was unwilling to reveal it; and, on +the contrary, we read (Gen. 22:12): "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 First Part (Q. 14, A. 9). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 10, Art. 3] + +Whether the Soul of Christ Can Know the Infinite in the Word? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. 2). Therefore +the soul of Christ does not know the infinite. + +_On the contrary,_ The soul of Christ knows all its power and all it +can do. Now it can cleanse infinite sins, according to 1 John 2:2: +"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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. 2), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: As we said in the First Part (Q. 8, A. 1), 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 +First Part (Q. 7, A. 2). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 10, Art. 4] + +Whether the Soul of Christ Sees the Word or the Divine Essence More +Clearly Than Does Any Other Creature? + +Objection 1: 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 First Part (Q. 12, A. 2). Therefore the soul of Christ does not +see the Word more perfectly than any other creature. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 1:20, 21) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Ecclus. 1:5: +"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 (John 1:14): "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: The vision of the Divine Essence exceeds the natural +power of any creature, as was said in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 4). +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 7, A. 12), 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 11 + +OF THE KNOWLEDGE IMPRINTED OR INFUSED IN THE SOUL OF CHRIST +(In Six Articles) + +We must now consider the knowledge imprinted or infused in the soul +of Christ, and under this head there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ knows all things by this knowledge? + +(2) Whether He could use this knowledge by turning to phantasms? + +(3) Whether this knowledge was collative? + +(4) Of the comparison of this knowledge with the angelic knowledge; + +(5) Whether it was a habitual knowledge? + +(6) Whether it was distinguished by various habits? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 1] + +Whether by This Imprinted or Infused Knowledge Christ Knew All Things? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 11:2) 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. Ecclus. 15:5," 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. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 9, A. 1), 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 (Q. 10). + +Reply Obj. 1: This reason refers to the natural power of an +intellective soul in comparison with its natural agent, which is the +active intellect. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 First Part +(Q. 89, AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Could Use This Knowledge by Turning to Phantasms? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Phil. 2:7) " . . . 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ In the state before His Passion Christ was at the +same time a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as will be more clearly +shown (Q. 15, A. 10). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 3] + +Whether This Knowledge Is Collative? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 10, A. 2). Hence there was no +discursive or collative knowledge in Him. + +Obj. 3: Further, the knowledge in Christ's soul was like that of +comprehensors, who are likened to the angels, according to Matt. +22:30. 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Christ had a rational soul, as was shown (Q. 5, A. +4). 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Matt. 17:24, 25, 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: This reason rests upon discursion and comparison, as +used to acquire knowledge. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 4] + +Whether in Christ This Knowledge Was Greater Than the Knowledge of +the Angels? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 2:9): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +And hereby the reply to the objections is made clear. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 5] + +Whether This Knowledge Was Habitual? + +Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no habitual +knowledge. For it has been said (Q. 9, A. 1) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 10, A. 2), 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 6] + +Whether This Knowledge Was Distinguished by Divers Habits? + +Objection 1: 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 First Part (Q. 55, A. 3). Now +Christ's knowledge was most perfect. Therefore it was most one. +Therefore it was not distinguished by several habits. + +Obj. 2: Further, our faith is derived from Christ's knowledge; hence +it is written (Heb. 12:2): "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 Second Part (II-II, Q. 4, A. 6). Much +more, therefore, was there only one habit of knowledge in Christ. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Zech. 3:9) 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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 4, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: As was said (A. 4), 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: Our faith rests upon the First Truth; and hence Christ +is the author of our faith by the Divine knowledge, which is simply +one. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 12 + +OF THE ACQUIRED OR EMPIRIC KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST'S SOUL +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider the acquired or empiric knowledge of Christ's +soul; and under this head there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ knew all things by this knowledge? + +(2) Whether He advanced in this knowledge? + +(3) Whether He learned anything from man? + +(4) Whether He received anything from angels? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 12, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Knew All Things by This Acquired or Empiric Knowledge? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ Acquired knowledge is held to be in Christ's soul, +as we have said (Q. 9, A. 4), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 11). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 12, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Advanced in Acquired or Empiric Knowledge? + +Objection 1: 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. 1). But He did not advance in these +knowledges. Therefore neither in this. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 2:52): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 First Part (Q. 14, A. 15), +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 12, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Learned Anything from Man? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ learned something from man. +For it is written (Luke 2:46, 47) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. 2). Much more, therefore, could He receive knowledge by +learning from men. + +Obj. 3: Further, by empiric knowledge Christ did not know everything +from the beginning, but advanced in it, as was said above (A. 2). 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 45:4): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 8, A. +3), 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 (John 18:37): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Ecclus. 1:10) 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: Jesus advanced in empiric knowledge, as in age, as +stated above (A. 2). 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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 12, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Received Knowledge from the Angels? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ received knowledge from the +angels. For it is written (Luke 22:43) that "there appeared to Him an +angel from heaven, strengthening Him." But we are strengthened by the +comforting words of a teacher, according to Job 4:3, 4: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Luke 22:43): "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: The Son of God assumed a passible body (as will be said +hereafter (Q. 14, A. 1)) and a soul perfect in knowledge and grace (Q. +14, A. 1, 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 13 + +OF THE POWER OF CHRIST'S SOUL +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider the power of Christ's soul; and under this head +there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether He had omnipotence simply? + +(2) Whether He had omnipotence with regard to corporeal creatures? + +(3) Whether He had omnipotence with regard to His own body? + +(4) Whether He had omnipotence as regards the execution of His own +will? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 13, Art. 1] + +Whether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had omnipotence. +For Ambrose [*Gloss, Ord.] says on Luke 1:32: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 10, A. 2). Therefore He had +all power; and thus He was omnipotent. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ What is proper to God cannot belong to any +creature. But it is proper to God to be omnipotent, according to Ex. +15:2, 3: "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. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 2, A. 1; Q. 10, A. 1) 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +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 +First Part (Q. 45). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 13, Art. 2] + +Whether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence with Regard to the +Transmutation of Creatures? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had omnipotence +with regard to the transmutation of creatures. For He Himself says +(Matt. 28:18): "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 Gen. 1:1: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ To transmute creatures belongs to Him Who +preserves them. Now this belongs to God alone, according to Heb. 1:3: +"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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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" +[*Eph. 1:10]. 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As was said in the Second Part (Q. 178, A. 1, 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 (Matt. +10:1) 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 13, Art. 3] + +Whether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence with Regard to His Own +Body? + +Objection 1: 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" (Ps. 113:11). Therefore it seems that Christ's +soul had omnipotence with regard to the natural operations of the +body. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 First Part (Q. 117, A. 3, 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 2:17) 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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: This saying 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 14, A. 2). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 13, Art. 4] + +Whether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence As Regards the Execution +of His Will? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had not +omnipotence as regards the execution of His own will. For it is +written (Mk. 7:24) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, a command is a sign of will, as was said in the +First Part (Q. 19, A. 12). But our Lord commanded certain things to +be done, and the contrary came to pass, for it is written (Matt. +9:30, 31) 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Luke 6:12): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. 2). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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?" + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 John +8:50, "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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" (Phil. 2:13). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 14 + +OF THE DEFECTS OF BODY ASSUMED BY THE SON OF GOD +(In Four Articles) + +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. + +Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the Son of God should have assumed in human nature +defects of body? + +(2) Whether He assumed the obligation of being subject to these +defects? + +(3) Whether He contracted these defects? + +(4) Whether He assumed all these defects? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 1] + +Whether the Son of God in Human Nature Ought to Have Assumed Defects +of Body? + +Objection 1: 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 (Q. 7, A. 9; Q. 9, seqq.). Hence, His body also ought to +have been in every way perfect, not having any imperfection in it. + +Obj. 2: Further, the soul of Christ saw the Word of God by the vision +wherein the blessed see, as was said above (Q. 9, A. 2), 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, penalty is the consequence of fault. But there was +no fault in Christ, according to 1 Pet. 2:22: "Who did no guile." +Therefore defects of body, which are penalties, ought not to have +been in Him. + +Obj. 4: 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 +Isa. 53:2, 3: "[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 +desire of the Fathers would not seem to be fulfilled, in whose person +it is written (Isa. 51:9): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 2:18): "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 (Ps. 120:1): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Rom. 5:12: "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 Isa. 53:4, "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, Phil. +2:7: "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 John 20:26. Thirdly, in order to show us an example of +patience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and +defects. Hence it is said (Heb. 12:3) that He "endured such +opposition from sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied, +fainting in your minds." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Supp., Q. 14, A. 2). +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Isa. 53:5: "He was wounded for our iniquities, He was +bruised for our sins." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 Rom. +5:1, 2: "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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Was of Necessity Subject to These Defects? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not of necessity subject +to these defects. For it is written (Isa. 53:7): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 8:3) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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). + +Reply Obj. 2: This is plain from what has been said. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Contracted These Defects? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ is likened to other men in these defects, as +is written Heb. 2:17. But other men contract these defects. Therefore +it seems that Christ contracted these defects. + +_On the contrary,_ These defects are contracted through sin, +according to Rom. 5:12: "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Rom. 5:12. 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 John 3:31, "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. 1). Therefore He +had these defects--not that He contracted them, but that He assumed +them. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Ought to Have Assumed All the Bodily Defects of Men? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further it was said (A. 1), 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, amongst all bodily defects death holds the chief +place. Now Christ assumed death. Much more, therefore, ought He to +have assumed other defects. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 15 + +OF THE DEFECTS OF SOUL ASSUMED BY CHRIST +(In Ten Articles) + +We must now consider the defects pertaining to the soul; and under +this head there are ten points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether there was sin in Christ? + +(2) Whether there was the _fomes_ of sin in Him? + +(3) Whether there was ignorance? + +(4) Whether His soul was passible? + +(5) Whether in Him there was sensible pain? + +(6) Whether there was sorrow? + +(7) Whether there was fear? + +(8) Whether there was wonder? + +(9) Whether there was anger? + +(10) Whether He was at once wayfarer and comprehensor? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 1] + +Whether There Was Sin in Christ? + +Objection 1: It would seem that there was sin in Christ. For it is +written (Ps. 21:2): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12) 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 2:18) 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, it is written (2 Cor. 5:21) 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. + +Obj. 5: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ He Himself says (John 8:46): "Which of you shall +convince Me of sin?" + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 14, A. 1), 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 (Ecclus. 34:23), "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 (1 Pet. +2:22): "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Ps. 21:2): "The words of My sins"--not that there +were any sins in the Head. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Osee 4:8): "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 (Isa. 53:6) 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 (Rom. 8:3), and this +on account of the passible and mortal body He assumed. + +Reply Obj. 5: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 2] + +Whether There Was the _Fomes_ of Sin in Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Rom. 7:8, it seems that +in Christ there was the _fomes_ of sin. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is by reason of the _fomes_ of sin that "the +flesh lusteth against the spirit," as is written (Gal. 5:17). 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 2 Tim. 2:5, 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 Apoc. +6:2: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:20): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Second Part (I-II, Q. 56, A. +4). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 3] + +Whether in Christ There Was Ignorance? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, one is said to be ignorant through defect of +knowledge. Now some kind of knowledge was wanting to Christ, for the +Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:21) "Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made +sin." Therefore there was ignorance in Christ. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Isa. 8:4): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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" (Luke 1:79). +Therefore there was no ignorance in Christ. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 7, A. 9; Q. 9). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 John 1:14: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: Christ is said not to have known sin, because He did +not know it by experience; but He knew it by simple cognition. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ's Soul Was Passible? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Tully (De Tusc. Quaes. iii) says that the soul's +passions are ailments [*Cf. I-II, Q. 24, A. 2]. But Christ's soul had +no ailment; for the soul's ailment results from sin, as is plain from +Ps. 40:5: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee." Therefore +in Christ's soul there were no passions. + +Obj. 3: Further, the soul's passions would seem to be the same as the +_fomes_ of sin, hence the Apostle (Rom. 7:5) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 87:4) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Second Part (I-II, Q. 22, A. 3; I-II, Q. 41, A. 1); +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." + +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 Matt. 26:37) 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 5] + +Whether There Was Sensible Pain in Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 9, A. 2). Therefore He could feel no pain. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 53:4): "Surely He hath borne +our infirmities and carried our sorrows." + +_I answer that,_ As is plain from what has been said in the Second +Part (I-II, Q. 35, A. 7), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Q. 14, AA. 1, 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 +(Q. 14, A. 2). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As was said above (Q. 14, A. 1, 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 6] + +Whether There Was Sorrow in Christ? + +Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no sorrow. For it +is written of Christ (Isa. 42:4): "He shall not be sad nor +troublesome." + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 12:21): "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 Jer. 23:6: "This is the +name that they shall call Him: The Lord, our just one." Therefore +there was no sorrow in Him. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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 (Isa. 53:7): "He was +offered because it was His own will." Hence there was no sorrow in +Christ. + +_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 26:38): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Second Part (I-II, Q. +35, AA. 2, 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. 4), when we +were speaking of the passions of Christ's soul in general. + +Reply Obj. 1: Sorrow was not in Christ, as a perfect passion; yet it +was inchoatively in Him as a "propassion." Hence it is written (Matt. +26:37): "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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?" + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 7] + +Whether There Was Fear in Christ? + +Objection 1: It would seem that there was no fear in Christ. For it +is written (Prov. 28:1): "The just, bold as a lion, shall be without +dread." But Christ was most just. Therefore there was no fear in +Christ. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 4:33): Jesus "began to fear and +to be heavy." + +_I answer that,_ 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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Mk. 14:33) that Jesus "began to fear and to be +heavy," with a propassion, as Jerome expounds (Matt. 26:37). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 8] + +Whether There Was Wonder in Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 8:10): "Jesus hearing this," +i.e. the words of the centurion, "marveled." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: Although Christ was ignorant of nothing, yet new things +might occur to His empiric knowledge, and thus wonder would be caused. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 9] + +Whether There Was Anger in Christ? + +Objection 1: It would seem that there was no anger in Christ. For it +is written (James 1:20): "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 (1 Cor. 1:30): "For He [Vulg.: 'Who'] of +God is made unto us . . . justice." Therefore it seems that there was +no anger in Christ. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 2:17) that the words of Ps. +58:10, "the zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up," were fulfilled in +Him. + +_I answer that,_ As was said in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 46, A. 3, +ad 3, and II-II, Q. 158, A. 2, ad 3), anger is an effect of sorrow. +For 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. 6) 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 John 2:17) 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 10] + +Whether Christ Was at Once a Wayfarer and a Comprehensor? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jer. 14:8): "Why wilt Thou be as a +stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man turning in to lodge?" + +_I answer that,_ A man is called a wayfarer from tending to +beatitude, and a comprehensor from having already obtained beatitude, +according to 1 Cor. 9:24: "So run that you may comprehend [Douay: +'obtain']"; and Phil. 3:12: "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 Second Part (I-II, Q. 4, A. +6). 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 1 +Cor. 15:42. 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. 4; 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 16 + +OF THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO CHRIST IN HIS BEING AND +BECOMING +(In Twelve Articles) + +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. + +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. + +Under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether this is true: "God is man"? + +(2) Whether this is true: "Man is God"? + +(3) Whether Christ may be called a lordly man? + +(4) Whether what belongs to the Son of Man may be predicated of the +Son of God, and conversely? + +(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? + +(6) Whether this is true: "The Son of God was made man"? + +(7) Whether this is true: "Man became God"? + +(8) Whether this is true: "Christ is a creature"? + +(9) Whether this is true: "This man," pointing out Christ, "began to +be"? or "always was"? + +(10) Whether this is true: "Christ as man is a creature"? + +(11) Whether this is true: "Christ as man is God"? + +(12) Whether this is true: "Christ as man is a hypostasis or person"? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 1] + +Whether This Is True: "God Is Man"? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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." + +Obj. 4: Further, it was said in the First Part (Q. 39, A. 4) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:6, 7): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 2, A. 5; Q. +5, A. 1). + +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 (Q. 2, AA. 10, 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 (Q. 2, AA. 3, 6). + +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 First Part (Q. 39, A. 4). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: "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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 2] + +Whether This Is True: "Man Is God"? + +Objection 1: It would seem that this is false: "Man is God." For God +is an incommunicable name; hence (Wis. 13:10; 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Ps. 80:10): "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." + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 9:5): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 First Part (Q. 39, A. 4). Hence it remains that this is true and +proper: "Man is God." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. Q. 2, AA. 3, +6]. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Can Be Called a Lordly Man?* + +[*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)]. + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 4] + +Whether What Belongs to the Human Nature Can Be Predicated of God? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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?" + +Reply Obj. 3: To be assumed pertains to human nature, not in its +suppositum, but in itself; and thus it does not belong to God. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 5] + +Whether What Belongs to the Human Nature Can Be Predicated of the +Divine Nature? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 First Part (Q. +39, A. 5). 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 2, A. +1, ad 3). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 6] + +Whether This Is True: "God Was Made Man"? + +Objection 1: 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." + +Obj. 2: Further, to be made man is to be changed. But God cannot be +the subject of change, according to Malachi 3:6: "I am the Lord, and +I change not." Hence this is false: "God was made man." + +Obj. 3: 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." + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:14): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. 1), 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. 1). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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" (Ps. 89:1). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 7] + +Whether This Is True: "Man Was Made God"? + +Objection 1: It would seem that this is true: "Man was made God." For +it is written (Rom. 1:2, 3): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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." + +Obj. 3: 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." + +Obj. 4: 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." + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (AA. 8, 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 (Q. 2, AA. 2, 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +The same is to be said in reply to the third, since to be deified is +the same as to be made God. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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." +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 8] + +Whether This Is True: "Christ Is a Creature"? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. 5). 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As Jerome [*Gloss, Ord. in Osee 2:16] 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 9] + +Whether This Man, i.e. Christ, Began to Be? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ began to be Man. But to be man is to be +simply. Therefore this man began to be, simply. + +Obj. 3: Further, "man" implies a suppositum of human nature. But +Christ was not always a suppositum of human nature. Therefore this +Man began to be. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 13:8): "Jesus Christ yesterday +and today: and the same for ever." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 10] + +Whether This Is True: "Christ As Man Is a Creature"? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (AA. 8, 9) we must not absolutely grant that +"the Man Christ is a creature"; nor consequently that "Christ as Man +is a creature." + +Obj. 3: 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." + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. 8). + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 11] + +Whether This Is True: "Christ As Man Is God"? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, to forgive sins is proper to God, according to Isa. +43:25: "I am He that blot out thy iniquities for My own sake." But +Christ as Man forgives sin, according to Matt. 9:6: "But that you may +know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins," etc. +Therefore Christ as Man is God. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. 10), hence this is to be denied +rather than granted: "Christ as Man is God." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Mk. 2:10]: "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 12] + +Whether This Is True: "Christ As Man Is a Hypostasis or Person"? + +Objection 1: 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 Phil. 2:7: "Being made in the +likeness of men." But every man is a person. Therefore Christ as Man +is a person. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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 (Q. 2, A. 6; Q. 4, A. 2). + +_I answer that,_ As was said (AA. 10, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 17 + +OF CHRIST'S UNITY OF BEING +(In Two Articles) + +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 (Q. 9) that there is not only +one knowledge in Christ, and it will be concluded hereafter (Q. 35, +A. 2) that there is not only one nativity in Christ. + +Hence we must consider Christ's unity (1) of being; (2) of will; +(3) of operation. + +Under the first head there are two points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ is one or two? + +(2) Whether there is only one being in Christ? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 17, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Is One or Two? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +Obj. 5: 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 John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Therefore, +notwithstanding the unity of Person, Christ is two on account of the +duality of nature. + +Obj. 6: 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. + +Obj. 7: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.): "Whatever is, +inasmuch as it is, is one." But we confess that Christ is. Therefore +Christ is one. + +_I answer that,_ 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 First Part (Q. 29, A. 4, 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. + +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 +Q. 2, AA. 2, 3, it follows that we say that Christ is one not merely +in the masculine, but also in the neuter. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. + +Reply Obj. 5: 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. + +Reply Obj. 6: 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. + +Reply Obj. 7: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 17, Art. 2] + +Whether There Is Only One Being in Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 (Q. 2, AA. 5, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As was said in the First Part (Q. 50, A. 2, ad 3; Q. +75, A. 5, 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 18 + +OF CHRIST'S UNITY OF WILL +(In Six Articles) + +We must now consider unity as regards the will; and under this head +there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the Divine will and the human are distinct in Christ? + +(2) Whether in Christ's human nature the will of sensuality is +distinct from the will of reason? + +(3) Whether as regards the reason there were several wills in Christ? + +(4) Whether there was free-will in Christ? + +(5) Whether Christ's human will was always conformed to the Divine +will in the thing willed? + +(6) Whether there was any contrariety of wills in Christ? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 1] + +Whether There Are Two Wills in Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord says (Luke 22:42): "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 Luke +22:42 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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, Act. 4]. + +And hence in the sixth Council held at Constantinople [*Act. 18] 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 First +Part (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 First Part (Q. 19, A. 1). Hence it must be said that there are +two wills in Christ, i.e. one human, the other Divine. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Phil. 2:13. For +although the will cannot be inwardly moved by any creature, yet it +can be moved inwardly by God, as was said in the First Part (Q. 105, +A. 4). And thus, too, Christ by His human will followed the Divine +will according to Ps. 39:9; "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?" + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Second Part (I-II, Q. 10, AA. 1, 2) [*Cf. I, Q. 82, A. 2]. 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 2] + +Whether in Christ There Was a Will of Sensuality Besides the Will of +Reason? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, will is consequent upon nature, as was said (A. 1). +But in Christ there was only one nature besides the Divine. Hence in +Christ there was only one human will. + +_On the contrary,_ 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 Second Part (I-II, Q. 23, A. 1; Q. 25, A. 1). Therefore, +seemingly, in Christ there is a will of sensuality besides the will +of reason. + +_I answer that,_ As was said (Q. 9, A. 1), 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: "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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 3] + +Whether in Christ There Were Two Wills As Regards the Reason? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 I-II, Q. 8, AA. 2, 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_. + +Reply Obj. 1: These two wills do not diversify the power but only the +act, as we have said. + +Reply Obj. 2: The intellect and the reason are not distinct powers, +as was said in the First Part (Q. 79, A. 8). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 4] + +Whether There Was Free-will in Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, free-will is indifferent. But Christ's will was +determined to good, since He could not sin; as stated above (Q. 15, +AA. 1, 2). Hence there was no free-will in Christ. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 7:15): "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. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 3), 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 First Part (Q. 83, A. 3). 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 First +Part (Q. 83, A. 3; I-II, Q. 13, A. 1). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Eph. 1:4: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 5] + +Whether the Human Will of Christ Was Altogether Conformed to the +Divine Will in the Thing Willed? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the human will in Christ did not will +anything except what God willed. For it is written (Ps. 39:9) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ's soul had most perfect charity, which, +indeed, surpasses the comprehension of all our knowledge, according +to Eph. 3:19, "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As was said (AA. 2, 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 (Matt. 26:39): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 6] + +Whether There Was Contrariety of Wills in Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Gal. 5:17) 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 Isa. 53:7: "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Luke 22:43) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ In the decisions of the Sixth Council [*Third +Council of Constantinople, Act. 18] 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 19 + +OF THE UNITY OF CHRIST'S OPERATION +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider the unity of Christ's operation; and under this +head there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether in Christ there was one or several operations of the +Godhead and Manhood? + +(2) Whether in Christ there were several operations of the human +nature? + +(3) Whether Christ by His human operation merited anything for +Himself? + +(4) Whether He merited anything for us by it? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 1] + +Whether in Christ There Is Only One Operation of the Godhead and +Manhood? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 7, A. 1, ad 3; Q. 8, A. 1, ad 1; +Q. 18, A. 1, ad 2). Hence the operations of the Divine and human +natures in Christ are the same. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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 (Q. 17, A. 2). Hence, on +account of the same unity, there is one operation in Christ. + +Obj. [5]: Further, [where there is one thing] 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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?" + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 18, A. 1), 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, Act. +10] 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." + +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. + +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." + +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 +(Act. 18) 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. + +Reply Obj. 5: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 2] + +Whether in Christ There Are Several Human Operations? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, powers and habits are distinguished by their acts. +Now in Christ's soul there were divers powers and habits; therefore +also divers operations. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. 1) 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. + +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. + +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 (Q. 18, A. 5). Much more, therefore, is there one +operation in Christ, than in any other man whatsoever. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +(St. Thomas gives no reply to Obj. 3; some codices add: Hence may be +gathered the reply to the third objection.) +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 3] + +Whether the Human Action of Christ Could Be Meritorious to Him? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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 John 14:21: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 2:8, 9): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 1 Cor. 4:7: "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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Q. 15, A. +10). And therefore, since He is no longer a wayfarer, He is not in +the state of meriting. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Rom. 8:11: +"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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Could Merit for Others? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ could not merit for others. +For it is written (Ezech. 18:4): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, of the fulness of Christ's grace we all receive, as +is written John 1:16. Now other men having Christ's grace cannot +merit for others. For it is written (Ezech. 14:20) 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the "reward" that we merit is due "according to +justice [Vulg.: 'debt'] and not according to grace," as is clear from +Rom. 4:4. 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 5:18): "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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 8, AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Gal. 3:27, "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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 20 + +OF CHRIST'S SUBJECTION TO THE FATHER +(In Two Articles) + +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. + +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. + +Under the first head there are two points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ is subject to the Father? + +(2) Whether He is subject to Himself? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 20, Art. 1] + +Whether We May Say That Christ Is Subject to the Father? + +Objection 1: 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 (Q. 16, A. 8). Therefore we +cannot say simply that Christ is subject to God the Father. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 15:28): "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 (Heb. +2:8): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 14:28), "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 +(Matt. 19:17): "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" (Judith 16:17), +being subject to His ordinance, according to Wis. 16:24: "The +creature serving Thee the Creator." And in this way the Son of God +(Phil. 2:7) is said to have taken "the form of a servant." The third +subjection He attributes to Himself, saying (John 8:29): "I do always +the things that please Him." And this is the subjection to the +Father, of obedience unto death. Hence it is written (Phil. 2:8) that +he became "obedient" to the Father "unto death." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Q. 16, A. 8), 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Matt. 28:18: "All power is given to +Me in heaven and in earth." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 20, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Is Subject to Himself? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +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. + +Further, Christ in His human nature is the servant of God the Father, +according to John 20:17: "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 21 + +OF CHRIST'S PRAYER +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider Christ's prayer; and under this head there are +four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it is becoming that Christ should pray? + +(2) Whether it pertains to Him in respect of His sensuality? + +(3) Whether it is becoming to Him to pray for Himself or only for +others? + +(4) Whether every prayer of His was heard? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 21, Art. 1] + +Whether It Is Becoming of Christ to Pray? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 6:12): "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." + +_I answer that,_ As was said in the Second Part (Q. 83, AA. 1, 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 Ps. +134:6: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Q. +13, A. 1). 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 (John 11:42): "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 Luke 6:12): "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 21, Art. 2] + +Whether It Pertains to Christ to Pray According to His Sensuality? + +Objection 1: It would seem that it pertains to Christ to pray +according to His sensuality. For it is written (Ps. 83:3) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, prayer would seem to pertain to that which desires +what is besought. Now Christ besought something that His sensuality +desired when He said (Matt. 26:39): "Let this chalice pass from Me." +Therefore Christ's sensuality prayed. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:7) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Second Part (II-II, Q. 83, A. 1). + +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 Ps. 32): "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.'" + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 21, Art. 3] + +Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Pray for Himself? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, no one prays save for what He wishes, because, as +was said (A. 1), 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 Acts 1:1: "Jesus +began to do and to teach." Therefore Christ never prayed for Himself +alone. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord Himself said while praying (John 17:1): +"Glorify Thy Son." + +_I answer that,_ Christ prayed for Himself in two ways. First, by +expressing the desire of His sensuality, as stated above (A. 2); or +also of His simple will, considered as a nature; as when He prayed +that the chalice of His Passion might pass from Him (Matt. 26:39). +Secondly, by expressing the desire of His deliberate will, which is +considered as reason; as when He prayed for the glory of His +Resurrection (John 17:1). 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 (Matt. 26:27; +John 11:41): 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Ps. +9:38, much more the mere will of Christ has the force of a prayer +with the Father: wherefore He said (John 11:42): "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: This very glory which Christ, while praying, besought +for Himself, pertained to the salvation of others according to Rom. +4:25: "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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 21, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ's Prayer Was Always Heard? + +Objection 1: 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 (Matt. 26:39): and yet it was not taken from Him. +Therefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard. + +Obj. 2: Further, He prayed that the sin of those who crucified Him +might be forgiven, as is related (Luke 23:34). 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (John 17:20, 21, +24). But not all attain to this. Therefore not every prayer of His +was heard. + +Obj. 4: Further, it is said (Ps. 21:3) in the person of Christ: "I +shall cry by day, and Thou wilt not hear." Not every prayer of His, +therefore, was heard. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 5:7): "With a strong cry +and tears offering up prayers . . . He was heard for His reverence." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), 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. + +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 Rom. 8:27: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: This prayer for the passing of the chalice is variously +explained by the Saints. For Hilary (Super Matth. 31) 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." + +Or according to Jerome (on Matt. 26:39): "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." + +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." + +Lastly, Ambrose, Origen and Chrysostom say that He prayed thus "as +man," being reluctant to die according to His natural will. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Wherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 22 + +OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider the Priesthood of Christ; and under this head +there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest? + +(2) Of the victim offered by this priest; + +(3) Of the effect of this priesthood; + +(4) Whether the effect of His priesthood pertains to Himself, or only +to others? + +(5) Of the eternal duration of His priesthood; + +(6) Whether He should be called "a priest according to the order of +Melchisedech"? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 1] + +Whether It Is Fitting That Christ Should Be a Priest? + +Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should be a priest. +For a priest is less than an angel; whence it is written (Zech. 3:1): +"The Lord showed me the high-priest standing before the angel of the +Lord." But Christ is greater than the angels, according to Heb. 1:4: +"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. + +Obj. 2: Further, things which were in the Old Testament were figures +of Christ, according to Col. 2:17: "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 (Heb. 7:14): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Ex. 28:1): "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 Jer. 31:33: "I will give My law in their bowels." Therefore it +is unfitting that Christ should be a priest. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 4:14): "We have [Vulg.: +'Having'] therefore a great high-priest that hath passed into the +heavens, Jesus, the Son of God." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Malachi 2:7: "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 (Heb. 5:1): "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 2 +Pet. 1:4: "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 Col. 1:19, 20: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Malachi 2:7: "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 Matt. 4:11: "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 (Heb. 2:9): +and thus He was conformed to those wayfarers who are ordained to the +priesthood. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 7, A. 7, 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 (Isa. 33:22): "The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our +law-giver, the Lord is our King: He will" come and "save us." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Was Himself Both Priest and Victim? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Ps. +105:38: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): "Christ hath loved +us, and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a victim +[Douay: 'sacrifice'] to God for an odor of sweetness." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Ps. 50:19: "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. + +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 (Heb. 5:1) 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. + +Now these effects were conferred on us by the humanity of Christ. +For, in the first place, our sins were blotted out, according to Rom. +4:25: "Who was delivered up for our sins." Secondly, through Him we +received the grace of salvation, according to Heb. 5:9: "He became to +all that obey Him the cause of eternal salvation." Thirdly, through +Him we have acquired the perfection of glory, according to Heb. +10:19: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ did not slay Himself, but of His own free-will +He exposed Himself to death, according to Isa. 53:7: "He was offered +because it was His own will." Thus He is said to have offered Himself. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +(The reply to the third objection is wanting in the original +manuscripts, but it may be gathered from the above.--Ed.) + +[*Some editions, however, give the following reply: + +Reply Obj. 3: 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.] +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 3] + +Whether the Effect of Christ's Priesthood Is the Expiation of Sins? + +Objection 1: 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 Isa. 43:25: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 10:1-3) 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" (Matt. 6:12). 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 Lev. 4:3, 23, 28. But Christ is compared to none of these, but +to the lamb, according to Jer. 11:19: "I was as a meek lamb, that is +carried to be a victim." Therefore it seems that His priesthood does +not expiate sins. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 9:14): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Rom. 3:24, 25: +"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" (Isa. 53:4). +Wherefore it is clear that the priesthood of Christ has full power to +expiate sins. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 +Num. 38:3, 4. By which it was signified that the offering up of the +true lamb, i.e. Christ, was the culminating sacrifice of all. Hence +(John 1:29) it is said: "Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who +taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 4] + +Whether the Effect of the Priesthood of Christ Pertained Not Only to +Others, but Also to Himself? + +Objection 1: 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 2 +Macc. 1:23: "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 (Q. 21, A. 3), and as expressly stated +(Heb. 5:7): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 19, AA. 3, 4). Therefore the +priesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in +Himself. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Lev. +16:17) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), 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 (Heb. 7:25): "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 2 Cor. 2:10: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 James 5:16: "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 (Heb. 5:6), "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 Rom. 8:3. 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Heb. 7:28): "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." +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 5] + +Whether the Priesthood of Christ Endures for Ever? + +Objection 1: 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 Isa. 60:21: +"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. + +Obj. 2: 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" (Heb. 9:12). But the passion and death of Christ will not +endure for ever, as stated Rom. 6:9: "Christ rising again from the +dead, dieth now no more." Therefore the priesthood of Christ will not +endure for ever. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 109:4): "Thou art a priest for +ever." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Heb. +9:11: "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, Lev. 16:11, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Apoc. 21:23): "The glory of God hath +enlightened it"--that is, the city of the Saints--"and the Lamb is +the lamp thereof." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Heb. 10:14), "by one oblation He hath perfected for ever +them that are sanctified." + +Wherefore the reply to the third objection is clear. + +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, Lev. 16:11. 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 6] + +Whether the Priesthood of Christ Was According to the Order of +Melchisedech? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Second +Part (II-II, Q. 2, A. 7). 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Heb. 7:2, 3): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 109:4): "Thou art a priest for +ever according to the order of Melchisedech." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. Q. +79, A. 1]. Wherefore also in the New Law the true sacrifice of Christ +is presented to the faithful under the form of bread and wine. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Isa. 53:8: +"Who shall declare His generation?" and Who in His Godhead has +neither beginning nor end of days. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 23 + +OF ADOPTION AS BEFITTING TO CHRIST +(In Four Articles) + +We must now come to consider whether adoption befits Christ: and +under this head there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons? + +(2) Whether this is fitting to God the Father alone? + +(3) Whether it is proper to man to be adopted to the sonship of God? + +(4) Whether Christ can be called the adopted Son? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 1] + +Whether It Is Fitting That God Should Adopt Sons? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, adoption seems to have been introduced in default of +natural sonship. But in God there is natural sonship, as set down in +the First Part (Q. 27, A. 2). Therefore it is unfitting that God +should adopt. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 1:5) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Rom. 8:29: "Whom He foreknew . . . to be made +conformable to the image of His Son." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +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 +Rom. 8:17: "If sons, heirs also." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 2] + +Whether It Is Fitting That the Whole Trinity Should Adopt? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, by adoption men become the brethren of Christ, +according to Rom. 8:29: "That He might be the first-born among many +brethren." Now brethren are the sons of the same father; wherefore +our Lord says (John 20:17): "I ascend to My Father and to your +Father." Therefore Christ's Father alone has adopted sons. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Gal. 4:4, 5, 6): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It belongs to Him to adopt us as sons, Whom we can +call Father; whence it is written (Rom. 8:15): "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 First Part (Q. 33, A. 3, Obj. 1; cf. Q. +45, A. 6). Therefore to adopt is befitting to the whole Trinity. + +_I answer that,_ 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 John 1:12: "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 (James 1:18): "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 (John +5:19): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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" (John 20:17). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 3] + +Whether It Is Proper to the Rational Nature to Be Adopted? + +Objection 1: 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 Job 38:28: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Job 1:6: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Adopted sons are the "heirs of God," as is stated +Rom. 8:17. But such an inheritance belongs to none but the rational +nature. Therefore it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (John 17:21, 22): "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" (Rom. 5:5); for which reason +(Rom. 8:15) the Holy Ghost is called "the Spirit of adoption of sons." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ As Man Is the Adopted Son of God? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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 1 John 5:20: "That +we may . . . be in His true Son, Jesus Christ." Therefore Christ, as +Man, is not an adopted Son. + +_I answer that,_ Sonship belongs properly to the hypostasis or +person, not to the nature; whence in the First Part (Q. 32, A. 3) 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 John 1:14: "We saw His glory . . . as it were of the +Only-begotten of the Father; full of grace and truth." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 24 + +OF THE PREDESTINATION OF CHRIST +(In Four Articles) + +We shall now consider the predestination of Christ. Under this head +there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ was predestinated? + +(2) Whether He was predestinated as man? + +(3) Whether His predestination is the exemplar of ours? + +(4) Whether it is the cause of our predestination? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 1] + +Whether It Is Befitting That Christ Should Be Predestinated? + +Objection 1: 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 Eph. 1:5: "Who hath predestinated +us unto the adoption of children." But it is not befitting to Christ +to be an adopted Son, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). Therefore it is +not fitting that Christ be predestinated. + +Obj. 2: 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 First Part, Q. 23, AA. 2, 5. Therefore Christ +was not predestinated to be the Son of God. + +Obj. 3: 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." + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says, speaking of Christ (Rom. 1:4): +"Who was predestinated the Son of God in power." + +_I answer that,_ As is clear from what has been said in the First +Part (Q. 23, AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: As a gloss [*From St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. xv] +says on Rom. 1:4, 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. + +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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: Origen commenting on Rom. 1:4 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. + +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." + +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." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 2] + +Whether This Proposition Is False: "Christ As Man Was Predestinated +to Be the Son of God"? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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." + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Praedest. Sanct. xv) says: +"Forasmuch as God the Son was made Man, we say that the Lord of Glory +was predestinated." + +_I answer that,_ 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 on 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Man 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ's Predestination Is the Exemplar of Ours? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Rom. 8:29): +"Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated." Therefore Christ's +predestination is not the exemplar of ours. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Rom. +1:4). Therefore His predestination is not the exemplar of ours. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 +(Rom. 8:29): "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 (John 1:16). + +Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers the aforesaid act of the +predestinator. + +The same is to be said of the second objection. + +Reply Obj. 3: The exemplate need not be conformed to the exemplar in +all respects: it is sufficient that it imitate it in some. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ's Predestination Is the Cause of Ours? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Eph. 1:11): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 1:5): "(Who) hath +predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Replies Obj. 1 and 2: These arguments consider predestination on the +part of the act of predestinating. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 25 + +OF THE ADORATION OF CHRIST +(In Six Articles) + +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. + +Under the first head there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ's Godhead and humanity are to be adored with one +and the same adoration? + +(2) Whether His flesh is to be adored with the adoration of _latria?_ + +(3) Whether the adoration of _latria_ is to be given to the image of +Christ? + +(4) Whether _latria_ is to be given to the Cross of Christ? + +(5) Whether to His Mother? + +(6) Concerning the adoration of the relics of Saints. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ's Humanity and Godhead Are to Be Adored with the Same +Adoration? + +Objection 1: 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 +(John 5:23): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 19, A. +1), it seems that Christ's humanity is to be adored with a different +adoration from that which is given to His Godhead. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 Second Part (II-II, Q. +103, A. 1). 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. + +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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 2, A. 2, +ad 2). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ's Humanity Should Be Adored with the Adoration of _Latria?_ + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's soul should not be adored +with the adoration of _latria._ For on the words of Ps. 98:5, "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._ + +Obj. 2: 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 (Rom. 1:25). +But Christ's humanity is a creature. Therefore it should not be +adored with the adoration of _latria._ + +Obj. 3: Further, the adoration of _latria_ is due to God in +recognition of His supreme dominion, according to Deut. 6:13: "Thou +shalt adore [Vulg.: 'fear'; cf. Matt. 4:10] 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._ + +_On the contrary,_ 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 Ps. 98:5, "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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) 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. + +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 Ps. 7:1, "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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._ + +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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 3] + +Whether the Image of Christ Should Be Adored with the Adoration of +_Latria_? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's image should not be adored +with the adoration of _latria._ For it is written (Ex. 20:4): "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._ + +Obj. 2: Further, we should have nothing in common with the works of +the Gentiles, as the Apostle says (Eph. 5:11). 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 (Rom. 1:23). Therefore Christ's image is not to +be adored with the adoration of _latria._ + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, it seems that nothing should be done in the Divine +worship that is not instituted by God; wherefore the Apostle (1 Cor. +11:23) 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._ + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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._ + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (2 Thess. 2:14): "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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ's Cross Should Be Worshipped with the Adoration of +_Latria_? + +Objection 1: 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 Wis. 2:20: "Let us condemn Him to a most shameful +death." Therefore we should not venerate the cross but rather we +should abhor it. + +Obj. 2: 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._ + +Obj. 3: 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._ + +_On the contrary,_ 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: + +"Dear Cross, best hope o'er all beside, +That cheers the solemn passion-tide: +Give to the just increase of grace, +Give to each contrite sinner peace." + +[*Hymn Vexilla Regis: translation of Father Aylward, O.P.] + +Therefore Christ's cross should be worshiped with the adoration of +_latria._ + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), 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. + +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. 3). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Col. 2:14, 15: "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 (1 Cor. 1:18): "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Matt. 24:30). Wherefore the angel said to +the women (Mk. 16:6): "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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 5] + +Whether the Mother of God Should Be Worshipped with the Adoration of +_Latria_? + +Objection 1: 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 (3 +Kings 2:19) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Mother of God is a mere creature. Therefore +the worship of _latria_ is not due to her. + +_I answer that,_ 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._ + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: The cross, considered in itself, is not an +object of veneration, as stated above (AA. 4, 5). But the Blessed +Virgin is in herself an object of veneration. Hence there is no +comparison. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 6] + +Whether Any Kind of Worship Is Due to the Relics of the Saints? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible. But +the relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to +venerate them. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 26 + +OF CHRIST AS CALLED THE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MAN +(In Two Articles) + +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: + +(1) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man? + +(2) Whether this belongs to Him by reason of His human nature? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 26, Art. 1] + +Whether It Is Proper to Christ to Be the Mediator of God and Man? + +Objection 1: 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 Deut. 5:5: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Rom. 8:26), "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Tim. 2:5): "There is . . . one +Mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus." + +_I answer that,_ 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 2 Cor. 5:19: "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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 perfectively, but +ministerially and dispositively: whence (Matt. 4:11) 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]. + +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). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 +(Q. 20, A. 1). Hence on Gal. 3:20, "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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 26, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ, as Man, Is the Mediator of God and Men? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 1 Tim. 2:5, "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 +(John 1:14). From which fulness it resulted that He was established +over all men, and approached nearer to God. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +ST. THOMAS AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (EDITORIAL NOTE) + +The privilege of the Virgin-Mother of God and the supreme prerogative +of her Son may be seen from the following diagram: + + +THE LAW AND COURSE OF ORIGINAL SIN. + + +[The following content was presented in the form of a three-column +table in the original.] + +[COLUMN 1] UNDER THE LAW. + +All descendants from Adam. + +Spring from Adam materially and seminally. + +The body lies (not under the guilt, but) under the effects of +original sin. + +The stricken body dispositively causes the soul to contract the guilt +of original sin. + +The soul at the moment of union with the body contracts the stain. + +All contract both debt and stain. + +All need a Redeemer to destroy the stain contracted. + + +[COLUMN 2] PARTIALLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; PRIVILEGE OF IMMACULATE +CONCEPTION. + +Spring 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 the stain. + +Mary contracted the debt, but not the stain. + +Mary needed a Redeemer to prevent her from contracting the stain. + + +[COLUMN 3] WHOLLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION. + +Springs from Adam materially, not seminally. (Q. 31, A. 1) + +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. + + +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" (Q. 14, A. 3, 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 +(Q. 69, A. 4, 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. + +Why, then, does St. Thomas say that because the Blessed Virgin was +not sanctified before animation, therefore she could be sanctified +only after animation? + +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. + +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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 27 + +OF THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN +(In Six Articles) + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, was sanctified before +her birth from the womb? + +(2) Whether she was sanctified before animation? + +(3) Whether in virtue of this sanctification the fomes of sin was +entirely taken away from her? + +(4) Whether the result of this sanctification was that she never +sinned? + +(5) Whether in virtue of this sanctification she received the fulness +of grace? + +(6) Whether it was proper to her to be thus sanctified? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 1] + +Whether the Blessed Virgin Was Sanctified Before Her Birth from the +Womb? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified +before her birth from the womb. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:46): +"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 John 1:13: "(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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Heb. 10:19): "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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Luke 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: +"Hail full of grace!" + +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 (Jer. 1:5): "Before thou camest forth +out of the womb, I sanctified thee"; and again, to John the Baptist, +of whom it is written (Luke 1:15): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 offspring 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 2] + +Whether the Blessed Virgin Was Sanctified Before Animation? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified +before animation. Because, as we have stated (A. 1), 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 (Jer. 1:5): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Canticles +4:7): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 11:16): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ The things of the Old Testament were figures of +the New, according to 1 Cor. 10:11: "All things happened to them in +figure." Now the sanctification of the tabernacle, of which it is +written (Ps. 45:5): "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 Ps. 18:6: "He +hath set His tabernacle in the sun." But of the tabernacle it is +written (Ex. 40:31, 32): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 (Matt. 1:21): "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 (1 Tim. +4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified +after animation. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Luke +1:35: "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 (Job 3:9) 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 Wis. 7:25), "nor +the rising of the dawning of the day," that is of the Blessed Virgin, +who in her birth was immune from original sin. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 3] + +Whether the Blessed Virgin Was Cleansed from the Infection of the +Fomes? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (2 Cor. 12:9): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Canticles 4:7): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +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 (Q. 15, A. 2), 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" (Rom. +7:23, 25). + +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 (Ezech. 43:2): "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 4] + +Whether by Being Sanctified in the Womb the Blessed Virgin Was +Preserved from All Actual Sin? + +Objection 1: 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. 3), 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Augustine (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test. lxxiii on Luke +2:35: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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 John 2:3: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses +for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of +fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: "(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 (Luke 1:30, 31): "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 +Prov. 17:6: "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 ( +2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, +because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the +"Divine Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but +in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter +into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins." + +We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no +actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant +4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a +spot in thee," etc. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. 3). 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Luc. 2:35) +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" (Heb. 4:12). + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 5] + +Whether, by Her Sanctification in the Womb, the Blessed Virgin +Received the Fulness of Grace? + +Objection 1: 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 John +1:14: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Luke +1:35): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The angel said to her: "Hail, full of grace" (Luke +1:28); 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (John 1:17) 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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" (Rom. 1:4), it was proper to Him to have such a +fulness of grace that it overflowed from Him into all, according to +John 1:16: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Luke 2:19: "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 1 Tim. 2:12: "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 (John 10:41) 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" (Luke +1:46, etc.). +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 6] + +Whether After Christ, It Was Proper to the Blessed Virgin to Be +Sanctified in the Womb? + +Objection 1: 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. +4) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Job says of himself (Job 31:18): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written of Jeremias (Jer. 1:5): "Before thou +camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee." And of John the +Baptist it is written (Luke 1:15): "He shall be filled with the Holy +Ghost, even from his mother's womb." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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. + +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 1 Cor. 12:7: "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. + +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 Heb. 13:12: "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 (1 Cor. 6:11): "But you are washed, but you are sanctified"; +to which Baptism John prepared men by his baptism. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 thenceforward 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: The mercy of which Job speaks is not the infused +virtue; but a certain natural inclination to the act of that virtue. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 28 + +OF THE VIRGINITY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD +(In Four Articles) + +We now have to consider the virginity of the Mother of God; +concerning which there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether she was a virgin in conceiving? + +(2) Whether she was a virgin in His Birth? + +(3) Whether she remained a virgin after His Birth? + +(4) Whether she took a vow of virginity? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 28, Art. 1] + +Whether the Mother of God Was a Virgin in Conceiving Christ? + +Objection 1: 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 Luke 2:33: "His father and mother +were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning Him": and +further on (Luke 2:48) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further (Matt. 1) 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Gal. 4:4): "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. + +Obj. 4: 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 Phil. 2:7: "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. + +Obj. 5: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 7:14): "Behold a virgin shall +conceive." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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 John 1:29: "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." + +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" (John 1:13), +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: As Bede says on Luke 1:33: 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 (Luke 3:23): +"Being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph." + +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." + +Reply Obj. 2: As Jerome says on Matt. 1:18: "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. + +Reply Obj. 5: 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. + +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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 28, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ's Mother Was a Virgin in His Birth? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Mother was not a virgin in +His Birth. For Ambrose says on Luke 2:23: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Rom. 8:3). Therefore He did not come forth +through the closed womb of the Virgin. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Suppl., Q. 82): +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. + +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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 28, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ's Mother Remained a Virgin After His Birth? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Mother did not remain a +virgin after His Birth. For it is written (Matt. 1:18): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, in the same passage (Matt. 1:20) 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, again in the same passage a little further on (Matt. +1:24, 25) 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 (Gen. 4:1) 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). + +Obj. 4: Further, "first-born" can only be said of one who has +brothers afterwards: wherefore (Rom. 8:29): "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. + +Obj. 5: Further, it is written (John 2:12): "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. + +Obj. 6: Further, it is written (Matt. 27:55, 56): "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 (John 19:25) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 44:2): "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?" + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Luke 1:27: "The fact of her +marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to +witness to the reality of the union." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +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. + +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 Gal. +3:19: 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 Ps. 122:2: "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). + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Num. 18:16). + +Reply Obj. 5: Some, as Jerome says on Matt. 12:49, 50, "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." + +Reply Obj. 6: 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" +(Gal. 1:19). +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 28, Art. 4] + +Whether the Mother of God Took a Vow of Virginity? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God did not take a vow +of virginity. For it is written (Deut. 7:14): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:25): "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 (Rom. 10:4). It was not +therefore becoming that the Virgin should take a vow of virginity. + +Obj. 3: Further, the gloss of Jerome says on 1 Tim. 5:12, 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 +(Q. 27, A. 4). Since therefore she was "espoused," as related by Luke +1:27 it seems that she did not take a vow of virginity. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As we have stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 88, +A. 6), works of perfection are more praiseworthy when performed in +fulfilment of a vow. Now it is clear that for reasons already given +(AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 29 + +OF THE ESPOUSALS OF THE MOTHER OF GOD +(In Two Articles) + +We now consider the espousals of God's Mother: concerning which two +points arise for inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin? + +(2) Whether there was true marriage between our Lord's Mother and +Joseph? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 29, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Should Have Been Born of an Espoused Virgin? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the martyr Ignatius, as Jerome says on Matt. 1:18, +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 (Mk. 1:23, 24): "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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:18): "When as His Mother +Mary was espoused to Joseph": and (Luke 1:26, 27): "The angel Gabriel +was sent . . . to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Luke 1:26, 27: "How could we +blame Herod or the Jews if they seem to persecute one who was born of +adultery?" + +Secondly, in order that in the customary way His genealogy might be +traced through the male line. Thus Ambrose says on Luke 3:23: "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." + +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." + +Fourthly, that He might be fostered by Joseph: who is therefore +called His "father," as bread-winner. + +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. + +Secondly, that thus she might be safeguarded from ill fame. Whence +Ambrose says on Luke 1:26, 27: "She was espoused lest she be wounded +by the ill-fame of violated virginity, in whom the pregnant womb +would betoken corruption." + +Thirdly, that, as Jerome says, Joseph might administer to her wants. + +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." + +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. + +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." + +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). + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Ambrose says on Luke 1:26: "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Luke 1:26, 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." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Deut. 22:20, 21): "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." + +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 (Luke 1:36). Now a virgin of the +priestly tribe was condemned to death for whoredom; for we read (Lev. +21:9): "If the daughter of a priest be taken in whoredom, and +dishonor the name of her father, she shall be burnt with fire." + +Lastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the +throwing of stones by ill-fame. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 29, Art. 2] + +Whether there was a true marriage between Mary and Joseph? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, on Matt. 1:16: "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 1:19): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 (Matt. +1:20): "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." + +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 Luke 1:26, 27: "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: Jerome uses the term "husband" in reference to marriage +consummated. + +Reply Obj. 2: By marriage Jerome means the nuptial intercourse. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 30 + +OF THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN +(In Four Articles) + +We now have to consider the Blessed Virgin's Annunciation, concerning +which there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it was befitting that announcement should be made to her +of that which was to be begotten of her? + +(2) By whom should this announcement be made? + +(3) In what manner should this announcement be made? + +(4) Of the order observed in the Annunciation. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Necessary to Announce to the Blessed Virgin That Which +Was to Be Done in Her? + +Objection 1: 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 Matt. 1:22. There was no need, +therefore, for this Annunciation. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Blessed Virgin believed in the Incarnation, for +to disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation; +because, as the Apostle says (Rom. 3:22): "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, just as the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ in her +body, so every pious soul conceives Him spiritually. Thus the Apostle +says (Gal. 4:19): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is related (Luke 1:31) that the angel said to +her: "Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth +a son." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Secondly, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery, +being instructed therein by God. + +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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the +causality of our will; not without its consent. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: The spiritual conception of Christ through faith is +preceded by the preaching of the faith, for as much as "faith is by +hearing" (Rom. 10:17). 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 2] + +Whether the annunciation should have been made by an angel to the +Blessed Virgin? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (1 Cor. 14:34, 35): "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 (Matt. 1:20, 21) + +Obj. 3: 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?" (Isa. 63:1) 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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 1:26): "The angel Gabriel was +sent by God," etc. + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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." + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Heb. 2:9. 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 +(Gen. 3:16), 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 3] + +Whether the Angel of Annunciation Should Have Appeared to the Virgin +in a Bodily Vision? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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" (Matt. 1:20), which was +clearly an imaginary vision. Therefore it seems that he should have +appeared to the Blessed Virgin also in an imaginary vision. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says on Luke 1:11: "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 (Gen. 15:12) 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." + +Moreover it was becoming to virginal modesty that the Virgin should +be troubled. Because, as Ambrose says on Luke 1:20: "It is the part +of a virgin to be timid, to fear the advances of men, and to shrink +from men's addresses." + +But others say 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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 4] + +Whether the Annunciation Took Place in Becoming Order? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ it is written (Rom. 13:1): "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 Luke 1:26. Therefore the Annunciation was made by the angel +in the most perfect order. + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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." + +Thirdly, he purposed to lead her mind to consent. This he did by the +instance of Elizabeth, and by the argument from Divine omnipotence. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: Ambrose says explicitly on Luke 1:34, 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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says (Hexaemeron v): "For this reason had +many barren women borne children, that the virginal birth might be +credible." + +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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 31 + +OF THE MATTER FROM WHICH THE SAVIOUR'S BODY WAS CONCEIVED +(In Eight Articles) + +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. + +Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam? + +(2) Whether it was derived from David? + +(3) Of the genealogy of Christ which is given in the Gospels; + +(4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be born of a woman? + +(5) Whether His body was formed from the purest blood of the Virgin? + +(6) Whether the flesh of Christ was in the patriarchs as to something +signate? + +(7) Whether the flesh of Christ in the patriarchs was subject to sin? + +(8) Whether Christ paid tithes in the loins of Abraham? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 1] + +Whether the Flesh of Christ Was Derived from Adam? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was not derived from +Adam. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:47): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, by "one man sin entered into this world," i.e. by +Adam, because in him all nations sinned originally, as is clear from +Rom. 5:12. 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 2:16): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 29, A. 1, 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 15, A. 1, 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Took Flesh of the Seed of David? + +Objection 1: 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 +(Q. 28, A. 1, ad 1, 2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not +descended from David. + +Obj. 2: Further, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as related Ex. 6. +Now Mary the Mother of Christ is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who +was a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from Luke 1:5, 36. Therefore, +since David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown Matt. 1, it seems +that Christ was not descended from David. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written of Jechonias (Jer. 22:30): "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 (Isa. +9:7): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 1:3): "Who was made to him of +the seed of David according to the flesh." + +_I answer that,_ Christ is said to have been the son especially of +two of the patriarchs, Abraham and David, as is clear from Matt. 1:1. +There are many reasons for this. First to these especially was the +promise made concerning Christ. For it was said to Abraham (Gen. +22:18): "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed": +which words the Apostle expounds of Christ (Gal. 3:16): "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 (Ps. 131:11): "Of the fruit of thy +womb I will set upon thy throne." Wherefore the Jewish people, +receiving Him with kingly honor, said (Matt. 21:9): "Hosanna to the +Son of David." + +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 (Gen. 15:9): "Take thee [Vulg.: 'Me'] a cow of three years +old," etc. He was also a prophet, according to Gen. 20:7: "He is a +prophet; and he shall pray for thee." Lastly David was both king and +prophet. + +A third reason is because circumcision had its beginning in Abraham: +while in David God's election was most clearly made manifest, +according to 1 Kings 13:14: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Matt. 1:18: "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says on Luke 3:25, 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ's Genealogy Is Suitably Traced by the Evangelists? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's genealogy is not suitably +traced by the Evangelists. For it is written (Isa. 53:8): "Who shall +declare His generation?" Therefore Christ's genealogy should not have +been set down. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, we read (4 Kings 8:24) 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. + +Obj. 5: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The authority of Scripture suffices. + +_I answer that,_ As is written (2 Tim. 3:16), "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 Rom. 13:1: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: As Jerome says on Matt. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (2 +Kings 5:14) were clearly brothers. + +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. + +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. + +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 (Rom. 9:5): "Of whom" (viz. the Jews) "is +Christ according to the flesh." + +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). + +This last motive is the truest: Jerome also gives it commenting on +Matt. 1:16; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history (I, vii), +says that it is given by Africanus the historian. For these writers +say 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +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." + +On the other hand, Jerome (on Matt. 1:12-15) 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 4: As Jerome says on Matt. 1:8, 11: "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 Ex. +20:5: I shall visit [Vulg.: 'Visiting'] the iniquity of the fathers +upon the children unto the third and fourth generations." + +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." + +Reply Obj. 5: As Jerome says on Matt. 1:3: "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 Luke +3:23, "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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 4] + +Whether the Matter of Christ's Body Should Have Been Taken from a +Woman? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Jer. 23:24, to be shut up within the narrow limits of the +womb. Therefore it seems that He should not have been conceived of a +woman. + +Obj. 3: Further, those who are conceived of a woman contract a +certain uncleanness: as it is written (Job 25:4): "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 (Wis. +7:25) that "no defiled thing cometh into her." Therefore it does not +seem right that He should have taken flesh from a woman. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 4:4): "God sent His Son, made +of a woman." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 +(Acts 10:15): "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 (Q. 28, A. 1). 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." +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 5] + +Whether the Flesh of Christ Was Conceived of the Virgin's Purest +Blood? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Gen. 2:23: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: As stated in the First Part (Q. 92, A. 3, 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 6] + +Whether Christ's Body Was in Adam and the Other Patriarchs, As to +Something Signate? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is said (Rom. 1:3) 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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 +First Part (Q. 119, A. 1, 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 First Part (Q. 119, A. 1, A. 2, ad 4). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 First Part (Q. 119, A. 2, ad 3). +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 7] + +Whether Christ's Flesh in the Patriarchs Was Infected by Sin? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was not infected by +sin in the patriarchs. For it is written (Wis. 7:25) that "no defiled +thing cometh into" Divine Wisdom. But Christ is the Wisdom of God +according to 1 Cor. 1:24. Therefore Christ's flesh was never defiled +by sin. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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 (Q. 14, A. 3, 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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; Q. 15, A. 1, ad 2). + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 8] + +Whether Christ Paid Tithes in Abraham's Loins? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ "paid tithes" in Abraham's +loins. For the Apostle says (Heb. 7:6-9) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. 7), it seems that Christ's flesh paid +tithes in Abraham. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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" (John 1:29), whose figure was Melchisedech, as the +Apostle proves (Heb. 7). 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. + +Thus the answer to the first objection is made manifest. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 32 + +OF THE ACTIVE PRINCIPLE IN CHRIST'S CONCEPTION +(In Four Articles) + +We shall now consider the active principle in Christ's conception: +concerning which there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the Holy Ghost was the active principle of Christ's +conception? + +(2) Whether it can be said that Christ was conceived of the Holy +Ghost? + +(3) Whether it can be said that the Holy Ghost is Christ's father +according to the flesh? + +(4) Whether the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in Christ's +conception? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 1] + +Whether the Accomplishment of Christ's Conception Should Be +Attributed to the Holy Ghost? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Gal. 4:4): "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 First Part (Q. 43, A. 8). Therefore His +conception also, by reason of which He was "made of a woman," should +be attributed principally to the Father. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Prov. 9:1): "Wisdom hath built +herself a house." Now, Christ is Himself the Wisdom of God; according +to 1 Cor. 1:24: "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 John 2:21: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 1:35): "The Holy Ghost shall +come upon Thee." + +_I answer that,_ 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 First Part (Q. 37, A. +1). 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 (John +3:16): "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son." + +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 1 Cor. 12:4: "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." + +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 Gal. 4:6: "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 Rom. 1:4. 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 Rom. 1:4, 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Gal. 4:6: "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 1 Cor. +1:24: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 2] + +Whether It Should Be Said That Christ Was Conceived of (_de_) the +Holy Ghost? + +Objection 1: It would seem that we should not say that Christ was +conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost. Because on Rom. 11:36: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:18): "Before they came +together, she was found with child, of (_de_) the Holy Ghost." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 3] + +Whether the Holy Ghost Should Be Called Christ's Father in Respect of +His Humanity? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, God is called our Father by reason of His having +made us, according to Deut. 32:6: "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 (AA. 1, 2). Therefore the Holy +Ghost should be called Christ's Father in respect of the body +fashioned by Him. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): "Christ was born +of the Holy Ghost not as a Son, and of the Virgin Mary as a Son." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +But with Christ it is different, as stated above. + +The same reply avails for the Third Objection. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 4] + +Whether the Blessed Virgin Cooperated Actively in the Conception of +Christ's Body? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 33 + +OF THE MODE AND ORDER OF CHRIST'S CONCEPTION +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider the mode and order of Christ's conception, +concerning which there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ's body was formed in the first instant of its +conception? + +(2) Whether it was animated in the first instant of its conception? + +(3) Whether it was assumed by the Word in the first instant of its +conception? + +(4) Whether this conception was natural or miraculous? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ's Body Was Formed in the First Instant of Its +Conception? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was not formed in the +first instant of its conception. For it is written (John 2:20): +"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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ's body was formed of the purest blood of the +Virgin, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 5). 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. + +Obj. 4: 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 +(Luke 2:52) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +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 (Q. 32, A. 1). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: This local movement is not comprised within the +conception itself, but is a preamble thereto. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Q. 31, A. 5, 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ's Body Was Animated in the First Instant of Its +Conception? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 6, AA. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ's Flesh Was First of All Conceived and Afterwards +Assumed? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 John 6:38: "I came down from heaven." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ's Conception Was Natural? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, for a transformation to be natural, it is enough +that the passive principle be natural, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 4). +But in Christ's conception the passive principle on the part of His +Mother was natural, as we have shown (Q. 32, A. 4). Therefore +Christ's conception was natural. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 34 + +OF THE PERFECTION OF THE CHILD CONCEIVED +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider the perfection of the child conceived: and +concerning this there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of +His conception? + +(2) Whether in that same instant He had the use of free-will? + +(3) Whether in that same instant He could merit? + +(4) Whether in that same instant He was a perfect comprehensor? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 34, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Was Sanctified in the First Instant of His Conception? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not sanctified in the +first instant of His conception. For it is written (1 Cor. 15:46): +"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. + +Obj. 2: Further, sanctification seems to be a cleansing from sin: +according to 1 Cor. 6:1: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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 Heb. 2:11: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 1:35): "The Holy which shall +be born of thee shall be called the Son of God"; and (John 10:36): +"Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 7, AA. 9, 10, 12), the abundance +of grace sanctifying Christ's soul flows from the very union of the +Word, according to John 1:14: "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 (Q. 33, AA. 2, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Luke 1:35): "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 7, A. +1, ad 3; Q. 8, A. 1, ad 1). Therefore Christ's humanity is both +sanctified and sanctifier. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 34, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ As Man Had the Use of Free-will in the First Instant +of His Conception? + +Objection 1: 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 (Q. 33, A. 2), it seems +impossible that He should have the use of free-will in the first +instant of His conception. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the free-will is "a faculty of the will and reason," +as stated in the First Part (Q. 83, A. 2, 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book on the Trinity +(Gregory: Regist. ix, Ep. 61): "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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 +John 1:14: "Full of grace and truth." Wherefore, as being possessed +of certainty about all things, He could choose at once in an instant. + +Reply Obj. 3: Christ's intellect, in regard to His infused +knowledge, could understand without turning to phantasms, as stated +above (Q. 11, A. 2). Consequently His intellect and will could +act without any action of the senses. + +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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 34, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Could Merit in the First Instant of His Conception? + +Objection 1: 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 First Part, Q. 63, A. 5. +Therefore neither could Christ's soul merit in the first instant of +its creation--that is, in the first instant of Christ's conception. + +Obj. 2: 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 Second Part +(I-II, Q. 109, A. 5; Q. 114, A. 2). Therefore it seems that the use +of free-will, which Christ as man had in the first instant of His +conception, was not meritorious. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine [*Paterius, Expos. Vet. et Nov. Test. +super Ex. 40] 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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 34, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Was a Perfect Comprehensor in the First Instant of His +Conception? + +Objection 1: 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. 3). 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Luke 24:26): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 64:5): "Blessed is he whom Thou +hast chosen, and 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. + +_I answer that,_ As appears from what was said above (A. 3), it was +unbecoming that in His conception Christ should receive merely +habitual grace without the act. Now, He received grace "not by +measure" (John 3:34), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 19, A. 3), 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. + +Wherefore the reply to the Second Objection is clear. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 35 + +OF CHRIST'S NATIVITY +(In Eight Articles) + +After considering Christ's conception, we must treat of His nativity. +First, as to the nativity itself; secondly, as to His manifestation +after birth. + +Concerning the first there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether nativity regards the nature or the person? + +(2) Whether another, besides His eternal, birth should be attributed +to Christ? + +(3) Whether the Blessed Virgin is His Mother in respect of His +temporal birth? + +(4) Whether she ought to be called the Mother of God? + +(5) Whether Christ is the Son of God the Father and of the Virgin +Mother in respect of two filiations? + +(6) Of the mode of the Nativity; + +(7) Of its place; + +(8) Of the time of the Nativity. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 1] + +Whether Nativity Regards the Nature Rather Than the Person? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Nativity +regards the hypostasis, not the nature." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: On account of the identity of nature and hypostasis in +God, nature is 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 2] + +Whether a Temporal Nativity Should Be Attributed to Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, properly speaking, nativity regards the person. But +in Christ there is only one person. Therefore in Christ there is but +one nativity. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 3] + +Whether the Blessed Virgin Can Be Called Christ's Mother in Respect +of His Temporal Nativity? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called +Christ's Mother in respect of His temporal nativity. For, as stated +above (Q. 32, A. 4), 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:18): "The generation of +Christ was in this wise. When His Mother Mary was espoused to +Joseph," etc. + +_I answer that,_ The Blessed Virgin Mary is in truth and by nature +the Mother of Christ. For, as we have said above (Q. 5, A. 2; Q. 31, +A. 5), 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 (Q. 31, A. 5; Q. 32, A. 4). +Therefore the Blessed Virgin is truly Christ's Mother. + +Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 32, A. 3), 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 31, A. 5, ad 3; Q. 32, A. 4), the +resolution of the woman's semen is not necessary for conception; +neither, therefore, is it required for motherhood. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 4] + +Whether the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God? + +Objection 1: 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 Matt. 1:18. Therefore we should not say that the Blessed +Virgin is the Mother of God. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 16, A. 1), 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 (Q. 2, A. 3), 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 (Q. 33, A. 3), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 1 John 5:20, and that the Blessed Virgin is the "Mother of +Jesus Christ," which is clearly expressed Matt. 1:18. Therefore, from +the words of Scripture it follows of necessity that she is the Mother +of God. + +Again, it is written (Rom. 9:5) 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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; First Part, Q. 39, A. 4). 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 5] + +Whether There Are Two Filiations in Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 +(AA. 3, 4), or He must needs be her Son by some other temporal +filiation. Therefore in Christ there are two filiations. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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 First Part (Q. 32, A. 3; Q. 40, A. 2). Therefore there is +but one filiation in Christ. + +_I answer that,_ 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 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. + +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 First Part (Q. 13, A. 7). Therefore the +filiation by which Christ is referred to His Mother cannot be a real +relation, but only a relation of reason. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 6] + +Whether Christ Was Born Without His Mother Suffering? + +Objection 1: 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 Gen. 2:17: "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 Gen. 3:16: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But +Christ ended His life in pain, according to Isa. 53:4: "Surely . . . +He hath carried our sorrows." Therefore it seems that His nativity +was not without the pains of childbirth. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant +opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (Q. 28, +A. 2, 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 Isa. 35:1, 2: "Like +the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy +and praise." + +Reply Obj. 1: The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from +the mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Gen. 3:16) 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: We are told (Luke 2:7) 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. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 7] + +Whether Christ Should Have Been Born in Bethlehem? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been born in +Bethlehem. For it is written (Isa. 2:3): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is said (Matt. 2:23) that it is written of Christ +that "He shall be called a Nazarene"; which is taken from Isa. 11:1: +"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. + +Obj. 3: Further, for this was our Lord born into the world, that He +might make known the true faith, according to John 18:37: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mic. 5:2): "And thou, Bethlehem, +Ephrata . . . out of thee shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be +the ruler in Israel." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Rom. 1:3); to whom also +was a special promise made concerning Christ; according to 2 Kings +23:1: "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.'" + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Luke 2:7: "In order that He who found no room at the inn +might prepare many mansions for us in His Father's house." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +"But the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may +confound the strong" (1 Cor. 1:27). 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 Isa. 26:5, 6: "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. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 8] + +Whether Christ Was Born at a Fitting Time? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ +were not made to the Gentiles; according to Rom. 9:4: "To whom +belong . . . the promises." But Christ was born during the reign of +a foreigner, as appears from Matt. 2:1: "When Jesus was born in the +days of King Herod." Therefore it seems that He was not born at a +fitting time. + +Obj. 3: 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 (John 9:4): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 4:4): "When the fulness of the +time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +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 (Eph. 2:14). Wherefore Jerome says on Isa. 2:4: "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 Isa. 2:4: "Nation shall not lift up sword against +nation." + +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" (John 11:52), that there +might be "one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16). + +Reply Obj. 2: Christ wished to be born during the reign of a +foreigner, that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled (Gen. +49:10): "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Luke 1:79: "To +enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death." + +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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 36 + +OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE NEWLY BORN CHRIST +(In Eight Articles) + +We must now consider the manifestation of the newly born Christ: +concerning which there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all? + +(2) Whether it should have been made known to some? + +(3) To whom should it have been made known? + +(4) Whether He should have made Himself known, or should He rather +have been manifested by others? + +(5) By what other means should it have been made known? + +(6) Of the order of these manifestations; + +(7) Of the star by means of which His birth was made known; + +(8) of the adoration of the Magi, who were informed of Christ's +nativity by means of the star. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ's Birth Should Have Been Made Known to All? + +Objection 1: 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 (Ps. 49:3): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): "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 Titus 2:11, +12: "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, God is most especially inclined to mercy; according +to Ps. 144:9: "His tender mercies are over all His works." But in His +second coming, when He will "judge justices" (Ps. 70:3), He will come +before the eyes of all; according to Matt. 24:27: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 45:15): "Thou art a hidden +God, the Holy [Vulg.: 'the God] of Israel, the Saviour." And, again +(Isa. 43:3): "His look was, as it were, hidden and despised." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had +known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." + +Secondly, because this would have lessened the merit of faith, which +He came to offer men as the way to righteousness, according to Rom. +3:22: "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, Heb. 11:1. + +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?" + +Reply Obj. 1: According to the gloss, the words quoted must be +understood of Christ's coming as judge. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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" (Ps. 73:12). Wherefore after His Passion +and Resurrection, He said to His disciples (Matt. 28:19): +"Going . . . teach ye all nations." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ's Birth Should Have Been Made Known to Some? + +Objection 1: 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 1 Tim. 4:10: "Who is the +Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful." Therefore Christ's +birth should not have been made known to anyone. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Matt. 2:3) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1) "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 (Acts 10:40, 41): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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" (Rom. 10:17). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +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?" + +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." + +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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 3] + +Whether Those to Whom Christ's Birth Was Made Known Were Suitably +Chosen? + +Objection 1: It would seem that those to whom Christ's birth was made +known were not suitably chosen. For our Lord (Matt. 10:5) 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 Matt. 2:1. + +Obj. 2: Further, the revelation of Divine truth should be made +especially to the friends of God, according to Job 37 [Vulg.: Job +36:33]: "He sheweth His friend concerning it." But the Magi seem to +be God's foes; for it is written (Lev. 19:31): "Go not aside after +wizards (_magi_), neither ask anything of soothsayers." Therefore +Christ's birth should not have been made known to the Magi. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ came in order to set free the whole world +from the power of the devil; whence it is written (Malachi 1:11): +"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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +Obj. 5: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 13:18): "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. + +_I answer that,_ Salvation, which was to be accomplished by Christ, +concerns all sorts and conditions of men: because, as it is written +(Col. 3:11), in Christ "there is neither male nor female, [*These +words are in reality from Gal. 3:28] 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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.). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Zech. 6:12): "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]. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 5: As Ambrose says (on Luke 2:25): "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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Himself Should Have Made His Birth Known? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 20:32): "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). + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Ecclus. 20:6): "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 John +2:11: "'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 +(John 1:31): '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." +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 5] + +Whether Christ's Birth Should Have Been Manifested by Means of the +Angels and the Star? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been +manifested by means of the angels. For angels are spiritual +substances, according to Ps. 103:4: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the righteous are more akin to the angels than to +any other, according to Ps. 33:8: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 32:4): "The works of God are +perfect." But this manifestation is the work of God. Therefore it was +accomplished by means of suitable signs. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Acts 7:53: "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 Luke 2:26: "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. I, Q. 51, A. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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" (Luke +2:9) accompanied the angelic apparition, to indicate that He who was +just born was the "Brightness of" the Father's "glory." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +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." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. + +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." + +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." + +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." +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 6] + +Whether Christ's Birth Was Made Known in a Becoming Order? + +Objection 1: 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 Wis. 6:14: "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 (Luke 2:25) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Rom. 11:25). Therefore Christ's birth should +have been made known to the Magi before the shepherds. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 2:16) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Dan. 2:21): "He changes time and +ages." Consequently the time of the manifestation of Christ's birth +seems to have been arranged in a suitable order. + +_I answer that,_ Christ's birth was first made known to the shepherds +on the very day that He was born. For, as it is written (Luke 2:8, +15, 16): "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 (Luke 2:39) 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). + +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 1 Cor. 1:26. 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 9:30, 31): "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +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. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 7] + +Whether the Star Which Appeared to the Magi Belonged to the Heavenly +System? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Matt. 2:2): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Matt. +2:9) 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." + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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" (Dan. 2:44). +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 8] + +Whether It Was Becoming That the Magi Should Come to Adore Christ and +Pay Homage to Him? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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?" + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 60:3): "[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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Isa. 2:3: "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). + +Reply Obj. 4: 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." +_______________________ + +QUESTION 37 + +OF CHRIST'S CIRCUMCISION, AND OF THE OTHER LEGAL OBSERVANCES +ACCOMPLISHED IN REGARD TO THE CHILD CHRIST +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider Christ's circumcision. And since the +circumcision is a kind of profession of observing the Law, according +to Gal. 5:3: "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: + +(1) His circumcision; + +(2) The imposition of His name; + +(3) His presentation; + +(4) His Mother's purification. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Should Have Been Circumcised? + +Objection 1: 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 Gen. 17. Now this +covenant was fulfilled in Christ's birth. Therefore circumcision +should have ceased at once. + +Obj. 2: Further, "every action of Christ is a lesson to us" [*Innoc. +III, Serm. xxii de Temp.]; wherefore it is written (John 3:15): "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 Gal. 5:2: "If +you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." Therefore it +seems that neither should Christ have been circumcised. + +Obj. 3: Further, circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of original +sin. But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above (Q. +14, A. 3; Q. 15, A. 1). Therefore Christ should not have been +circumcised. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 2:21): "After eight days were +accomplished, that the child should be circumcised." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Lev. 12:3). +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 Gal. 4:4, 5: "God sent His +Son . . . made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were +under the Law." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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" (Eccl +8:6). + +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 (Col. 2:11): "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 2] + +Whether His Name Was Suitably Given to Christ? + +Objection 1: 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 (Isa. 7:14): "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a +son, and His name shall be called Emmanuel"; and (Isa. 8:3): "Call +His name, Hasten to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the +prey"; and (Isa. 9:6): "His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor +God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of +Peace"; and (Zech. 6:12): "Behold a Man, the Orient is His name." +Thus it was unsuitable that His name should be called Jesus. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Isa. 62:2): "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 (Luke 3:29), "Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His +name to be called Jesus." + +Obj. 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies "salvation"; as is clear +from Matt. 1:21: "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 (Rom. 4:11, 12). Therefore this name was not suitably given +to Christ at His circumcision. + +On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written +(Luke 2:21): "After eight days were accomplished, that the child +should be circumcised, His name was called Jesus." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 Luke 1:59-61. 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" (Gen. 41:51). Or, again, +from some quality of the person who receives the name; thus it is +written (Gen. 25:25) that "he that came forth first was red and hairy +like a skin; and his name was called Esau," which is interpreted +"red." + +But names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift +bestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gen. 17:5): +"Thou shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of +many nations": and it was said to Peter (Matt. 16:18): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +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 Col. 2:15: "Despoiling the +principalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently." + +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." + +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" (Ps. 111:4). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As is related Gen. 17, 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 Prov. 4:3, "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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Was Becomingly Presented in the Temple? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was unbecomingly presented in +the Temple. For it is written (Ex. 13:2): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, among the legal victims the principal was the lamb, +which was a "continual sacrifice" [Vulg.: 'holocaust'], as is stated +Num. 28:6: for which reason Christ is also called "the Lamb--Behold +the Lamb of God" (John 1: 29). It was therefore more fitting that a +lamb should be offered for Christ than "a pair of turtle doves or two +young pigeons." + +On the contrary is the authority of Scripture which relates this as +having taken place (Luke 2:22). + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), Christ wished to be "made +under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law" +(Gal. 4:4, 5), 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 Lev. 12:6. 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. + +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" +(Ex. 12:12, 13, 29), the first-born of Israel being saved; which law +is set down Ex. 13. Here also was Christ foreshadowed, who is "the +First-born amongst many brethren" (Rom. 8:29). + +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 (Luke 2:22, +23): "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 (Luke 2:24): "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Luke 2:23). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Luke 2:23]. 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 Luke 2:23]. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +Reply Obj. 4: The law of Lev. 12:6, 8 "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 2 Cor. 8:9, "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 Luke 1]. 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 4] + +Whether It Was Fitting That the Mother of God Should Go to the Temple +to Be Purified? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Lev. 12:2-4): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +On the contrary is the authority of Scripture, where it is stated +(Luke 2:22) that "the days of" Mary's "purification were accomplished +according to the law of Moses." + +_I answer that,_ 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 James +4:6. 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Second Part (I-II, Q. 102, A. 5; Q. 103, A. 2). But the +Blessed Virgin contracted neither uncleanness, and consequently did +not need to be purified. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 38 + +OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN +(In Six Articles) + +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: + +(1) Whether it was fitting that John should baptize? + +(2) Whether that baptism was from God? + +(3) Whether it conferred grace? + +(4) Whether others besides Christ should have received that baptism? + +(5) Whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized? + +(6) Whether those who received John's baptism had afterwards to +receive Christ's baptism? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Fitting That John Should Baptize? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, John "was sent by God . . . for a witness" (John +1:6, 7) as a prophet; according to Luke 1:76: "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 Malachi 4:4: "Remember the +law of Moses My servant." Therefore neither should John have +introduced a new rite of baptism. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Mk. 7:3, 4) 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. + +On the contrary is the authority of Scripture (Matt. 3:5, 6), which, +after stating the holiness of John, adds many went out to him, "and +were baptized in the Jordan." + +_I answer that,_ 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.). + +Secondly, that Christ might be manifested. Whence John himself says +(John 1:31): "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.). + +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." + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: John was not only a prophet, but "more than a prophet," +as stated Matt. 11:9: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 2] + +Whether the Baptism of John Was from God? + +Objection 1: 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 +Matt. 21:25: "The baptism of John . . . was it from heaven or from +men?" Therefore the baptism of John was not from God. + +Obj. 2: Further, every doctrine that proceeds from God anew is +confirmed by some signs: thus the Lord (Ex. 4) gave Moses the power +of working signs; and it is written (Heb. 2:3, 4) 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 (John 10:41) that +"John did no sign." Therefore it seems that the baptism wherewith he +baptized was not from God. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:33): "He who sent me to +baptize with water said to me: 'He upon whom thou shalt see the +Spirit,'" etc. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Matt. 3:11): "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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, John 1:23 (cf. Isa. +40:3). 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: The baptism of John was intended by God to last only +for a short time, for the reasons given above (A. 1). 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 3] + +Whether Grace Was Given in the Baptism of John? + +Objection 1: It would seem that grace was given in the baptism of +John. For it is written (Mk. 1:4): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, those who were about to be baptized by John +"confessed their sins," as related Matt. 3:6 and Mk. 1:5. But the +confession of sins is ordered to their remission, which is effected +by grace. Therefore grace was conferred in the baptism of John. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 3:11): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 John 1:17: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: In these words, as Bede says (on Mk. 1:4), 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." + +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." + +Or again, it may be said with Jerome [*Another author on Mk. 1 (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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Alone Should Have Been Baptized with the Baptism of +John? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ alone should have been +baptized with the baptism of John. For, as stated above (A. 1), "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. 3). 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Mk. 1:5) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 3:21): "It came to pass, when +all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and +praying, heaven was opened." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Secondly, because, as above stated, it behooved others to be prepared +by John's baptism for the baptism of Christ. + +Reply Obj. 1: The baptism of John was instituted not only that Christ +might be baptized, but also for other reasons, as stated above (A. +1). 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Gen. +49:10. 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 5] + +Whether John's Baptism Should Have Ceased After Christ Was Baptized? + +Objection 1: It would seem that John's baptism should have ceased +after Christ was baptized. For it is written (John 1:31): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 3:22, 23): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: When Christ was baptized, He was not as yet fully +manifested: consequently there was still need for John to continue +baptizing. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 6] + +Whether Those Who Had Been Baptized with John's Baptism Had to Be +Baptized with the Baptism of Christ? + +Objection 1: 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 +(Matt. 11:11): "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 (Acts 8:16, 17) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the apostles were baptized with John's baptism, +since some of them were his disciples, as is clear from John 1:37. +But the apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism +of Christ: for it is written (John 4:2) 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, it is written (Acts 19:1-5) 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 Joel 2:28 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. + +Obj. 5: Further, on Rom. 10:8, "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 (Acts 19:4): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): "Those who +were baptized with John's baptism needed to be baptized with the +baptism of our Lord." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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 (Matt. 3:11). 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 John 3:5: "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Matt. 3:13, +that, "as Christ was baptized in water by John, so had John to be +baptized in the Spirit by Christ." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. + +Reply Obj. 5: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 39 + +OF THE BAPTIZING OF CHRIST +(In Eight Articles) + + We have now to consider the baptizing of Christ, concerning which + there are eight points of inquiry: + + (1) Whether Christ should have been baptized? + + (2) Whether He should have been baptized with the baptism of John? + + (3) Of the time when He was baptized; + + (4) Of the place; + + (5) Of the heavens being opened unto Him; + + (6) Of the apparition of the Holy Ghost under the form of a dove; + + (7) Whether that dove was a real animal? + + (8) Of the voice of the Father witnessing unto Him. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Be Baptized? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 John 1:33: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 3:13) that "Jesus cometh from +Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him." + +_I answer that,_ It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First, +because, as Ambrose says on Luke 3:21: "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" (Matt. 3:15). For, as Ambrose says +(on Luke 3:21), "this is justice, to do first thyself that which thou +wishest another to do, and so encourage others by thy example." + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ was baptized, not that He might be cleansed, but +that He might cleanse, as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: Christ is the first principle of baptism's spiritual +effect. Unto this He was not baptized, but only in water. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 2] + +Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Be Baptized with John's Baptism? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 3:13) that "Jesus cometh to +the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 34, A. 1). And this is +the reason given by Chrysostom (Hom. de Bapt. Christi). Secondly, as +Bede says on Mk. 1:9, 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 1), 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 Luke 3:21: "Let +none decline the laver of grace, since Christ did not refuse the +laver of penance." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Was Baptized at a Fitting Time? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 Dan. 13:45: "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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 3:21): "It came to pass, when +all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized, and +praying;" and further on (Luke 3:23): "And Jesus Himself was +beginning about the age of thirty years." + +_I answer that,_ 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 +(Gen. 41:46) that "Joseph was thirty" years old when he undertook the +government of Egypt. In like manner we read (2 Kings 5:4) that "David +was thirty years old when he began to reign." Again, Ezechiel began +to prophesy in "his thirtieth year," as we read Ezech. 1:1. + +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." + +Thirdly, because by Christ's being baptized at the perfect age, we +are given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect men, +according to Eph. 4:13: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Should Have Been Baptized in the Jordan? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, "Jordan" is interpreted a "going down." But by +baptism a man goes up rather than down: wherefore it is written +(Matt. 3:16) that "Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up [Douay: +'out'] from the water." Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ +should be baptized in the Jordan. + +Obj. 3: Further, while the children of Israel were crossing, the +waters of the Jordan "were turned back," as it is related Jos. 4, and +as it is written Ps. 113:3, 5. But those who are baptized go forward, +not back. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized +in the Jordan. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 1:9) that "Jesus was baptized +by John in the Jordan." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (John 3:5): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: In baptism we "go up" by advancing in grace: for which +we need to "go down" by humility, according to James 4:6: "He giveth +grace to the humble." And to this "going down" must the name of the +Jordan be referred. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 5] + +Whether the Heavens Should Have Been Opened Unto Christ at His +Baptism? + +Objection 1: 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 John 3:13: "The +Son of Man who is in heaven." Therefore it seems that the heavens +should not have been opened unto Him. + +Obj. 2: 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 Job 37:18: "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." + +Obj. 3: Further, heaven was opened to the faithful through Christ's +Passion, according to Heb. 10:19: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 3:21): "Jesus being baptized +and praying, heaven was opened." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1; 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. + +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. + +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. + +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 (Luke 3:21) 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 (Matt. +3:16) 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]). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Jerome says on Matt. 3:16, 17, 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 (Mk. 1:10) 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Rom. 6:3: "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. + +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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 6] + +Whether It Is Fitting to Say That When Christ Was Baptized the Holy +Ghost Came Down on Him in the Form of a Dove? + +Objection 1: 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 (Q. 7, A. 12; Q. 34, A. 1). Therefore the +Holy Ghost should not have been sent to Him at His baptism. + +Obj. 2: 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" (Phil. 2:7). But the Holy Ghost did not become +incarnate. Therefore it is unbecoming to say that the Holy Ghost +"descended upon Him." + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, the Holy Ghost is poured forth on others through +Christ, according to John 1:16: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 3:22): "The Holy Ghost +descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon Him." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Matt. 3:11: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (1 Cor. 10:4): "'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." + +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 James 1:17: "Every best gift and every perfect gift is +from above, coming down from the Father of lights." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Wis. 1:5): "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 +(Matt. 10:16): "Be ye simple as doves." + +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. + +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." + +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 (Eph. 5:25-27): "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 (Cant 6:8): "One is my dove." + +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 coming 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." + +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. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 7] + +Whether the Dove in Which the Holy Ghost Appeared Was Real? + +Objection 1: 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 (Luke 3:22) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 5, A. 1), 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 John 16:13, 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 8] + +Whether It Was Becoming, When Christ Was Baptized That the Father's +Voice Should Be Heard, Bearing Witness to the Son? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 3:17): "Behold a voice from +heaven, saying: This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), 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 +Matt. 28:19: "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 Matt. 3:16, 17: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (John 5:37) 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (John +5:37): "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 Rom. 8:29: "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." +_______________________ + +QUESTION 40 + +OF CHRIST'S MANNER OF LIFE +(In Four Articles) + +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. + +Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ should have led a solitary life, or have +associated with men? + +(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? + +(3) Whether He should have adopted a lowly state of life, or one of +wealth and honor? + +(4) Whether He should have lived in conformity with the Law? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 40, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Should Have Associated with Men, or Led a Solitary +Life? + +Objection 1: 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 (Dan. 2:11): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Second Part (II-II, Q. +182, AA. 1, 2). Now, solitude is most suitable to the contemplative +life; according to Osee 2:14: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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, Matth. 5:1], 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Baruch 3:38): "Afterwards He was +seen upon earth and conversed with men." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (John 18:37): "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 (Luke 4:42, 43) 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." + +Secondly, He came in order to free men from sin; according to 1 Tim. +1:15: "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." + +Thirdly, He came that by Him "we might have access to God," as it is +written (Rom. 5:2). And thus it was fitting that He should give men +confidence in approaching Him by associating familiarly with them. +Wherefore it is written (Matt. 9:10): "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: As stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 182, A. 1; Q. +188, A. 6), 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Mk. 6:31) 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 +(Luke 6:12): "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 Matt. +5:1, 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." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 40, Art. 2] + +Whether It Was Becoming That Christ Should Lead an Austere Life in +This World? + +Objection 1: 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 (Matt. 3:4) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, abstinence is ordained to continency; for it is +written (Osee 4:10): "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 (Matt. 19:12): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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, Luke 14:30: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 11:19): "The Son of Man came +eating and drinking." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), 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 (1 Cor. 9:22): "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.'" + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Rom. 14:17: "The kingdom of God is +not meat and drink." And Augustine (De Qq. Evang. ii, qu. 11) +explains Matt. 11:19, "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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 +Matt. 9:14, 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?" + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Mk. 2:18: "Christ fasted, that thou mightest not disobey the +commandment; He ate with sinners, that thou mightest discern His +sanctity and acknowledge His power." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 40, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Should Have Led a Life of Poverty in This World? + +Objection 1: 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 (Prov. +30:8): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ specially invited men to imitate His example +of humility, according to Matt. 11:29: "Learn of Me, because I am +meek and humble of heart." But humility is most commendable in the +rich; thus it is written (1 Tim. 6:11): "Charge the rich of this +world not to be high-minded." Therefore it seems that Christ should +not have chosen a life of poverty. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 8:20): "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 Matt. 17:26: "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Mk. 1:38): "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 (Matt. 10:9): "Do +not possess gold nor silver." And the apostles (Acts 6:2) say: "It is +not reasonable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." + +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 2 Cor. 8:9: +"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." + +Thirdly, lest if He were rich His preaching might be ascribed to +cupidity. Wherefore Jerome says on Matt. 10:9, 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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 +(Prov. 30:8); 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Luke 8:2, 3) that certain women +followed Christ and "ministered unto Him of their substance." For, as +Jerome says on Matt. 27:55, "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 40, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Conformed His Conduct to the Law? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, what Christ taught, that He also did, according to +Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He taught (Matt. +15:11) 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 Lev. 11. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His +conduct to the Law. + +Obj. 3: Further, he who consents to anything is of the same mind as +he who does it, according to Rom. 1:32: "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 Matt. 12:1-8. +Therefore it seems that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 5:17): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Gal. 5:3: "I testify +to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the +whole Law." + +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 Gal. 4:4, 5: "God sent His +Son . . . made under the Law that He might redeem them who were +under the Law." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 +(John 5:17): "My Father worketh until now; and I work." + +Secondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does not +forbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore He says +(Luke 13:15): "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 (Luke 14:5): "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. + +Thirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the +worship of God. Wherefore He says (Matt. 12:5): "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 (John 7:23) 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 (John 9:16): +"This man is not of God, who keepeth not the Sabbath." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 41 + +OF CHRIST'S TEMPTATION +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider Christ's temptation, concerning which there +are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted? + +(2) Of the place; + +(3) Of the time; + +(4) Of the mode and order of the temptation. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 41, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Becoming That Christ Should Be Tempted? + +Objection 1: 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 (Luke 4:41) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ was come in order to destroy the works of the +devil, according to 1 John 3:8: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 4:1): "Jesus was led by the +Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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 (Ecclus. 2): Son, when +thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and +prepare thy soul for temptation." + +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." + +Fourthly, in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it +is written (Heb. 4:15): "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Matt. +4:2, 3, 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?" + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Matt. +4:1): "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: As the Apostle says (Heb. 4:15), 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 41, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Should Have Been Tempted in the Desert? + +Objection 1: 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. 1). But an example should be set +openly before those who are to follow it. Therefore He should not +have been tempted in the desert. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Matt. 4:5, 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 1:13) that Jesus "was in the +desert forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Eccles. 4:12), "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 Luke 4:1, 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ is set as an example to all through faith, +according to Heb. 12:2: "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of +faith." Now faith, as it is written (Rom. 10:17), "cometh by +hearing," but not by seeing: nay, it is even said (John 20:29): +"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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Gen. 19:17): +"Neither stay thou in all the country about" Sodom. + +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.]. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 41, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ's Temptation Should Have Taken Place After His Fast? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's temptation should not have +taken place after His fast. For it has been said above (Q. 40, A. 2) +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 in 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Mk. 1:13) 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, we read that Christ fasted but once. But He was +tempted by the devil, not only once, for it is written (Luke 4:13) +"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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 4:2, 3): "When He had fasted +forty days and forty nights, afterwards He was hungry": and then "the +tempter came to Him." + +_I answer that,_ 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. 1), by fasting before being tempted, +He teaches us the need of fasting in order to equip ourselves against +temptation. Hence the Apostle (2 Cor. 6:5, 7) reckons "fastings" +together with the "armor of justice." + +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." + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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" (Acts 1:1). 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 (1 Cor. 9:27): "I chastise my body, and +bring it into subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to +others, I myself should become a castaway." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +On the other hand, according to Bede's exposition of Mk. 1:12, 13, +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says on Luke 4:13, 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 41, Art. 4] + +Whether the Mode and Order of the Temptation Were Becoming? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, temptations are ordained to sin. But there are seven +deadly sins, as we have stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 84, A. +4). But the tempter only deals with three, viz. gluttony, vainglory, +and covetousness. Therefore the temptation seems to have been +incomplete. + +Obj. 5: 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. + +Obj. 6: Further, Jerome says on Matt. 4:4 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." + +Obj. 7: 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. + +On the contrary is the authority of Scripture. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Job 39:25, "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." + +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 (Gen. 3:1): "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. + +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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 +Luke 4:5: "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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 4: As Ambrose says on Luke 4:13, 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." + +Reply Obj. 5: 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. + +Reply Obj. 6: 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. + +Reply Obj. 7: 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." + +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." +_______________________ + +QUESTION 42 + +OF CHRIST'S DOCTRINE +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider Christ's doctrine, about which there are four +points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews only, or to the +Gentiles also? + +(2) Whether in preaching He should have avoided the opposition of the +Jews? + +(3) Whether He should have preached in an open or in a hidden manner? + +(4) Whether He should have preached by word only, or also by writing? + +Concerning the time when He began to teach, we have spoken above when +treating of His baptism (Q. 29, A. 3). +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 42, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Should Have Preached Not Only to the Jews, but Also to +the Gentiles? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached not only +to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. For it is written (Isa. 49:6): +"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. + +Obj. 2: Further, as it is written (Matt. 7:29): "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 (Rom. 15:20): "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is more useful to instruct many than one. But +Christ instructed some individual Gentiles, such as the Samaritan +woman (John 4) and the Chananaean woman (Matt. 15). Much more reason, +therefore, was there for Christ to preach to the Gentiles in general. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Matt. 15:24): "I was not sent but +to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel." And (Rom. 10:15) +it is written: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" Therefore +Christ should not have preached to the Gentiles. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Rom. 15:8): "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." + +Secondly, in order to show that His coming was of God; because, as is +written Rom. 13:1: "Those things which are of God are well ordered +[Vulg.: 'those that are, are ordained of God']." 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 Matt. 15:24, "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 (Isa. 66:19): +"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." + +Thirdly, in order to deprive the Jews of ground for quibbling. Hence +on Matt. 10:5, "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." + +Fourthly, because it was through the triumph of the cross that Christ +merited power and lordship over the Gentiles. Hence it is written +(Apoc. 2:26, 28): "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" (Phil. 2:8-11). +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 (Matt. 28:19): "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" (John 12:20-25); 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ was given to be the light and salvation of the +Gentiles through His disciples, whom He sent to preach to them. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +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" (Matt. 5:22, +28, 32, 34, 39, 44); and, again, in the force of His righteousness +shown in His sinless manner of life. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 42, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Should Have Preached to the Jews Without Offending +Them? + +Objection 1: 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 1 Cor. 10:32: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Luke 11:53, 54) 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:1): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It was foretold (Isa. 8:14) that Christ would be +"for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to the two houses +of Israel." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Matt. 15:12, 14) 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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.). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Num. 11:16: "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 (Dan. 13:52): "O thou that +art grown old in evil days," etc. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 42, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Should Have Taught All Things Openly? + +Objection 1: 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 Matt. 10:27 with Luke 12:3]. Therefore He did +not teach all things openly. + +Obj. 2: Further, the depths of wisdom should not be expounded save to +the perfect, according to 1 Cor. 2:6: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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" (Matt. 13:34). In the +same way, therefore, He could have hidden it from them by saying +nothing at all. + +_On the contrary,_ He says Himself (John 18:20): "In secret I have +spoken nothing." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Wis. 7:13): +"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 John 16:12: +"There are some things so bad that no sort of human modesty can bear +them." Wherefore of heretical doctrine it is written (Prov. 9:17): +"Stolen waters are sweeter." Now, Christ's doctrine is "not of error +nor of uncleanness" (1 Thess. 2:3). Wherefore our Lord says (Mk. +4:21): "Doth a candle," i.e. true and pure doctrine, "come in to be +put under a bushel?" + +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 John 18:20: "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?" + +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 2 Tim. 2:2: "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, Num. 4, where the sons of Aaron are commanded to wrap +up the sacred vessels that were to be carried by the Levites. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (John 16:12): "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 John 18:20: "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 42, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Should Have Committed His Doctrine to Writing? + +Objection 1: 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 Luke 21:33: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Old Law was a foreshadowing of Christ, according +to Heb. 10:1: "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 Ex. 24:12: "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, to Christ, who came to enlighten them that sit in +darkness (Luke 1:79), 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. + +_On the contrary,_ No books written by Him were to be found in the +canon of Scripture. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Matt. 7:29) 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. + +Secondly, on account of the excellence of Christ's doctrine, which +cannot be expressed in writing; according to John 21:25: "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. + +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. + +Hence it is said of Wisdom (Prov. 9:3) 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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" (Rom. +8:2), 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 (2 Cor. 3:3). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 43 + +OF THE MIRACLES WORKED BY CHRIST, IN GENERAL +(In Four Articles) + +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. + +Concerning the first, there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ should have worked miracles? + +(2) Whether He worked them by Divine power? + +(3) When did He begin to work miracles? + +(4) Whether His miracles are a sufficient proof of His Godhead? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 43, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Should Have Worked Miracles? + +Objection 1: 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 (Matt. 16:4): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, just as Christ, at His second coming, is to come +with great power and majesty, as is written Matt. 24:30, so at His +first coming He came in infirmity, according to Isa. 53:3: "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ came that He might save men by faith; +according to Heb. 12:2: "Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of +faith." But miracles lessen the merit of faith; hence our Lord says +(John 4:48): "Unless you see signs and wonders you believe not." +Therefore it seems that Christ should not have worked miracles. + +_On the contrary,_ It was said in the person of His adversaries (John +11:47): "What do we; for this man doth many miracles?" + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 +(Gal. 3:5): "He who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles +among you." + +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 (John 10:38): "Though you will not believe Me, +believe the works"; and (John 5:36): "The works which the Father hath +given Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . give testimony to Me." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: Although Christ came "in the infirmity" of the flesh, +which is manifested in the passions, yet He came "in the power of +God" [*Cf. 2 Cor. 13:4], and this had to be made manifest by miracles. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (1 Cor. 14:22) that signs are given "to +unbelievers," viz. that they may be converted to the faith. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 43, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Worked Miracles by Divine Power? + +Objection 1: 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 (Mk. +6:5) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, God does not pray. But Christ sometimes prayed when +working miracles; as may be seen in the raising of Lazarus (John +11:41, 42), and in the multiplication of the loaves, as related Matt. +14:19. Therefore it seems that He did not work miracles by Divine +power. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Luke +11:15) that He cast out devils "by Beelzebub the prince of devils." +Therefore it seems that Christ did not work miracles by Divine power. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 14:10): "The Father who +abideth in Me, He doth the works." + +_I answer that,_ as stated in the First Part (Q. 110, A. 4), 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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Gen. 18:17): "Can I hide from Abraham what +I am about to do?" and Gen. 19:22: "I cannot do anything till thou go +in thither." + +Reply Obj. 2: As Chrysostom says on Matt. 14:19, "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." + +When it is said that in raising Lazarus He lifted up His eyes (John +11:41), 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. Matt. 12:24-30; Mk. 3:22; +Luke 11:15-32]. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 43, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Began to Work Miracles When He Changed Water into Wine +at the Marriage Feast? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ began to gather His disciples after His +baptism and temptation, as related Matt. 4:18 and John 1:35. But the +disciples gathered around Him, principally on account of His +miracles: thus it is written (Luke 5:4) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 2:11): "This beginning of +miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 39, A. 3). 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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). +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 43, Art. 4] + +Whether the Miracles Which Christ Worked Were a Sufficient Proof of +His Godhead? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, no power surpasses that of the Godhead. But some +have worked greater miracles than Christ, for it is written (John +14:12): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 5:36): "The works which the +Father hath given Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . give testimony +of Me." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (John 9:32, +33): "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." + +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 (Luke 6:19) 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 Matt. 8:16: "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 John 5:19: "What things soever" the Father "doth, these +the Son doth also in like manner"; and, again (John 5:21): "As the +Father raiseth up the dead and giveth life, so the Son also giveth +life to whom He will." + +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 (Mk. 1:27): "What is this new +doctrine? For with power He commandeth the unclean spirits, and they +obey Him." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +As to the miracles worked by others, Christ did greater still. Hence +on John 15:24: "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +"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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 44 + +OF (CHRIST'S) MIRACLES CONSIDERED SPECIFICALLY +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider each kind of miracle: + +(1) The miracles which He worked in spiritual substances; + +(2) The miracles which He worked in heavenly bodies; + +(3) The miracles which He worked in man; + +(4) The miracles which He worked in irrational creatures. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 44, Art. 1] + +Whether Those Miracles Were Fitting Which Christ Worked in Spiritual +Substances? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 1 Cor. 2:8: "If they had known it, they would never have crucified +the Lord of glory." Therefore He should not have worked miracles in +the demons. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of God: +hence it is written (Matt. 9:8) 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" (Ecclus. 15:9). For which reason also "He suffered them not +to speak" (Mk. 1:34; Luke 4:41) those things which reflected glory on +Him. Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for Him to work +miracles in the demons. + +Obj. 4: 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 +(Mk. 9:24, 25) 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" (Matt. +8:31-34). Therefore it seems unfitting that He should have worked +such like miracles. + +_On the contrary,_ this was foretold (Zech. 13:2), where it is +written: "I will take away . . . the unclean spirit out of the earth." + +_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 John 12:31: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Col. 1:20: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Luke 4:3, "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 Mk. +1:24, "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 (Luke 4:41) 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 Luke 4:41: "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" (1 Cor. 2:7, 8), "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 Matt. +8:32 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." + +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 Mk. 9:25, 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'" (Col. 3:3) +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 44, Art. 2] + +Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Work Miracles in the +Heavenly Bodies? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the course of time is marked out by the movement of +the heavenly bodies, according to Gen. 1:14: "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 (Isa. 47:13). Therefore it seems that +Christ did not work any change in the movements of the heavenly +bodies. + +Obj. 3: Further, it was more fitting that Christ should work miracles +in life and when teaching, than in death: both because, as it is +written (2 Cor. 13:4), "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 23:44, 45): "There was +darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was +darkened." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 43, A. 4) 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Rom. 11:24: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Matt. 27:45: "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 Matt. 27:45 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 3 +Kings 18:10, 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." + +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." + +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. + +But, as Origen says (on Matt. 27:45), "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 44, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Worked Miracles Fittingly on Men? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (Q. 43, A. 2), 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 (Mk. 8:22-25) +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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (John +9:3): "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 (Matt. 9:2): 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm +His doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above (Q. 43, A. +4). 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 Matt. 9:30 and Mk. 8:26: +the more so, since He commanded others to proclaim the miracles +worked on them; thus it is related (Mk. 5:19) 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." + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 7:37): "He hath done all things +well: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak." + +_I answer that,_ The means should be proportionate to the end. Now +Christ came into the world and taught in order to save man, according +to John 3:17: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Wis. 1:4): "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 (Luke +21:15): "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 (Acts 4:13) 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 Heb. +2:4: "God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers +miracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost." + +Nevertheless Christ did work some miracles on the soul of man, +principally by changing its lower powers. Hence Jerome, commenting on +Matt. 9:9, "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 Matt. 21:12, "(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 John 2:15 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 John +18:6, "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 John 8:59, "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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Luke 4:40, "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 Mk. 8:23, "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 John 9:6, "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." + +It is furthermore to be observed concerning Christ's miracles that +generally what He did was most perfect. Hence on John 2:10, "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 Matt. 8:15, "She arose and ministered to them," +Jerome says: "Health restored by our Lord returns wholly and +instantly." + +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 Mk. +8:23: "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 43, A. 2), Christ worked miracles +by Divine power. Now "the works of God are perfect" (Deut. 32:4). 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 John 7:23, "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 Matt. 9:5, 6: "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 (John 4:14), 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." + +Nevertheless, as Chrysostom says on Matt. 9:5: "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." + +Reply Obj. 4: On Matt. 9:30, "See that no man know this," Chrysostom +says: "If in another place we find Him saying, 'Go and declare the +glory of God' (cf. Mk. 5:19; Luke 8:39), 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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 44, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Worked Miracles Fittingly on Irrational Creatures? + +Objection 1: 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 (Matt. 21:19). Therefore Christ should have +worked miracles also on brute animals. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Mk. 11:13). Therefore it seems +unfitting that He withered it up. + +Obj. 3: Further, air and water are between heaven and earth. But +Christ worked some miracles in the heavens, as stated above (A. 2), +and likewise in the earth, when it quaked at the time of His Passion +(Matt. 27:51). Therefore it seems that He should also have worked +miracles in the air and water, such as to divide the sea, as did +Moses (Ex. 14:21); or a river, as did Josue (Josh. 3:16) and Elias (4 +Kings 2:8); and to cause thunder to be heard in the air, as occurred +on Mount Sinai when the Law was given (Ex. 19:16), and like to what +Elias did (3 Kings 18:45). + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Christ is "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24), of +whom it is said (Wis. 8:1) that "she ordereth all things sweetly." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Luke 5 and John 21; and, again, in the +fish caught by Peter, who found a stater in it (Matt. 17:26). 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Chrysostom says on Matt. 21:19: "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 Matt. 21:19, "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 Matt. 21:19), "being +full of moisture, makes the miracle all the more remarkable." + +Reply Obj. 3: Christ also worked miracles befitting to Himself in the +air and water: when, to wit, as related Matt. 8:26, "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 (Heb. 12:18): "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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 John 6:1-14: "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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 45 + +OF CHRIST'S TRANSFIGURATION +(In Four Articles) + +We now consider Christ's transfiguration; and here there are four +points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured? + +(2) Whether the clarity of the transfiguration was the clarity of +glory? + +(3) Of the witnesses of the transfiguration; + +(4) Of the testimony of the Father's voice. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 45, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Be Transfigured? + +Objection 1: 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 (Q. 5, A. +1). Therefore it seems that it should not have been transfigured. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, a glorified body has four gifts, as we shall state +farther on (Suppl., Q. 82), viz. impassibility, agility, subtlety, +and clarity. Therefore His transfiguration should not have consisted +in an assumption of clarity rather than of the other gifts. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 17:2) that Jesus "was +transfigured" in the presence of three of His disciples. + +_I answer that,_ Our Lord, after foretelling His Passion to His +disciples, had exhorted them to follow the path of His sufferings +(Matt. 16:21, 24). 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 +(John 14:5): "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 Acts 14:21: "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 Phil. 3:21: "(Who) will reform the body of our lowness +configured [Douay: 'made like'] to the body of His glory." Hence Bede +says on Mk. 8:39: "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: As Jerome says on Matt. 17:2: "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 45, Art. 2] + +Whether This Clarity Was the Clarity of Glory? + +Objection 1: It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of +glory. For a gloss of Bede on Matt. 17:2, "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, on Luke 9:27 "(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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Jerome says on the words "He was transfigured +before them" (Matt. 17:2): "He appeared to the Apostles such as He +will appear on the day of judgment." And on Matt. 16:28, "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Godhead, 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 (Q. 14, A. 1, 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." + +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 Second Part (II-II, Q. 175, A. 3, +ad 2). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Isa. 49:18: +"Thou shalt be clothed with all these as with an ornament." + +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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 45, Art. 3] + +Whether the Witnesses of the Transfiguration Were Fittingly Chosen? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Luke 9:30, "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is said (Acts 10:43) 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, Christ's glory is promised as a reward to all the +faithful (2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21), 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. + +On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel. + +_I answer that,_ 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. 1). 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 Matt. 21:9, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Matt. 17:3: "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says on Matt. 17:3: "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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 Matt. 17:3), +"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 Matt. 17:19, "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]. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 45, Art. 4] + +Whether the Testimony of the Father's Voice, Saying, "This Is My +Beloved Son," Was Fittingly Added? + +Objection 1: 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 (Job 33:14), "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, things should not be said to those who cannot bear +them, according to John 16:12: "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 (Matt. 17:6) 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. + +On the contrary is the authority of the Gospel. + +_I answer that,_ 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 1 John 3:2: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 Ex. 33:20: "Man shall not +see Me and live." This is what Jerome says on Matt. 17:6: "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." +_______________________ + +QUESTION 46 + +THE PASSION OF CHRIST +(In Twelve Articles) + +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. + +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. + +Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for men's +deliverance? + +(2) Whether there was any other possible means of delivering men? + +(3) Whether this was the more suitable means? + +(4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer on the cross? + +(5) The extent of His sufferings; + +(6) Whether the pain which He endured was the greatest? + +(7) Whether His entire soul suffered? + +(8) Whether His Passion hindered the joy of fruition? + +(9) The time of the Passion; + +(10) The place; + +(11) Whether it was fitting for Him to be crucified with robbers? + +(12) Whether Christ's Passion is to be attributed to the Godhead? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Necessary for Christ to Suffer for the Deliverance of +the Human Race? + +Objection 1: 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 Isa. 45:21: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. +But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Isa. 53:7): +"He was offered because it was His own will." Therefore it was not +necessary for Him to suffer. + +Obj. 3: Further, as is written (Ps. 24:10): "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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 3:14): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Luke 24:26: "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 (Luke 24:44, 46): "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion +on God's part. + +Reply Obj. 2: This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on +the part of the man Christ. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 1, A. 2), God gave him His Son to +satisfy for him, according to Rom. 3:24, 25: "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 (Eph. 2:4): "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." + +Reply Obj. 4: The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin +of the first man (I, Q. 64, A. 2). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 2] + +Whether There Was Any Other Possible Way of Human Deliverance Besides +the Passion of Christ? + +Objection 1: It would seem that there was no other possible way of +human deliverance besides Christ's Passion. For our Lord says (John +12:24): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, our Lord addresses the Father (Matt. 26:42): "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." + +Obj. 3: 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 (2 Tim. 2:13): "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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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" (Luke 1:37). +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 +First Part (Q. 14, A. 13). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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" (Ps. +50:6), as if to say: "Thou canst pardon me without injustice." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 3] + +Whether There Was Any More Suitable Way of Delivering the Human Race +Than by Christ's Passion? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ St. Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "There was no +other more suitable way of healing our misery" than by the Passion of +Christ. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Rom. 5:8): +"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 (1 Pet. 2:21): "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 (Q. 48, A. 1; Q. 49, AA. 1, 5). +Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from +sin, according to 1 Cor. 6:20: "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 (1 Cor. 15:57): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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?" + +Reply Obj. 3: 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). +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Ought to Have Suffered on the Cross? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Wis. 2:20): +"Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death." Therefore it seems +that Christ ought not to have undergone the death of the cross. + +Obj. 3: Further, it was said of Christ (Matt. 21:9): "Blessed is He +that cometh in the name of the Lord." But death upon the cross was a +death of malediction, as we read Deut. 21:23: "He is accursed of God +that hangeth on a tree." Therefore it does not seem fitting for +Christ to be crucified. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient +unto death, even the death of the cross." + +_I answer that,_ It was most fitting that Christ should suffer the +death of the cross. + +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." + +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 Ps. 68:5: "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." + +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 John 3:14: "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." + +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 (John 12:32): "If I be lifted up from +the earth, I will draw all things to Myself." + +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." + +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 (Eph. +3:18): "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." + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: The altar of holocausts, upon which the sacrifices of +animals were immolated, was constructed of timbers, as is set forth +Ex. 27; 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Heb. 12:2: "He endured the cross, despising the shame." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (2 Cor. 5:21): "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 (Gal. +3:13): "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made +a curse for us." +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 5] + +Whether Christ Endured All Suffering? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Isa. 52:13): "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ's Passion was ordained for man's deliverance +from sin, as stated above (A. 3). But Christ came to deliver men from +every kind of sin. Therefore He ought to have endured every kind of +suffering. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 19:32): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 14, A. 4). 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 Ps. 2:1, 2: "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. + +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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: Hilary's words are to be understood as to all classes +of sufferings, but not as to their kinds. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 6] + +Whether the Pain of Christ's Passion Was Greater Than All Other Pains? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +Obj. 5: Further, the victim's innocence lessens the sting of his +sufferings. But Christ died innocent, according to Jer. 9:19: "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. + +Obj. 6: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Lam. 1:12) 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." + +_I answer that,_ As we have stated, when treating of the defects +assumed by Christ (Q. 15, AA. 5, 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 (Ps. 21:2): "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. + +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. + +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). + +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. + +From all these causes weighed together, it follows that Christ's pain +was the very greatest. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Second Part (I-II, Q. 64, +A. 2), 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 (2 Cor. 7:10): "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). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Adam had suffered in +the state of innocence, [though this was impossible] his pain would +have been less than Christ's. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 Isa. 53:4: "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 Jer. 12:7: "I have given +My dear soul into the hands of her enemies." + +Reply Obj. 5: 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 Isa. 57:1: "The just perisheth, and no man layeth it to +heart." + +Reply Obj. 6: 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. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 7] + +Whether Christ Suffered in His Whole Soul? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 Matt. 26:37. +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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 87:4) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. 6). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 First Part, +Q. 77, AA. 6, 8. + +Reply Obj. 2: This argument proceeds from passion on the part of the +proper object, according to which Christ's higher reason did not +suffer. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 8] + +Whether Christ's Entire Soul Enjoyed Blessed Fruition During the +Passion? + +Objection 1: 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. 7). Therefore His whole soul could not enjoy +fruition. + +Obj. 2: 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. 6); and likewise the enjoyment of +fruition is also the greatest, as was laid down in the first volume +of the Second Part (I-II, Q. 34, A. 3). Consequently, it was not +possible for Christ's whole soul to be suffering and rejoicing at the +one time. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 7), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: Such argument holds good of the totality of the soul +with regard to its faculties. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 9] + +Whether Christ Suffered at a Suitable Time? + +Objection 1: 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 (1 Cor. 5:7): "Christ our Pasch +is sacrificed." But the paschal lamb was slain "on the fourteenth day +at eventide," as is stated in Ex. 12:6. 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ's Passion is called His uplifting, according +to John 3:14: "So must the Son of man be lifted up." And Christ is +Himself called the Sun of Justice, as we read Mal. 4:2. 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 Mk. 15:25: +"It was the third hour, and they crucified Him." + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, the world was enlightened by Christ's presence in +it, according to John 9:5: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 13:1): "Jesus, knowing that +His hour was come for Him to pass out of this world to the Father"; +and (John 2:4): "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. + +_I answer that,_ As was observed above (A. 1), Christ's Passion was +subject to His will. But His will was ruled by the Divine wisdom +which "ordereth all things" conveniently and "sweetly" (Wis. 8:1). +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: Some hold that Christ did die on the fourteenth day of +the moon, when the Jews sacrificed the Pasch: hence it is stated +(John 18:28) 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 +(John 13:1-5) that "before the festival day of the Pasch . . . when +supper was done" . . . Christ washed "the feet of the disciples." + +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 Mk. 14:12: "On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they +sacrificed the Pasch," etc.; and from Luke 22:7: "The day of the +unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the Pasch +should be killed." + +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." + +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 Luke 22:7, 8: "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." + +But the words (John 13:1) "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Matt. 24:32, +33) 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Q. 14, A. 4). 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 (Eph. 4:13): "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." +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 10] + +Whether Christ Suffered in a Suitable Place? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Josh. +14:15): "The name of Hebron before was called Cariath-Arbe: Adam the +greatest in the land of [Vulg.: 'among'] the Enacims was laid there." + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 13:33): "It cannot be that a +prophet perish out of Jerusalem." Therefore it was fitting that He +should die in Jerusalem. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Eph. 5:2: +"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. + +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 (Ps. 73:12): +"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 Ezech. 5:5]. + +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." + +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 (Acts 4:27): "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Lev. +16:27. Hence it is written (Heb. 13:27): "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." + +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." + +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." + +Reply Obj. 3: According to Jerome, in his commentary on Matt. 27:33, +"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. +_______________________ + +ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 11] + +Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Be Crucified with Thieves? + +Objection 1: It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been +crucified with thieves, because it is written (2 Cor. 6:14): "What +participation hath justice with injustice?" But for our sakes Christ +"of God is made unto us justice" (1 Cor. 1:30); whereas iniquity +applies to thieves. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be +crucified with thieves. + +Obj. 2: Further, on Matt. 26:35, "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 +Luke 22:33, "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 27:44) that "the thieves who +were crucified with Him reproached Him." But in Luke 22:42 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It was foretold by Isaias (53:12): "And He was +reputed with the wicked." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +As to God's ordinance, Christ was crucified with thieves, because, as +Jerome says on Matt. 27:33: "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 John 7:36: "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 Mk. 15:27: "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 12] + +Whether Christ's Passion Is to Be Attributed to His Godhead? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion is to be attributed +to His Godhead; for it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the principle of men's salvation is the Godhead +Itself, according to Ps. 36:39: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 2, AA. 1, 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 (Q. 16, A. 4), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: The Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not as the +Lord of glory, but as a man capable of suffering. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +QUESTION 47 + +OF THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF CHRIST'S PASSION +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider the efficient cause of Christ's Passion, +concerning which there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ was slain by others, or by Himself? + +(2) From what motive did He deliver Himself up to the Passion? + +(3) Whether the Father delivered Him up to suffer? + +(4) Whether it was fitting that He should suffer at the hands of the +Gentiles, or rather of the Jews? + +(5) Whether His slayers knew who He was? + +(6) Of the sin of them who slew Christ. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Was Slain by Another or by Himself? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not slain by another, but +by Himself. For He says Himself (John 10:18): "No man 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. + +Obj. 2: 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" (Matt. 27:50). Therefore Christ was not slain by others, +but by Himself. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 18:33): "After they have +scourged Him, they will put him to death." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Mk. 15:39): "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Died Out of Obedience? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, charity is a more excellent virtue than obedience. +But we read that Christ suffered out of charity, according to Eph. +5:2: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient" to +the Father "unto death." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Rom. 5:19. Secondly, it was suitable for +reconciling man with God: hence it is written (Rom. 5:10): "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 Eph. 5:2: +"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 1 Kings 15:22: "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 Prov. 21:28: "An obedient man shall speak of victory." + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ received a command from the Father to suffer. +For it is written (John 10:18): "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" +(John 19:30), 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 John 14:31: +"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 Gal. 2:20: "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 +(Col. 2:16, 17): "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 Ps. 68:5: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Ps. 39:9: "That I should +do Thy will: O my God, I have desired it." Hence He said (Matt. +26:42): "If this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, Thy +will be done." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 3] + +Whether God the Father Delivered Up Christ to the Passion? + +Objection 1: 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 (Deut. +32:4): "God is faithful, and without any iniquity." Therefore He did +not hand over the innocent Christ to His Passion and death. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Isa. 53:12): "He hath delivered His soul unto death." +Consequently it does not appear that God the Father delivered Him up. + +Obj. 3: Further, Judas is held to be guilty because he betrayed +Christ to the Jews, according to John 6:71: "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 John 18:35: +"Thy own nation, and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me." +Moreover, as is related in John 19:16: Pilate "delivered Him to them +to be crucified"; and according to 2 Cor. 6:14: there is no +"participation of justice with injustice." It seems, therefore, that +God the Father did not deliver up Christ to His Passion. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 8:32): "God hath not spared +His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all." + +_I answer that,_ As observed above (A. 2), 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 (Isa. 53:10): "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" (Isa. +53:7). Thirdly, by not shielding Him from the Passion, but abandoning +Him to His persecutors: thus we read (Matt. 27:46) 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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. Rom. 11:22) is thereby shown, +for He would not remit sin without penalty: and the Apostle indicates +this when (Rom. 8:32) he says: "God spared not even His own Son." +Likewise His "goodness" (Rom. 11:22) 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 (Rom. 3:25): "Whom"--that is to say, Christ--God "hath +proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 4] + +Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Suffer at the Hands of the +Gentiles? + +Objection 1: 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 +(Matt. 21:38): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, as related John 5:18, "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 +(John 19:7): "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 Lev. 20. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord Himself says (Matt. 20:19): "They shall +deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and +crucified." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Acts 2:41 and Acts 4:4. +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 5] + +Whether Christ's Persecutors Knew Who He Was? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's persecutors did know who He +was. For it is written (Matt. 21:38) 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, our Lord says (John 15:24): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, +they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." And (Acts 3:17), +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" (Luke 23:34). + +_I answer that,_ 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 (John 15:22): "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 (John 15:24): "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." + +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 John 7:31, 41, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Ps. 2:8 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" +(Luke 23:34), 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 6] + +Whether the Sin of Those Who Crucified Christ Was Most Grievous? + +Objection 1: 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" (Luke 23:34). Therefore theirs was not the most +grievous sin. + +Obj. 2: Further, our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (AA. 1, 2). Therefore those who +crucified Christ did Him no injustice; and hence their sin was not +the most grievous. + +_On the contrary,_ Chrysostom, commenting on the words, "Fill ye up, +then, the measure of your fathers" (Matt. 23:32), says: "In very +truth they exceeded the measure of their fathers; for these latter +slew men, but they crucified God." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), 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 Luke 23:34, "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: Judas did not deliver up Christ to Pilate, but to the +chief priests who gave Him up to Pilate, according to John 18:35: +"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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 +2 Kings 1:5-14. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 48 + +OF THE EFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S PASSION +(In Six Articles) + +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: + +(1) Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of +merit? + +(2) Whether it was by way of atonement? + +(3) Whether it was by way of sacrifice? + +(4) Whether it was by way of redemption? + +(5) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer? + +(6) Whether (the Passion) secured man's salvation efficiently? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ's Passion Brought About Our Salvation by Way of Merit? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, from the beginning of His conception Christ merited +for Himself and for us, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 4; Q. 34, A. 3). +But it is superfluous to merit over again what has been merited +before. Therefore by His Passion Christ did not merit our salvation. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ on the words of Phil. 2:9, "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 (John 17:10). Therefore it appears that He +merited the salvation of the faithful. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 7, AA. 1, 9; Q. 8, AA. 1, 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 Matt. +5:10: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: Suffering, as such, is caused by an outward principle: +but inasmuch as one bears it willingly, it has an inward principle. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 46, A. 3). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ's Passion Brought About Our Salvation by Way of +Atonement? + +Objection 1: 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 1 Pet. +2:22: "Who did no sin." Therefore He made no atonement by His +personal suffering. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 47, A. 6). Consequently it seems that atonement +could not be made to God by Christ's Passion. + +Obj. 3: 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 1 Pet. 4:1: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 68:5) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 +(Q. 46, A. 6). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a +sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human +race; according to 1 John 2:2: "He is the propitiation for our sins: +and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Suppl., Q. 13, +A. 2). 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ's Passion Operated by Way of Sacrifice? + +Objection 1: 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 Ps. 105:38: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): "He delivered Himself +up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of +sweetness." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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?" + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 1 Pet. 4:1: "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ's Passion Brought About Our Salvation by Way of +Redemption? + +Objection 1: 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 Ps. 23:1: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Pet. 1:18): "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 (Gal. +3:13): "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 (Q. 46, A. 4). Therefore He +did redeem us by His Passion. + +_I answer that,_ Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways: +first of all, by the bondage of sin, because (John 8:34): "Whosoever +committeth sin is the servant of sin"; and (2 Pet. 2:19): "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. + +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 Dan. 4:24: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Dan. 4:22: "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 Rom. 8:9: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Matt. 5:25: "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 5] + +Whether It Is Proper to Christ to Be the Redeemer? + +Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the +Redeemer, because it is written (Ps. 30:6): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Ps. 110:9): "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, not only Christ's Passion, but also that of other +saints conduced to our salvation, according to Col. 1:24: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 3:13): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Lev. 17:11, +14), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: The Man-Christ paid the price of our redemption +immediately, but at the command of the Father as the original author. + +Reply Obj. 3: The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the +Church, as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, +according to 2 Cor. 1:6: "Whether we be in tribulation, it is for +your exhortation and salvation." +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 6] + +Whether Christ's Passion Brought About Our Salvation Efficiently? + +Objection 1: 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 Isa. 59:1: "Behold +the hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save." But +"Christ was crucified through weakness," as it is written (2 Cor. +13:4). Therefore, Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation +efficiently. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 1:18) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 43, A. 2), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 1 Cor. 1:25: +"The weakness of God is stronger than men"; because Christ's +weakness, inasmuch as He is God, has a might exceeding all human +power. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Rom. 3:25): "Whom God hath +proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 49). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 49 + +OF THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S PASSION +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider what are the effects of Christ's Passion, +concerning which there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether we were freed from sin by Christ's Passion? + +(2) Whether we were thereby delivered from the power of the devil? + +(3) Whether we were freed thereby from our debt of punishment? + +(4) Whether we were thereby reconciled with God? + +(5) Whether heaven's gate was opened to us thereby? + +(6) Whether Christ derived exaltation from it? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 1] + +Whether We Were Delivered from Sin Through Christ's Passion? + +Objection 1: 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 Isa. 43:25: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +Obj. 5: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Charity covereth all +sins"; and (Prov. 15:27): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Apoc. 1:5): "He loved us, and +washed us from our sins in His own blood." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Rom. 5:8): "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 Luke 7:47: "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Q. +62, A. 5). + +Reply Obj. 5: Christ's Passion is applied to us even through faith, +that we may share in its fruits, according to Rom. 3:25: "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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 2] + +Whether We Were Delivered from the Devil's Power Through Christ's +Passion? + +Objection 1: 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 (Matt. 8:31, +32) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the might of Christ's Passion endures for ever, as, +according to Heb. 10:14: "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever +them that are sanctified." But deliverance from 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 (2 Thess. 2:9): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 12:31), 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. 1). 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. +4). 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 3] + +Whether Men Were Freed from the Punishment of Sin Through Christ's +Passion? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, death is a punishment of sin, according to Rom. +6:23: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 53:4): "Surely He hath borne +our iniquities and carried our sorrows." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Rom. 6:4: +"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 (1 Pet. 3:18), "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. 1). 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 (Rom. 8:17): "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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 4] + +Whether We Were Reconciled to God Through Christ's Passion? + +Objection 1: 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 Wis. 11:25: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 John 3:16: +"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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 5:10): "We are reconciled +to God by the death of His Son." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Wis. 14:9: "To +God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"; and Ps. 5:7: +"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 (1 Kings 26:19): "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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Ecclus. 12:3: "The Highest hateth sinners." + +Reply Obj. 2: Christ is not said to have reconciled us with God, as +if God had begun anew to love us, since it is written (Jer. 31:3): "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 5] + +Whether Christ Opened the Gate of Heaven to Us by His Passion? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not open the gate of +heaven to us by His Passion. For it is written (Prov. 11:18): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, as it is written (Matt. 3:16), 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, it is written (Mic. 2:13): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ is the saying of the Apostle (Heb. 10:19): "We +have [Vulg.: 'having a'] confidence in the entering into the +Holies"--that is, of the heavenly places--"through the blood of +Christ." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Isa. 35:8: "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 Gen. +3:24 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. + +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 +(Heb. 9:11, 12): "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 (Num. 35:25, +28), 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'.] + +Reply Obj. 1: The holy Fathers, by doing works of justice, merited to +enter into the heavenly kingdom, through faith in Christ's Passion, +according to Heb. 11:33: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As was stated above (Q. 39, A. 5), 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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." +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 6] + +Whether by His Passion Christ Merited to Be Exalted? + +Objection 1: 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 Ps. 112:4: "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 John +1:14: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ merited for Himself from the first instant of +His conception, as stated above (Q. 34, A. 3). 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:8): "He became obedient +unto death, even the death of the cross; for which cause God also +exalted Him." + +_I answer that,_ Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence +the Apostle says (Rom. 4:4): "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" (Ex. 22:1). 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 (Luke +14:11): "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." + +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 (John 19:11): "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 (Ps. 138:1): "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 (Eph. 4:9): "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 Isa. 52:13: "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 (Phil. 2:8) 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 (Job 36:17): "Thy cause hath been judged as that of the +wicked cause and judgment Thou shalt recover." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 50 + +OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST + +We have now to consider the death of Christ; concerning which there +are six subjects of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should die? + +(2) Whether His death severed the union of Godhead and flesh? + +(3) Whether His Godhead was separated from His soul? + +(4) Whether Christ was a man during the three days of His death? + +(5) Whether His was the same body, living and dead? + +(6) Whether His death conduced in any way to our salvation? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Die? + +Objection 1: 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 Ps. 35:10: "With Thee is the +fountain of life." Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to +die. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, our Lord said (John 10:10): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written, (John 11:50): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Gen. 2:17: "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 1 +Pet. 3:18: "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 (Heb. 2:14, 15) 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 (Rom. 6:10): +"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 (1 +Cor. 15:12): "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?" + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 2] + +Whether the Godhead Was Separated from the Flesh When Christ Died? + +Objection 1: 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 Luke 23:46, +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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 6, A. 1). Therefore since the soul was +severed from the flesh by death, it seems that, in consequence, His +Godhead was also separated from it. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ As stated above (Q. 16, AA. 4, 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. + +_I answer that,_ What is bestowed through God's grace is never +withdrawn except through fault. Hence it is written (Rom. 11:29): +"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). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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.). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 3] + +Whether in Christ's Death There Was a Severance Between His Godhead +and His Soul? + +Objection 1: It would seem that there was a severance in death +between Christ's Godhead and His soul, because our Lord said (John +10:18): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 6, A. 1). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. 2), the Godhead of the Word was +not severed from the flesh in death. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Was a Man During the Three Days of His Death? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, every priest is a man. But during those three days +of death Christ was a priest: otherwise what is said in Ps. 109:4 +would not be true: "Thou art a priest for ever." Therefore Christ was +a man during those three days. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 First Part (I, Q. 75, A. +4). 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 First Part (I, Q. +75, A. 4), and from what has been said above regarding the mode of +union (Q. 2, A. 5). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 5] + +Whether Christ's Was Identically the Same Body Living and Dead? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. 2). And it is in this sense that +Athanasius is speaking in the passage quoted. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 6] + +Whether Christ's Death Conduced in Any Way to Our Salvation? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. +48). 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 Rom. 4:25: "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 1 Cor. 15:54: "Death is swallowed up in victory." + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ's death wrought our salvation from the power of +the Godhead united, and not considered merely as His death. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: Christ's death was indeed corporeal; but the body was +the instrument of the Godhead united to Him, working by Its power, +although dead. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 51 + +OF CHRIST'S BURIAL +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider Christ's burial, concerning which there are +four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried? + +(2) Concerning the manner of His burial; + +(3) Whether His body was decomposed in the tomb? + +(4) Concerning the length of time He lay in the tomb. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 51, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Be Buried? + +Objection 1: It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been buried, +because it is said of Him (Ps. 87:6): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Matt. 26:10) of the woman who +anointed Him: "She has wrought a good work upon Me," and then He +added (Matt. 26:12)--"for she, in pouring this ointment upon My body, +hath done it for My burial." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Mk. 15:44, +45), 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 John 5:25, 28: "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" (Ps. 30:21). Hence it is said (Col. 3:3): "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 Rom. 6:4: "We are buried together +with Christ by baptism into death." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Isa. 53:9: "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 51, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Was Buried in a Becoming Manner? + +Objection 1: 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 Wis. 2:20: "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 (Mk. 15:43), and by +Nicodemus, who was "a ruler of the Jews," as John states (John 3:1). + +Obj. 2: 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 (Mk. 14:28). Consequently, this was not done +becomingly with regard to Christ. + +Obj. 3: 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 (John +19:40). Consequently, the manner of Christ's burial does not seem to +have been seemly. + +Obj. 4: Further, "What things soever were written," especially of +Christ, "were written for our learning," according to Rom. 15:4. 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 11:10): "And His sepulchre +shall be glorious." + +_I answer that,_ 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" (Rom. 6:4). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: On that expression of the Evangelist (John 19:40) 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Mark 15:46: "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." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 Matt. 27:60, "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 Matt. 27:64, "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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 51, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ's Body Was Reduced to Dust in the Tomb? + +Objection 1: 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" +(Gen. 3:19). 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 1), 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 15:10): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 50, A. 1, 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Q. 51, A. 1). +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 (Ps. 19:10): "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 51, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Was in the Tomb Only One Day and Two Nights? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ was not in the tomb during +only one day and two nights; because He said (Matt. 12:40): "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ The very time during which Christ remained in the +tomb shows forth the effect of His death. For it was said above (Q. +50, A. 6) 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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" (John 20:1). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 52 + +OF CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL +(In Eight Articles) + +We have now to consider Christ's descent into hell; concerning which +there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell? + +(2) Into which hell did He descend? + +(3) Whether He was entirely in hell? + +(4) Whether He made any stay there? + +(5) Whether He delivered the Holy Fathers from hell? + +(6) Whether He delivered the lost from hell? + +(7) Whether He delivered the children who died in original sin? + +(8) Whether He delivered men from Purgatory? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Descend into Hell? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 49, AA. +1, 3). Consequently, it was not fitting that Christ should descend +into hell. + +Obj. 3: Further, by Christ's death His soul was separated from His +body, and this was laid in the sepulchre, as stated above (Q. 51). +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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Creed: "He descended into hell": +and the Apostle says (Eph. 4:9): "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." + +_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 Isa. 53:4: "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 (Osee 13:14): "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 Zech. 9:11: "Thou also by the blood of +Thy Testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit." And it +is written (Col. 2:15): "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 +(Ps. 23:7): "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 Phil. 2:10. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Zech. 9:11) that "He sent forth prisoners out +of the pit, in the blood of His testament," that is, by the power of +His Passion. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 First Part (Q. 53, A. 1). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Went Down into the Hell of the Lost? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ went down into the hell of the +lost, because it is said by the mouth of Divine Wisdom (Ecclus. +24:45): "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 Ps. 62:10: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Peter says (Acts 2:24) 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (1 Pet. 3:19) 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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +Obj. 5: 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 (Job 17:16): "All that I have shall go down into the deepest +pit." Therefore Christ descended into the deepest pit. + +_On the contrary,_ Regarding the hell of the lost it is written (Job +10:21): "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 2 Cor. 6:14. Therefore Christ, who is +"the light," did not descend into the hell of the lost. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: Sorrow is twofold: one is the suffering of pain which +men endure for actual sin, according to Ps. 17:6: "The sorrows of +hell encompassed me." Another sorrow comes of hoped-for glory being +deferred, according to Prov. 13:12: "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. + +Reply Obj. 5: 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 3] + +Whether the Whole Christ Was in Hell? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 50, AA. 3, 4), and +it was after death that He descended into hell. Therefore the whole +(Christ) could not be in hell. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ It is evident from what was said in the First Part +(Q. 31, A. 2, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Made Any Stay in Hell? + +Objection 1: 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 Ecclus. 11:23: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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. Isa. 45:2). Hence on behalf of the angels +accompanying Christ it is written (Ps. 23:7, 9): "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is related (Luke 23:43) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Peter says (Acts 2:24): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 5] + +Whether Christ Descending into Hell Delivered the Holy Fathers from +Thence? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 49, A. 1). Consequently, the holy +Fathers were not delivered on Christ's descent into hell. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Rom. 5 of which sin the +penalty is the death of the body as well as exclusion from glory, as +is evident from Gen. 2 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 Second Part +(I-II, Q. 3, A. 8). 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 Zech. 9:11: "Thou also by the blood of Thy testament hast +sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water." And +(Col. 2:15) 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 John 8:56: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Rom. 8:10: "The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but +the spirit liveth, because of justification." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 6] + +Whether Christ Delivered Any of the Lost from Hell? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did deliver some of the lost +from hell, because it is written (Isa. 24:22): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, on Zech. 9:11: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Osee 13:14): "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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 7] + +Whether the Children Who Died in Original Sin Were Delivered by +Christ? + +Objection 1: 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. 5). Therefore the children were similarly delivered +from hell by Christ. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15): "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 3:25): "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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 6), 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 Rom. 6:23: "The grace +of God is life everlasting." Therefore, since children dying in +original sin had no grace, they were not delivered from hell. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 8] + +Whether Christ by His Descent into Hell Delivered Souls from +Purgatory? + +Objection 1: 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. 6), 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Suppl., Q. 71, A. 9). Therefore +much more were souls delivered from Purgatory by the presence of +Christ descending into hell. + +Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Poenit. ix), those whom Christ +healed in this life He healed completely. Also, our Lord says (John +7:23): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Heb. 10:14: +"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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 48, A. 2), but satisfactory in +general, since its virtue had to be applied to each individual by +something specially personal (Q. 49, A. 1, ad 4, 5). Consequently, it +does not follow of necessity that all were delivered from Purgatory +by Christ's descent into hell. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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; Q. 49, A. 5, ad 1). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 53 + +OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION +(In Four Articles) + +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: + +(1) The necessity of His Resurrection; + +(2) The time of the Resurrection; + +(3) Its order; + +(4) Its cause. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Necessary for Christ to Rise Again? + +Objection 1: 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 (Q. 51, A. 3). +Therefore, it does not properly belong to Him to rise again. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 49, A. 1, 3). Consequently, it was not necessary +for Christ to rise again from the dead. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 24:46): "It behooved Christ to +suffer and to rise again from the dead." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Luke 1:52: "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 (Ps. 138:2): "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. + +Secondly, for our instruction in the faith, since our belief in +Christ's Godhead is confirmed by His rising again, because, according +to 2 Cor. 13:4, "although He was crucified through weakness, yet He +liveth by the power of God." And therefore it is written (1 Cor. +15:14): "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, +and our [Vulg.: 'your'] faith is also vain": and (Ps. 29:10): "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. + +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 (1 Cor. 15:12): "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 (Job 19:25, 27): "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." + +Fourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to +Rom. 6:4: "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." + +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 Rom. 4:25: "He +was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Mic. 7:8 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 2] + +Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Rise Again on the Third Day? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Peter said (Acts 2:24) 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. 1) says that "there is no profit in +the shedding of Christ's blood, if He did not rise at once." + +Obj. 3: 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 (John 20:1) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 20:19): "They shall deliver +Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and +the third day He shall rise again." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) 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. II-II, Q. 2, AA. 7, 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. + +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). + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 51, A. 4, 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 (Mk. 16:2) 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Was the First to Rise from the Dead? + +Objection 1: 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 Heb. 11:35: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, among the other miracles which happened during the +Passion, it is narrated (Matt. 27:52) 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 John 1:16: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 15:20): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Rom. 8:10: "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. + +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 Rom. 6:9: "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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Matt. 27:52, 53, 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Was the Cause of His Own Resurrection? + +Objection 1: 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 +Acts 2:24: "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of +hell": and Rom. 8:11: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Ps. 40:11: "But thou, O Lord, have mercy on +me, and raise me up again." Therefore He was not the cause of His +rising again. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 10:18): "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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 50, AA. 2, 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 (2 Cor. 13:4): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: Christ by praying besought and merited His +Resurrection, as man and not as God. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 54 + +OF THE QUALITY OF CHRIST RISING AGAIN +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider the quality of the rising Christ, which +presents four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ had a true body after His Resurrection? + +(2) Whether He rose with His complete body? + +(3) Whether His was a glorified body? + +(4) Of the scars which showed in His body. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Had a True Body After His Resurrection? + +Objection 1: 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 John +20:26. Therefore it seems that Christ did not have a true body after +His Resurrection. + +Obj. 2: 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 Luke 24:31. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not have a +true body after His Resurrection. + +Obj. 3: Further, every true body has its determinate shape. But +Christ's body appeared before the disciples "in another shape," as is +evident from Mk. 15:12. Therefore it seems that Christ did not +possess a true body after His Resurrection. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 24:37) 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. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Suppl., Q. 83, A. 4) 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.). + +Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 53, A. 3), 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 (1 Cor. 15:44). 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ's Body Rose Glorified? + +[*Some editions give this article as the third, following the order +of the introduction to the question. But it 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.] + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For +glorified bodies shine, according to Matt. 13:43: "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. + +Obj. 2: 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 Luke 24:39: "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is +clear from 1 Cor. 15. 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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 3:21): "He will reform the +body of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory." + +_I answer that,_ 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 +1 Cor. 15:43. 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 (John 12:27): "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 (Q. 34, A. 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the +instant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as +stated above (Q. 14, A. 1, 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Suppl., Q. 82, A. 1), 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Luke 24:41: "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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ's Body Rose Again Entire? + +Objection 1: 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 (1 Cor. 15:50): +"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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Luke 24:39) while addressing His +disciples after the Resurrection: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones +as you see Me to have." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), 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 (Matt. 10:30): +"The very hairs of your head are all numbered": and (Luke 21:18): "A +hair of your head shall not perish." + +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 Job +14:56]. Now Gregory condemns this in the same book, because Christ's +body was not changed after the Resurrection, according to Rom. 6:9: +"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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Job 14:56], 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 Luke 24:39: "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ's Body Ought to Have Risen with Its Scars? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body ought not to have risen +with its scars. For it is written (1 Cor. 15:52): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ's body rose entire, as stated above (A. 3). +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" (John 20:29). + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said to Thomas (John 20:27): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Luke 24:40 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 Luke 24:40). Thirdly, "that when He +pleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death +He endured for us" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). 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 Luke 24:40). Lastly, "that in the Judgment-day He may +upbraid them with their just condemnation" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). +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.'" + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 55 + +OF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE RESURRECTION +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider the manifestation of the Resurrection: +concerning which there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to +all men or only to some special individuals? + +(2) Whether it was fitting that they should see Him rise? + +(3) Whether He ought to have lived with the disciples after the +Resurrection? + +(4) Whether it was fitting for Him to appeal to the disciples "in +another shape"? + +(5) Whether He ought to have demonstrated the Resurrection by proofs? + +(6) Of the cogency of those proofs. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ's Resurrection Ought to Have Been Manifested to All? + +Objection 1: 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 1 Tim. 5:20: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, as Christ's Passion is ordained for our salvation, +so also is His Resurrection, according to Rom. 4:25: "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, they to whom it was manifested were witnesses of the +Resurrection: hence it is said (Acts 3:15): "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 1 +Cor. 14:34: "Let women keep silence in the churches": and 1 Tim. +2:12: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Acts 10:40): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Isa. +64:4: "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 (1 Cor. 2:10): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (Rom. 6:4). Therefore it was manifested directly to +some, but not to all. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Luke 24:22, "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 John 20:17: +"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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 2] + +Whether It Was Fitting That the Disciples Should See Him Rise Again? + +Objection 1: 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 Acts 4:33: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, in order to have the certainty of faith the +disciples saw Christ ascend into heaven, according to Acts 1:9: +"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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 16:9): 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. + +_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1): "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 Rom. 6:10: "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Ought to Have Lived Constantly with His Disciples +After the Resurrection? + +Objection 1: 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 John +20:20: "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ rising from the dead did not at once ascend +to heaven, but after forty days, as is narrated in Acts 1:3. 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, our Lord had said to them before the Passion (Matt. +26:32): "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 John 20:26. It seems, +therefore, that He did not live with the disciples in a fitting way +after the Resurrection. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 20:26) that "after eight days" +Christ appeared to the disciples. Therefore He did not live +constantly with them. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Luke 24:44) 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 John 16:22: "I +will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man +shall take from you." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. Ps. 102:22). + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 outset: 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 (1 Cor. 15:6, +7) 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: Chrysostom in explaining Matt. 26:32--"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." + +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 (1 Cor. 15:6): '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 (Acts 1:3). 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." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Should Have Appeared to the Disciples "in Another +Shape"? + +Objection 1: 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." + +Obj. 2: 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 (2 Cor. 6:15): +"What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Therefore it seems that +Christ ought not to have appeared in another shape. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 16:12): "After that He appeared +in another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the +country." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 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 1 Cor. 2:14. 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 +(Luke 24:21): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 5] + +Whether Christ Should Have Demonstrated the Truth of His Resurrection +by Proofs? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ came into the world in order that men might +attain beatitude through Him, according to John 10:10: "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 (John 20:29): "Blessed are +they that have not seen, and have believed." Consequently, it seems +that Christ ought not to manifest His Resurrection by any proofs. + +_On the contrary,_ It is related in Acts 1:3, that Christ appeared to +His disciples "for forty days by many proofs, speaking of the Kingdom +of God." + +_I answer that,_ 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 +Luke 24:44. + +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 (Luke 24:25): "O foolish and slow of heart to +believe": and (Mk. 16:14): "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 +1 John 1:1, 3: "That which we have seen, and have heard, and our +hands have handled . . . we declare." + +Reply Obj. 1: Ambrose is speaking there of proofs drawn from human +reason, which are useless for demonstrating things of faith, as was +shown above. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated already (ad 2), the merit of beatitude, which +comes of faith, is not entirely excluded except a man refuse to +believe [whatever he does not 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 (John 20:29): "'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 +(John 4:48): "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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 6] + +Whether the Proofs Which Christ Made Use of Manifested Sufficiently +the Truth of His Resurrection? + +Objection 1: 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 Genesis 18, 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, after the Resurrection Christ's body was such that +it ought not to be touched by mortal man; hence He said to Magdalen +(John 20:17): "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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +Obj. 5: [*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.] + +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. + +_On the contrary,_ Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, "ordereth all +things sweetly" and in a fitting manner, according to Wis. 8:1. + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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." + +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 John 3:13: "No man +hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son +of Man who is in heaven." + +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 (Q. 54, A. 1, ad 2, A. 2, ad 1). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Luke +24:41: "Christ ate because He could, not because He needed." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 1 Cor. 15:43: "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. + +Reply Obj. 5: 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." +_______________________ + +QUESTION 56 + +OF THE CAUSALITY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION +(In Two Articles) + +We have now to consider the causality of Christ's Resurrection, +concerning which there are two points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of our resurrection? + +(2) Whether it is the cause of our justification? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 56, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ's Resurrection Is the Cause of the Resurrection of Our +Bodies? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 John 5:21: "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. + +Obj. 4: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ on 1 Cor. 15:12: "Now if Christ be preached, that +He rose again from the dead," the gloss says: "Who is the efficient +cause of our resurrection." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Q. 53, A. 3). Hence Christ's +Resurrection must be the cause of ours: and this is what the Apostle +says (1 Cor. 15:20, 21): "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." + +And this is reasonable. Because the principle of human life-giving is +the Word of God, of whom it is said (Ps. 35:10): "With Thee is the +fountain of life": hence He Himself says (John 5:21): "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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Q. 46, A. 2). But having once +decreed to deliver us in this way, it is evident that Christ's +Resurrection is the cause of ours. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 +(Q. 13, AA. 2, 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 (Q. 48, +A. 6), 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" (John 5:27); the efficient power of His +Resurrection extends to the good and wicked alike, who are subject to +His judgment. + +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 1 Cor. 15:20, 23. 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 Phil. 3:21: "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 Rom. 8:29. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Q. 48, A. 1). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 56, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ's Resurrection Is the Cause of the Resurrection of +Souls? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, since Christ's Resurrection is the cause why bodies +rise again, the bodies of all men shall rise again, according to 1 +Cor. 15:51: "We shall all indeed rise again." But the souls of all +will not rise again, because according to Matt. 25:46: "some shall go +into everlasting punishment." Therefore Christ's Resurrection is not +the cause of the resurrection of souls. + +Obj. 4: Further, the resurrection of souls comes of the forgiveness +of sins. But this was effected by Christ's Passion, according to +Apoc. 1:5: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 4:25): "He rose again for +our justification," which is nothing else than the resurrection of +souls: and on Ps. 29:6: "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Rom. 6:4-11) "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Rom. 4:25) 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; Q. 48, +A. 1). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 57 + +OF THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider Christ's Ascension: concerning which there +are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether it belonged for Christ to ascend into heaven? + +(2) According to which nature did it become Him to ascend? + +(3) Whether He ascended by His own power? + +(4) Whether He ascended above all the corporeal heavens? + +(5) Whether He ascended above all spiritual creatures? + +(6) Of the effect of the Ascension. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 1] + +Whether It Was Fitting for Christ to Ascend into Heaven? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (Luke +17:22): "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. + +Obj. 4: 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 (John 20:17): "I am not yet ascended to My Father." +Therefore it seems that neither should He have ascended after forty +days. + +_On the contrary,_ Are the words of our Lord (John 20:17): "I ascend +to My Father and to your Father." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: That which is best and possesses its good without +movement is God Himself, because He is utterly unchangeable, +according to Malachi 3:6: "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 +(Q. 2, A. 7; Q. 16, AA. 8, 10; Q. 20, A. 1), it is not unbecoming +if some movement be attributed to it. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Ps. 15:11: "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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Matt. 28:20): "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. + +First of all, in order to increase our faith, which is of things +unseen. Hence our Lord said (John 26) 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.'" + +Secondly, to uplift our hope: hence He says (John 14:3): "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 Matt. 24:28. +Hence it is written likewise (Mic. 2:13): "He shall go up that shall +open the way before them." + +Thirdly, in order to direct the fervor of our charity to heavenly +things. Hence the Apostle says (Col. 3:1, 2): "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 (Matt. 6:21): "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 (John 16:7): "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 the Holy Ghost, but +both Father and Son were present with them spiritually." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Acts +1:3), 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." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ's Ascension into Heaven Belonged to Him According to +His Divine Nature? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Ascension into heaven +belonged to Him according to His Divine Nature. For, it is written +(Ps. 46:6): "God is ascended with jubilee": and (Deut. 33:26): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it belongs to the same person to ascend into heaven +as to descend from heaven, according to John 3:13: "No man hath +ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven": and Eph. +4:10: "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. + +Obj. 3: 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 John +14:28. Therefore it seems that Christ ascended as God. + +_On the contrary,_ on Eph. 4:10: "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. Ps. 83:6), 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +And there is another descent whereby He descended "into the lower +regions of the earth," as is written Eph. 4:9; and this is local +descent: hence this belongs to Christ according to the condition of +human nature. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 58, A. 3). +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Ascended by His Own Power? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not ascend by His own +power, because it is written (Mk. 16:19) that "the Lord Jesus, after +He had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven"; and (Acts 1:9) 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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 Acts 1:9. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not +ascend to heaven by His own power. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 63:1): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 First Part (Q. 76, A. 7), and shall deal with it more fully in +treating of the general resurrection (Suppl., Q. 84, A. 1). + +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. 1). 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Ascended Above All the Heavens? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not ascend above all the +heavens, for it is written (Ps. 10:5): "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. + +Obj. 2: [*This objection with its solution is omitted in the Leonine +edition as not being in the original manuscript.] + +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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +Obj. 4: Further, it is narrated (Acts 1:9) 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. + +Obj. 5: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 4:10): "He ascended above all +the heavens that He might fill all things." + +_I answer that,_ 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 Eph. 4:8: "Ascending on high," the gloss says: "in place and +dignity." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Ps. 8:2: "For Thy +magnificence is elevated above the heavens, O God!" + +Reply Obj. 2: [*Omitted in Leonine edition; see Obj.[2]] + +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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. + +Reply Obj. 4: 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 (Ex. +40:32; Num. 9:15). + +Reply Obj. 5: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 5] + +Whether Christ's Body Ascended Above Every Spiritual Creature? + +Objection 1: 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 First Part (Q. 8, A. 2, ad 1, 2; +Q. 52, A. 1). Therefore it seems that Christ's body cannot be said to +have ascended above every spiritual creature. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 1:21): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: This argument holds good of Christ's body according to +the conditions of its corporeal nature, but not according to its +formality of union. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 6] + +Whether Christ's Ascension Is the Cause of Our Salvation? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 (Heb. 10:19): "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the salvation which Christ bestows is an everlasting +one, according to Isa. 51:6: "My salvation shall be for ever." But +Christ did not ascend into heaven to remain there eternally; for it +is written (Acts 1:11): "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 +(Acts 9). Consequently, it seems that Christ's Ascension is not the +cause of our salvation. + +_On the contrary,_ He Himself said (John 16:7): "It is expedient to +you that I go"; i.e. that I should leave you and ascend into heaven. + +_I answer that,_ Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation in +two ways: first of all, on our part; secondly, on His. + +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 (2 Cor. +5:16): "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." + +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 (John 14:2): "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 (John 14:3): +"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 Ps. 67:19 +(Cf. Eph. 4:8): "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. + +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 Heb. +7:25. 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 Eph. 4:10: "He ascended above all +the heavens, that He might fill all things," that is, "with His +gifts," according to the gloss. + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation by way +not of merit, but of efficiency, as was stated above regarding His +Resurrection (Q. 56, A. 1, ad 3, 4). + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 Acts 9. 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 1 Cor. 14:8, 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 58 + +OF CHRIST'S SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider Christ's sitting at the right hand of the +Father, concerning which there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father? + +(2) Whether this belongs to Him according to the Divine Nature? + +(3) Whether it belongs to Him according to His human nature? + +(4) Whether it is something proper to Christ? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 58, Art. 1] + +Whether It Is Fitting That Christ Should Sit at the Right Hand of God +the Father? + +Objection 1: 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 John 4:24. Therefore it seems that +Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, sitting and standing savor of opposition. But +Stephen (Acts 7:55) 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ The word "sitting" may have a twofold meaning; +namely, "abiding" as in Luke 24:49: "Sit [Douay: 'Stay'] you in the +city": and royal or judiciary "power," as in Prov. 20:8: "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 Ps. 15:11: "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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 58, Art. 2] + +Whether It Belongs to Christ As God to Sit at the Right Hand of the +Father? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As may be gathered from what has been said (A. 1) +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. 1) "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 First Part (Q. 42, AA. 3, 4). + +Reply Obj. 1: The Son of God is called the Father's "right hand" by +appropriation, just as He is called the "Power" of the Father (1 Cor. +1:24). But "right hand of the Father," in its three meanings given +above, is something common to the three Persons. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 58, Art. 3] + +Whether It Belongs to Christ As Man to Sit at the Right Hand of the +Father? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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 1 Cor. 15:28. Therefore it seems that Christ as man does not sit +at the Father's right hand. + +Obj. 3: Further, on Rom. 8:34: "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 Heb. 1:3: "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 (John 14:28): "The Father is greater than I." +Consequently, it appears unseemly for Christ as man to sit on the +Father's right hand. + +_On the contrary,_ 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." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), 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. + +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 (Q. 25, A. 1). + +Reply Obj. 1: 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." + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 58, Art. 4] + +Whether It Is Proper to Christ to Sit at the Right Hand of the Father? + +Objection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to sit at +the right hand of the Father, because the Apostle says (Eph. 2:4, 6): +"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" (Heb. 1:3). + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ Himself says (Apoc. 3:21): "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. + +Obj. 4: Further, the Lord says (Matt. 20:23): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 1:13): "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. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 Rom. 8:11: "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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 (Matt. 25:33): "He +shall set the sheep on His right hand." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 +Matt. 19:28: "You also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the +twelve tribes of Israel." + +Reply Obj. 4: 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. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 59 + +OF CHRIST'S JUDICIARY POWER +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider Christ's judiciary power. Under this head +there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether judiciary power is to be attributed to Christ? + +(2) Whether it belongs to Him as man? + +(3) Whether He acquired it by merits? + +(4) Whether His judiciary power is universal with regard to all men? + +(5) Whether besides the judgment that takes place now in time, we are +to expect Him in the future general judgment? + +(6) Whether His judiciary power extends likewise to the angels? + +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 Suppl., QQ. 88, seqq.]. For the present it will be enough to +touch on those points that concern Christ's dignity. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 1] + +Whether Judiciary Power Is to Be Specially Attributed to Christ? + +Objection 1: 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 (Rom. 14:4): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Dan. 7:9): "The Ancient of days sat"; +and further on (Dan. 7:10), "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. + +Obj. 3: 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 (John 16:8): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is said of Christ (Acts 10:42): "It is He who +was appointed by God, to be judge of the living end of the dead." + +_I answer that,_ Three things are required for passing judgment: +first, the power of coercing subjects; hence it is written (Ecclus. +7:6): "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 Prov. 3:12: "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 Ecclus. +10:1: "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. + +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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 2] + +Whether Judiciary Power Belongs to Christ As Man? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: 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. + +Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to Christ's judiciary power to judge +secrets of hearts, according to 1 Cor. 4:5: "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 Jer. 17:9, 10: "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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is said (John 5:27): "He hath given Him power +to do judgment, because He is the Son of man." + +_I answer that,_ 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." + +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 (Deut. 1:16): "Judge that which is just"; and further on +(Deut. 1:17): "Because it is the judgment of God," that is to say, it +is by His authority that you judge. Now it was said before (Q. 8, AA. +1, 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. + +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 (Heb. 4:15) 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." + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 1 Cor. 2:15: "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 John 1:14: "We saw +Him . . . full of grace and truth." And according to this it belongs +principally to the soul of Christ to judge all things. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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 Heb. 2:10: "Who had brought +many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by +His Passion." + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Q. 10, A. 2), when dealing with the +knowledge of Christ. Hence it is written (Rom. 2:16): "In the day +when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Acquired His Judiciary Power by His Merits? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Christ did not acquire His judiciary +power by His merits. For judiciary power flows from the royal +dignity: according to Prov. 20:8: "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 (Luke 1:32): "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. + +Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 2), 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 John 1:14, 16: "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. + +Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:15): "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 +Rom. 11:6. Therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs neither to +Christ nor to others from any merits, but from grace alone. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Job 36:17): "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." + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Apoc. +3:21): "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 Ps. 9:5: "Thou hast sat on the throne, who +judgest justice." + +Reply Obj. 1: This argument holds good of judiciary power according +as it is due to Christ by reason of the union with the Word of God. + +Reply Obj. 2: This argument is based on the ground of His grace as +Head. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 4] + +Whether Judiciary Power Belongs to Christ with Respect to All Human +Affairs? + +Objection 1: It would seem that judiciary power concerning all human +affairs does not belong to Christ. For as we read in Luke 12:13, 14, +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. + +Obj. 2: Further, no one exercises judgment except over his own +subjects. But, according to Heb. 2:8, "we see not as yet all things +subject to" Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ has not judgment +over all human affairs. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is said (John 5:22): "The Father hath given all +judgment to the Son." + +_I answer that,_ 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. + +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 1 Cor. 2:15, 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. + +Secondly, the same appears from the merit of His death; because, +according to Rom. 14:9: "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 +(Rom. 14:10): "We shall all stand before the judgment seat of +Christ": and (Dan. 7:14) it is written that "He gave Him power, and +glory, and a kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall +serve Him." + +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 Matt. 25:31, 40. Consequently, +it is manifest that all human affairs are included in Christ's +judiciary power. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (John 18:36): "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." + +Reply Obj. 2: All things are subject to Christ in respect of that +power, which He received from the Father, over all things, according +to Matt. 28:18: "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 5] + +Whether After the Judgment That Takes Place in the Present Time, +There Remains Yet Another General Judgment? + +Objection 1: 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 (Luke +23:43): "This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise": and (Luke +16:22) it is said that "the rich man died and was buried in hell." +Therefore it is useless to look forward to a final Judgment. + +Obj. 2: Further, according to another (the Septuagint) version of +Nahum 1:9, "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. + +Obj. 3: 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. + +_On the contrary,_ It is said in John 12:48: "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 (Heb. 9:27): "It is appointed unto men +once to die, and after this the Judgment." + +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 Ecclus. 30:4: +"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. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 1: 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 (2 Cor. 5:8), 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 John +17:3. Hence it is manifest that the souls separated from bodies are +in eternal life. + +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. + +Reply Obj. 2: "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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 6] + +Whether Christ's Judiciary Power Extends to the Angels? + +Objection 1: 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. + +Obj. 2: Further, the same person cannot be both judge and judged. But +the angels will come to judge with Christ, according to Matt. 25:31: +"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. + +Obj. 3: 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 +(Job 34:13): "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. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 6:3): "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. + +_I answer that,_ 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 Heb. 2:16: "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 Phil. 2:10: "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 (Heb. 1:14): "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 (Matt. 4:11), and +from whom the devils besought that they might be sent into the swine, +according to Matt. 8:31. Secondly, as to other accidental rewards of +the good angels, such as the joy which they have at the salvation of +men, according to Luke 15:10: "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 (Mk. 1:24) 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. + +Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers judgment as to the essential +reward and chief punishment. + +Reply Obj. 2: 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. + +Reply Obj. 3: 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 (Heb. +2:5): "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. + +Let what has been said of the Mystery of His Incarnation suffice for +the present. +_______________________ + +TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENTS (QQ. 60-90) +_______________________ + +QUESTION 60 + +WHAT IS A SACRAMENT? +(In Eight Articles) + +After considering those things that concern the mystery of the +incarnate Word, we must consider the sacraments of the Church which +derive their efficacy from the Word incarnate Himself. First we shall +consider the sacraments in general; secondly, we shall consider +specially each sacrament. + +Concerning the first our consideration will be fivefold: (1) What is +a sacrament? (2) Of the necessity of the sacraments; (3) of the +effects of the sacraments; (4) Of their cause; (5) Of their number. + +Under the first heading there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign? + +(2) Whether every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament? + +(3) Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only, or of several? + +(4) Whether a sacrament is a sign that is something sensible? + +(5) Whether some determinate sensible thing is required for a +sacrament? + +(6) Whether signification expressed by words is necessary for a +sacrament? + +(7) Whether determinate words are required? + +(8) Whether anything may be added to or subtracted from these words? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 1] + +Whether a Sacrament Is a Kind of Sign? + +Objection 1: It seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign. For +sacrament appears to be derived from "sacring" (_sacrando_); just as +medicament, from _medicando_ (healing). But this seems to be of the +nature of a cause rather than of a sign. Therefore a sacrament is a +kind of cause rather than a kind of sign. + +Obj. 2: Further, sacrament seems to signify something hidden, +according to Tob. 12:7: "It is good to hide the secret +(_sacramentum_) of a king"; and Eph. 3:9: "What is the dispensation +of the mystery (_sacramenti_) which hath been hidden from eternity in +God." But that which is hidden, seems foreign to the nature of a +sign; for "a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind, +besides the species which it impresses on the senses," as Augustine +explains (De Doctr. Christ. ii). Therefore it seems that a sacrament +is not a kind of sign. + +Obj. 3: Further, an oath is sometimes called a sacrament: for it is +written in the Decretals (Caus. xxii, qu. 5): "Children who have not +attained the use of reason must not be obliged to swear: and whoever +has foresworn himself once, must no more be a witness, nor be allowed +to take a sacrament," i.e. an oath. But an oath is not a kind of +sign, therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): "The visible +sacrifice is the sacrament, i.e. the sacred sign, of the invisible +sacrifice." + +_I answer that,_ All things that are ordained to one, even in +different ways, can be denominated from it: thus, from health which +is in an animal, not only is the animal said to be healthy through +being the subject of health: but medicine also is said to be healthy +through producing health; diet through preserving it; and urine, +through being a sign of health. Consequently, a thing may be called a +"sacrament," either from having a certain hidden sanctity, and in +this sense a sacrament is a "sacred secret"; or from having some +relationship to this sanctity, which relationship may be that of a +cause, or of a sign or of any other relation. But now we are speaking +of sacraments in a special sense, as implying the habitude of sign: +and in this way a sacrament is a kind of sign. + +Reply Obj. 1: Because medicine is an efficient cause of health, +consequently whatever things are denominated from medicine are to be +referred to some first active cause: so that a medicament implies a +certain causality. But sanctity from which a sacrament is +denominated, is not there taken as an efficient cause, but rather as +a formal or a final cause. Therefore it does not follow that a +sacrament need always imply causality. + +Reply Obj. 2: This argument considers sacrament in the sense of a +"sacred secret." Now not only God's but also the king's, secret, is +said to be sacred and to be a sacrament: because according to the +ancients, whatever it was unlawful to lay violent hands on was said +to be holy or sacrosanct, such as the city walls, and persons of high +rank. Consequently those secrets, whether Divine or human, which it +is unlawful to violate by making them known to anybody whatever, are +called "sacred secrets or sacraments." + +Reply Obj. 3: Even an oath has a certain relation to sacred things, +in so far as it consists in calling a sacred thing to witness. And in +this sense it is called a sacrament: not in the sense in which we +speak of sacraments now; the word "sacrament" being thus used not +equivocally but analogically, i.e. by reason of a different relation +to the one thing, viz. something sacred. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 2] + +Whether Every Sign of a Holy Thing Is a Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a +sacrament. For all sensible creatures are signs of sacred things; +according to Rom. 1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen +being understood by the things that are made." And yet all sensible +things cannot be called sacraments. Therefore not every sign of a +sacred thing is a sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, whatever was done under the Old Law was a figure of +Christ Who is the "Holy of Holies" (Dan. 9:24), according to 1 Cor. +10:11: "All (these) things happened to them in figure"; and Col. +2:17: "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is +Christ's." And yet not all that was done by the Fathers of the Old +Testament, not even all the ceremonies of the Law, were sacraments, +but only in certain special cases, as stated in the Second Part +(I-II, Q. 101, A. 4). Therefore it seems that not every sign of a +sacred thing is a sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, even in the New Testament many things are done in +sign of some sacred thing; yet they are not called sacraments; such +as sprinkling with holy water, the consecration of an altar, and such +like. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ A definition is convertible with the thing +defined. Now some define a sacrament as being "the sign of a sacred +thing"; moreover, this is clear from the passage quoted above (A. 1) +from Augustine. Therefore it seems that every sign of a sacred thing +is a sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ Signs are given to men, to whom it is proper to +discover the unknown by means of the known. Consequently a sacrament +properly so called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing +pertaining to man; so that properly speaking a sacrament, as +considered by us now, is defined as being the "sign of a holy thing +so far as it makes men holy." + +Reply Obj. 1: Sensible creatures signify something holy, viz. Divine +wisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are holy in themselves; but not +inasmuch as we are made holy by them. Therefore they cannot be called +sacraments as we understand sacraments now. + +Reply Obj. 2: Some things pertaining to the Old Testament signified +the holiness of Christ considered as holy in Himself. Others +signified His holiness considered as the cause of our holiness; thus +the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb signified Christ's Sacrifice +whereby we are made holy: and such like are properly styled +sacraments of the Old Law. + +Reply Obj. 3: Names are given to things considered in reference to +their end and state of completeness. Now a disposition is not an end, +whereas perfection is. Consequently things that signify disposition +to holiness are not called sacraments, and with regard to these the +objection is verified: only those are called sacraments which signify +the perfection of holiness in man. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 3] + +Whether a Sacrament Is a Sign of One Thing Only? + +Objection 1: It seems that a sacrament is a sign of one thing only. +For that which signifies many things is an ambiguous sign, and +consequently occasions deception: this is clearly seen in equivocal +words. But all deception should be removed from the Christian +religion, according to Col. 2:8: "Beware lest any man cheat you by +philosophy and vain deceit." Therefore it seems that a sacrament is +not a sign of several things. + +Obj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 2), a sacrament signifies a holy +thing in so far as it makes man holy. But there is only one cause of +man's holiness, viz. the blood of Christ; according to Heb. 13:12: +"Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered +without the gate." Therefore it seems that a sacrament does not +signify several things. + +Obj. 3: Further, it has been said above (A. 2, ad 3) that a sacrament +signifies properly the very end of sanctification. Now the end of +sanctification is eternal life, according to Rom. 6:22: "You have +your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting." +Therefore it seems that the sacraments signify one thing only, viz. +eternal life. + +_On the contrary,_ In the Sacrament of the Altar, two things are +signified, viz. Christ's true body, and Christ's mystical body; as +Augustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper.). + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2) a sacrament properly speaking +is that which is ordained to signify our sanctification. In which +three things may be considered; viz. the very cause of our +sanctification, which is Christ's passion; the form of our +sanctification, which is grace and the virtues; and the ultimate end +of our sanctification, which is eternal life. And all these are +signified by the sacraments. Consequently a sacrament is a sign that +is both a reminder of the past, i.e. the passion of Christ; and an +indication of that which is effected in us by Christ's passion, i.e. +grace; and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory. + +Reply Obj. 1: Then is a sign ambiguous and the occasion of deception, +when it signifies many things not ordained to one another. But when +it signifies many things inasmuch as, through being mutually +ordained, they form one thing, then the sign is not ambiguous but +certain: thus this word "man" signifies the soul and body inasmuch as +together they form the human nature. In this way a sacrament +signifies the three things aforesaid, inasmuch as by being in a +certain order they are one thing. + +Reply Obj. 2: Since a sacrament signifies that which sanctifies, it +must needs signify the effect, which is implied in the sanctifying +cause as such. + +Reply Obj. 3: It is enough for a sacrament that it signify that +perfection which consists in the form, nor is it necessary that it +should signify only that perfection which is the end. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 4] + +Whether a Sacrament Is Always Something Sensible? + +Objection 1: It seems that a sacrament is not always something +sensible. Because, according to the Philosopher (Prior. Anal. ii), +every effect is a sign of its cause. But just as there are some +sensible effects, so are there some intelligible effects; thus +science is the effect of a demonstration. Therefore not every sign is +sensible. Now all that is required for a sacrament is something that +is a sign of some sacred thing, inasmuch as thereby man is +sanctified, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore something sensible is +not required for a sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, sacraments belong to the kingdom of God and the +Divine worship. But sensible things do not seem to belong to the +Divine worship: for we are told (John 4:24) that "God is a spirit; +and they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth"; and +(Rom. 14:17) that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink." +Therefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments. + +Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii) that "sensible +things are goods of least account, since without them man can live +aright." But the sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, as we +shall show farther on (Q. 61, A. 1): so that man cannot live aright +without them. Therefore sensible things are not required for the +sacraments. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The +word is added to the element and this becomes a sacrament"; and he is +speaking there of water which is a sensible element. Therefore +sensible things are required for the sacraments. + +_I answer that,_ Divine wisdom provides for each thing according to +its mode; hence it is written (Wis. 8:1) that "she . . . ordereth all +things sweetly": wherefore also we are told (Matt. 25:15) that she +"gave to everyone according to his proper ability." Now it is part of +man's nature to acquire knowledge of the intelligible from the +sensible. But a sign is that by means of which one attains to the +knowledge of something else. Consequently, since the sacred things +which are signified by the sacraments, are the spiritual and +intelligible goods by means of which man is sanctified, it follows +that the sacramental signs consist in sensible things: just as in the +Divine Scriptures spiritual things are set before us under the guise +of things sensible. And hence it is that sensible things are required +for the sacraments; as Dionysius also proves in his book on the +heavenly hierarchy (Coel. Hier. i). + +Reply Obj. 1: The name and definition of a thing is taken principally +from that which belongs to a thing primarily and essentially: and not +from that which belongs to it through something else. Now a sensible +effect being the primary and direct object of man's knowledge (since +all our knowledge springs from the senses) by its very nature leads +to the knowledge of something else: whereas intelligible effects are +not such as to be able to lead us to the knowledge of something else, +except in so far as they are manifested by some other thing, i.e. by +certain sensibles. It is for this reason that the name sign is given +primarily and principally to things which are offered to the senses; +hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that a sign "is that +which conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which +it impresses on the senses." But intelligible effects do not partake +of the nature of a sign except in so far as they are pointed out by +certain signs. And in this way, too, certain things which are not +sensible are termed sacraments as it were, in so far as they are +signified by certain sensible things, of which we shall treat further +on (Q. 63, A. 1, ad 2; A. 3, ad 2; Q. 73, A. 6; Q. 74, A. 1, ad 3). + +Reply Obj. 2: Sensible things considered in their own nature do not +belong to the worship or kingdom of God: but considered only as signs +of spiritual things in which the kingdom of God consists. + +Reply Obj. 3: Augustine speaks there of sensible things, considered +in their nature; but not as employed to signify spiritual things, +which are the highest goods. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 5] + +Whether Determinate Things Are Required for a Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that determinate things are not required for a +sacrament. For sensible things are required in sacraments for the +purpose of signification, as stated above (A. 4). But nothing hinders +the same thing being signified by divers sensible things: thus in +Holy Scripture God is signified metaphorically, sometimes by a stone +(2 Kings 22:2; Zech. 3:9; 1 Cor. 10:4; Apoc. 4:3); sometimes by a +lion (Isa. 31:4; Apoc. 5:5); sometimes by the sun (Isa. 60:19, 20; +Mal. 4:2), or by something similar. Therefore it seems that divers +things can be suitable to the same sacrament. Therefore determinate +things are not required for the sacraments. + +Obj. 2: Further, the health of the soul is more necessary than that +of the body. But in bodily medicines, which are ordained to the +health of the body, one thing can be substituted for another which +happens to be wanting. Therefore much more in the sacraments, which +are spiritual remedies ordained to the health of the soul, can one +thing be substituted for another when this happens to be lacking. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is not fitting that the salvation of men be +restricted by the Divine Law: still less by the Law of Christ, Who +came to save all. But in the state of the Law of nature determinate +things were not required in the sacraments, but were put to that use +through a vow, as appears from Gen. 28, where Jacob vowed that he +would offer to God tithes and peace-offerings. Therefore it seems +that man should not have been restricted, especially under the New +Law, to the use of any determinate thing in the sacraments. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born +again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom +of God." + +_I answer that,_ In the use of the sacraments two things may be +considered, namely, the worship of God, and the sanctification of +man: the former of which pertains to man as referred to God, and the +latter pertains to God in reference to man. Now it is not for anyone +to determine that which is in the power of another, but only that +which is in his own power. Since, therefore, the sanctification of +man is in the power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to +decide what things should be used for his sanctification, but this +should be determined by Divine institution. Therefore in the +sacraments of the New Law, by which man is sanctified according to 1 +Cor. 6:11, "You are washed, you are sanctified," we must use those +things which are determined by Divine institution. + +Reply Obj. 1: Though the same thing can be signified by divers signs, +yet to determine which sign must be used belongs to the signifier. +Now it is God Who signifies spiritual things to us by means of the +sensible things in the sacraments, and of similitudes in the +Scriptures. And consequently, just as the Holy Ghost decides by what +similitudes spiritual things are to be signified in certain passages +of Scripture, so also must it be determined by Divine institution +what things are to be employed for the purpose of signification in +this or that sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: Sensible things are endowed with natural powers +conducive to the health of the body: and therefore if two of them +have the same virtue, it matters not which we use. Yet they are +ordained unto sanctification not through any power that they possess +naturally, but only in virtue of the Divine institution. And +therefore it was necessary that God should determine the sensible +things to be employed in the sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), diverse +sacraments suit different times; just as different times are +signified by different parts of the verb, viz. present, past, and +future. Consequently, just as under the state of the Law of nature +man was moved by inward instinct and without any outward law, to +worship God, so also the sensible things to be employed in the +worship of God were determined by inward instinct. But later on it +became necessary for a law to be given (to man) from without: both +because the Law of nature had become obscured by man's sins; and in +order to signify more expressly the grace of Christ, by which the +human race is sanctified. And hence the need for those things to be +determinate, of which men have to make use in the sacraments. Nor is +the way of salvation narrowed thereby: because the things which need +to be used in the sacraments, are either in everyone's possession or +can be had with little trouble. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 5] + +Whether Words Are Required for the Signification of the Sacraments? + +Objection 1: It seems that words are not required for the +signification of the sacraments. For Augustine says (Contra Faust. +xix): "What else is a corporeal sacrament but a kind of visible +word?" Wherefore to add words to the sensible things in the +sacraments seems to be the same as to add words to words. But this is +superfluous. Therefore words are not required besides the sensible +things in the sacraments. + +Obj. 2: Further, a sacrament is some one thing, but it does not seem +possible to make one thing of those that belong to different genera. +Since, therefore, sensible things and words are of different genera, +for sensible things are the product of nature, but words, of reason; +it seems that in the sacraments, words are not required besides +sensible things. + +Obj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the New Law succeed those of the +Old Law: since "the former were instituted when the latter were +abolished," as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). But no form of +words was required in the sacraments of the Old Law. Therefore +neither is it required in those of the New Law. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 5:25, 26): "Christ loved +the Church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify +it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." And +Augustine says (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the +element, and this becomes a sacrament." + +_I answer that,_ The sacraments, as stated above (AA. 2, 3), are +employed as signs for man's sanctification. Consequently they can be +considered in three ways: and in each way it is fitting for words to +be added to the sensible signs. For in the first place they can be +considered in regard to the cause of sanctification, which is the +Word incarnate: to Whom the sacraments have a certain conformity, in +that the word is joined to the sensible sign, just as in the mystery +of the Incarnation the Word of God is united to sensible flesh. + +Secondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is +sanctified, and who is composed of soul and body: to whom the +sacramental remedy is adjusted, since it touches the body through the +sensible element, and the soul through faith in the words. Hence +Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) on John 15:3, "Now you are +clean by reason of the word," etc.: "Whence hath water this so great +virtue, to touch the body and wash the heart, but by the word doing +it, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed?" + +Thirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental +signification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that "words +are the principal signs used by men"; because words can be formed in +various ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts, +so that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness +by means of words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of +sacramental signification it was necessary to determine the +signification of the sensible things by means of certain words. For +water may signify both a cleansing by reason of its humidity, and +refreshment by reason of its being cool: but when we say, "I baptize +thee," it is clear that we use water in baptism in order to signify a +spiritual cleansing. + +Reply Obj. 1: The sensible elements of the sacraments are called +words by way of a certain likeness, in so far as they partake of a +certain significative power, which resides principally in the very +words, as stated above. Consequently it is not a superfluous +repetition to add words to the visible element in the sacraments; +because one determines the other, as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 2: Although words and other sensible things are not in the +same genus, considered in their natures, yet have they something in +common as to the thing signified by them: which is more perfectly +done in words than in other things. Wherefore in the sacraments, +words and things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of +one thing, in so far as the signification of things is completed by +means of words, as above stated. And under words are comprised also +sensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like: +because they have a like signification with the things. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), the sacraments +of things present should be different from sacraments of things to +come. Now the sacraments of the Old Law foretold the coming of +Christ. Consequently they did not signify Christ so clearly as the +sacraments of the New Law, which flow from Christ Himself, and have a +certain likeness to Him, as stated above. Nevertheless in the Old +Law, certain words were used in things pertaining to the worship of +God, both by the priests, who were the ministers of those sacraments, +according to Num. 6:23, 24: "Thus shall you bless the children of +Israel, and you shall say to them: The Lord bless thee," etc.; and by +those who made use of those sacraments, according to Deut. 26:3: "I +profess this day before the Lord thy God," etc. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 7] + +Whether Determinate Words Are Required in the Sacraments? + +Objection 1: It seems that determinate words are not required in the +sacraments. For as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i), "words are +not the same for all." But salvation, which is sought through the +sacraments, is the same for all. Therefore determinate words are not +required in the sacraments. + +Obj. 2: Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as +they are the principal means of signification, as stated above (A. +6). But it happens that various words mean the same. Therefore +determinate words are not required in the sacraments. + +Obj. 3: Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But some +corrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible that +the sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men and +stammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently do so +invalidly. Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required +in the sacraments. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord used determinate words in consecrating +the sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said (Matt. 26:26): "This is +My Body." Likewise He commanded His disciples to baptize under a form +of determinate words, saying (Matt. 28:19): "Go ye and teach all +nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, +and of the Holy Ghost." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 6, ad 2), in the sacraments the +words are as the form, and sensible things are as the matter. Now in +all things composed of matter and form, the determining principle is +on the part of the form, which is as it were the end and terminus of +the matter. Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a +determinate form is prior to the need of determinate matter: for +determinate matter is needed that it may be adapted to the +determinate form. Since, therefore, in the sacraments determinate +sensible things are required, which are as the sacramental matter, +much more is there need in them of a determinate form of words. + +Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.), the word +operates in the sacraments "not because it is spoken," i.e. not by +the outward sound of the voice, "but because it is believed" in +accordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith. And +this sense is indeed the same for all, though the same words as to +their sound be not used by all. Consequently no matter in what +language this sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete. + +Reply Obj. 2: Although it happens in every language that various +words signify the same thing, yet one of those words is that which +those who speak that language use principally and more commonly to +signify that particular thing: and this is the word which should be +used for the sacramental signification. So also among sensible +things, that one is used for the sacramental signification which is +most commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect +is signified: thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily +cleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signified: and +therefore water is employed as the matter of baptism. + +Reply Obj. 3: If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental +words--does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the +Church intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if +he do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far +mispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament +seems to be defective. This would be the case especially if the +mispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one +were to say "in nomine matris" instead of "in nomine Patris." If, +however, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this +mispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case +principally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if +one were to say "patrias et filias." For although the words thus +mispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an +accommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And +so, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the +same. + +What has been said about the various mispronunciations of words, +either at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as with us a +change at the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a +change at the end generally speaking does not effect such a change: +whereas with the Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of +words in the conjugation of verbs. + +Nevertheless the princip[al] point to observe is the extent of the +corruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be +so little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great +that it destroys it. But it is easier for the one to happen on the +part of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 8] + +Whether It Is Lawful to Add Anything to the Words in Which the +Sacramental Form Consists? + +Objection 1: It seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the +words in which the sacramental form consists. For these sacramental +words are not of less importance than are the words of Holy +Scripture. But it is not lawful to add anything to, or to take +anything from, the words of Holy Scripture: for it is written (Deut. +4:2): "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither +shall you take away from it"; and (Apoc. 22:18, 19): "I testify to +everyone that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: if any +man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues +written in this book. And if any man shall take away . . . God shall +take away his part out of the book of life." Therefore it seems that +neither is it lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from, +the sacramental forms. + +Obj. 2: Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form, as +stated above (A. 6, ad 2; A. 7). But any addition or subtraction in +forms changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii). +Therefore it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted from a +sacramental form, it will not be the same sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, just as the sacramental form demands a certain +number of words, so does it require that these words should be +pronounced in a certain order and without interruption. If therefore, +the sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction of +words, in like manner it seems that neither is it, if the words be +pronounced in a different order or with interruptions. + +_On the contrary,_ Certain words are inserted by some in the +sacramental forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins +baptize under this form: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, +and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; whereas the Greeks use the +following form: "The servant of God, N . . . is baptized in the name +of the Father," etc. Yet both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore +it is lawful to add something to, or to take something from, the +sacramental forms. + +_I answer that,_ With regard to all the variations that may occur in +the sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. One +is on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention +is essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on (Q. +64, A. 8). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to +perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it +seems that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems not to intend +to do what the Church does. + +The other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For +since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the +sense which they convey, as stated above (A. 7, ad 1), we must see +whether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the +words: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it +is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be +suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and +consequently the sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De +Spir. Sanct. ii): "If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to +omit one of the aforesaid names," i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy +Ghost, "his baptism will be invalid." But if that which is omitted be +not a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy +the essential sense of the words, nor consequently the validity of +the sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist--"For this is My +Body," the omission of the word "for" does not destroy the essential +sense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be +invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin from +negligence or contempt. + +Again, it is possible to add something that destroys the essential +sense of the words: for instance, if one were to say: "I baptize thee +in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is +less," with which form the Arians baptized: and consequently such an +addition makes the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as +not to destroy the essential sense, the sacrament is not rendered +invalid. Nor does it matter whether this addition be made at the +beginning, in the middle, or at the end: For instance, if one were to +say, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father Almighty, and of the +only Begotten Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete," the baptism +would be valid; and in like manner if one were to say, "I baptize +thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy +Ghost; and may the Blessed Virgin succour thee," the baptism would be +valid. + +Perhaps, however, if one were to say, "I baptize thee in the name of +the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed +Virgin Mary," the baptism would be void; because it is written (1 +Cor. 1:13): "Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the +name of Paul?" But this is true if the intention be to baptize in the +name of the Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which +baptism is consecrated: for such a sense would be contrary to faith, +and would therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the +addition, "and in the name of the Blessed Virgin" be understood, not +as if the name of the Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism, +but as intimating that her intercession may help the person baptized +to preserve the baptismal grace, then the sacrament is not rendered +void. + +Reply Obj. 1: It is not lawful to add anything to the words of Holy +Scripture as regards the sense; but many words are added by Doctors +by way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is not +lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were +a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount to +the same if anyone were to pretend that something is essential to a +sacramental form, which is not so. + +Reply Obj. 2: Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of the +sense signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression of +words which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does +not destroy the essence of the sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the +intention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is +destroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this +is not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that +his intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted. + +The same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because +if this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is +invalidated: as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow +a word. But if the order is so changed that the sense of the words +does not vary, the sacrament is not invalidated, according to the +Philosopher's dictum: "Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be +transposed" (Peri Herm. x). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 61 + +OF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning +which there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation? + +(2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin? + +(3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before +Christ? + +(4) Whether they were necessary after Christ's coming? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 61, Art. 1] + +Whether Sacraments Are Necessary for Man's Salvation? + +Objection 1: It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's +salvation. For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 4:8): "Bodily exercise is +profitable to little." But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily +exercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of +sensible things and words, as stated above (Q. 60, A. 6). Therefore +sacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle was told (2 Cor. 12:9): "My grace is +sufficient for thee." But it would not suffice if sacraments were +necessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for +man's salvation. + +Obj. 3: Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be +required for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient cause +of our salvation; for the Apostle says (Rom. 5:10): "If, when we were +enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much +more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life." Therefore +sacraments are not necessary for man's salvation. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "It is +impossible to keep men together in one religious denomination, +whether true or false, except they be united by means of visible +signs or sacraments." But it is necessary for salvation that men be +united together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore +sacraments are necessary for man's salvation. + +_I answer that,_ Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for +three reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature +which is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible +to things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine +providence to provide for each one according as its condition +requires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means +of salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are +called sacraments. + +The second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning +subjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the +healing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part +affected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should +provide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal +signs; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his +mind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply +itself to them. + +The third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct +his activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it +should be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily +actions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by +which he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices, +consisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful +action, consisting in sinful deeds. + +It follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments +man, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible +things; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to +corporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them: +and he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of +the sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 1: Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but +exercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but +to a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its +causality. + +Reply Obj. 2: God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation. +But God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence +it is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace. + +Reply Obj. 3: Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's +salvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also +necessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through +the power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say, +applied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Rom. +6:3): "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His +death." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 61, Art. 2] + +Whether Before Sin Sacraments Were Necessary to Man? + +Objection 1: It seems that before sin sacraments were necessary to +man. For, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2) man needs sacraments that he +may obtain grace. But man needed grace even in the state of +innocence, as we stated in the First Part (Q. 95, A. 4; cf. I-II, Q. +109, A. 2; Q. 114, A. 2). Therefore sacraments were necessary in that +state also. + +Obj. 2: Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the +conditions of human nature, as stated above (A. 1). But man's nature +is the same before and after sin. Therefore it seems that before sin, +man needed the sacraments. + +Obj. 3: Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to Eph. 5:32: +"This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church." +But matrimony was instituted before sin, as may be seen in Gen. 2. +Therefore sacraments were necessary to man before sin. + +_On the contrary,_ None but the sick need remedies, according to +Matt. 9:12: "They that are in health need not a physician." Now the +sacraments are spiritual remedies for the healing of wounds inflicted +by sin. Therefore they were not necessary before sin. + +_I answer that,_ Sacraments were not necessary in the state of +innocence. This can be proved from the rectitude of that state, in +which the higher (parts of man) ruled the lower, and nowise depended +on them: for just as the mind was subject to God, so were the lower +powers of the soul subject to the mind, and the body to the soul. And +it would be contrary to this order if the soul were perfected either +in knowledge or in grace, by anything corporeal; which happens in the +sacraments. Therefore in the state of innocence man needed no +sacraments, whether as remedies against sin or as means of perfecting +the soul. + +Reply Obj. 1: In the state of innocence man needed grace: not so that +he needed to obtain grace by means of sensible signs, but in a +spiritual and invisible manner. + +Reply Obj. 2: Man's nature is the same before and after sin, but the +state of his nature is not the same. Because after sin, the soul, +even in its higher part, needs to receive something from corporeal +things in order that it may be perfected: whereas man had no need of +this in that state. + +Reply Obj. 3: Matrimony was instituted in the state of innocence, not +as a sacrament, but as a function of nature. Consequently, however, +it foreshadowed something in relation to Christ and the Church: just +as everything else foreshadowed Christ. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 61, Art. 3] + +Whether There Should Have Been Sacraments After Sin, Before Christ? + +Objection 1: It seems that there should have been no sacraments after +sin, before Christ. For it has been stated that the Passion of Christ +is applied to men through the sacraments: so that Christ's Passion is +compared to the sacraments as cause to effect. But effect does not +precede cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments before +Christ's coming. + +Obj. 2: Further, sacraments should be suitable to the state of the +human race, as Augustine declares (Contra Faust. xix). But the state +of the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired +by Christ. Neither, therefore, should the sacraments have been +changed, so that besides the sacraments of the natural law, others +should be instituted in the law of Moses. + +Obj. 3: Further, the nearer a thing approaches to that which is +perfect, the more like it should it be. Now the perfection of human +salvation was accomplished by Christ; to Whom the sacraments of the +Old Law were nearer than those that preceded the Law. Therefore they +should have borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And +yet the contrary is the case, since it was foretold that the +priesthood of Christ would be "according to the order of +Melchisedech, and not . . . according to the order of Aaron" (Heb. +7:11). Therefore sacraments were unsuitably instituted before Christ. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that "the first +sacraments which the Law commanded to be solemnized and observed were +announcements of Christ's future coming." But it was necessary for +man's salvation that Christ's coming should be announced beforehand. +Therefore it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted +before Christ. + +_I answer that,_ Sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, in so +far as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is +made holy. Now after sin no man can be made holy save through Christ, +"Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His +blood, to the showing of His justice . . . that He Himself may be +just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ" +(Rom. 3:25, 26). Therefore before Christ's coming there was need for +some visible signs whereby man might testify to his faith in the +future coming of a Saviour. And these signs are called sacraments. It +is therefore clear that some sacraments were necessary before +Christ's coming. + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ's Passion is the final cause of the old +sacraments: for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now +the final cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the +agent. Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of +sacraments before Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 2: The state of the human race after sin and before Christ +can be considered from two points of view. First, from that of faith: +and thus it was always one and the same: since men were made +righteous, through faith in the future coming of Christ. Secondly, +according as sin was more or less intense, and knowledge concerning +Christ more or less explicit. For as time went on sin gained a +greater hold on man, so much so that it clouded man's reason, the +consequence being that the precepts of the natural law were +insufficient to make man live aright, and it became necessary to have +a written code of fixed laws, and together with these certain +sacraments of faith. For it was necessary, as time went on, that the +knowledge of faith should be more and more unfolded, since, as +Gregory says (Hom. vi in Ezech.): "With the advance of time there was +an advance in the knowledge of Divine things." Consequently in the +old Law there was also a need for certain fixed sacraments +significative of man's faith in the future coming of Christ: which +sacraments are compared to those that preceded the Law, as something +determinate to that which is indeterminate: inasmuch as before the +Law it was not laid down precisely of what sacraments men were to +make use: whereas this was prescribed by the Law; and this was +necessary both on account of the overclouding of the natural law, and +for the clearer signification of faith. + +Reply Obj. 3: The sacrament of Melchisedech which preceded the Law is +more like the Sacrament of the New Law in its matter: in so far as +"he offered bread and wine" (Gen. 14:18), just as bread and wine are +offered in the sacrifice of the New Testament. Nevertheless the +sacraments of the Mosaic Law are more like the thing signified by the +sacrament, i.e. the Passion of Christ: as clearly appears in the +Paschal Lamb and such like. The reason of this was lest, if the +sacraments retained the same appearance, it might seem to be the +continuation of one and the same sacrament, where there was no +interruption of time. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 61, Art. 4] + +Whether There Was Need for Any Sacraments After Christ Came? + +Objection 1: It seems that there was no need for any sacraments after +Christ came. For the figure should cease with the advent of the +truth. But "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Since, +therefore, the sacraments are signs or figures of the truth, it seems +that there was no need for any sacraments after Christ's Passion. + +Obj. 2: Further, the sacraments consist in certain elements, as +stated above (Q. 60, A. 4). But the Apostle says (Gal. 4:3, 4) that +"when we were children we were serving under the elements of the +world": but that now "when the fulness of time" has "come," we are no +longer children. Therefore it seems that we should not serve God +under the elements of this world, by making use of corporeal +sacraments. + +Obj. 3: Further, according to James 1:17 with God "there is no +change, nor shadow of alteration." But it seems to argue some change +in the Divine will that God should give man certain sacraments for +his sanctification now during the time of grace, and other sacraments +before Christ's coming. Therefore it seems that other sacraments +should not have been instituted after Christ. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the +sacraments of the Old Law "were abolished because they were +fulfilled; and others were instituted, fewer in number, but more +efficacious, more profitable, and of easier accomplishment." + +_I answer that,_ As the ancient Fathers were saved through faith in +Christ's future coming, so are we saved through faith in Christ's +past birth and Passion. Now the sacraments are signs in protestation +of the faith whereby man is justified; and signs should vary +according as they signify the future, the past, or the present; for +as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), "the same thing is variously +pronounced as to be done and as having been done: for instance the +word _passurus_ (going to suffer) differs from _passus_ (having +suffered)." Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, that signify +Christ in relation to the past, must needs differ from those of the +Old Law, that foreshadowed the future. + +Reply Obj. 1: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), the state of the New +Law. is between the state of the Old Law, whose figures are fulfilled +in the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will be openly +and perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be no sacraments. +But now, so long as we know "through a glass in a dark manner," (1 +Cor. 13:12) we need sensible signs in order to reach spiritual +things: and this is the province of the sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 2: The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law "weak +and needy elements" (Gal. 4:9) because they neither contained nor +caused grace. Hence the Apostle says that those who used these +sacraments served God "under the elements of this world": for the +very reason that these sacraments were nothing else than the elements +of this world. But our sacraments both contain and cause grace: +consequently the comparison does not hold. + +Reply Obj. 3: Just as the head of the house is not proved to have a +changeable mind, through issuing various commands to his household at +various seasons, ordering things differently in winter and summer; so +it does not follow that there is any change in God, because He +instituted sacraments of one kind after Christ's coming, and of +another kind at the time of the Law. Because the latter were suitable +as foreshadowing grace; the former as signifying the presence of +grace. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 62 + +OF THE SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS GRACE +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider the effect of the sacraments. First of their +principal effect, which is grace; secondly, of their secondary +effect, which is a character. Concerning the first there are six +points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace? + +(2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the +grace of the virtues and gifts? + +(3) Whether the sacraments contain grace? + +(4) Whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace? + +(5) Whether the sacraments derive this power from Christ's Passion? + +(6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 1] + +Whether the Sacraments Are the Cause of Grace? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments are not the cause of grace. +For it seems that the same thing is not both sign and cause: since +the nature of sign appears to be more in keeping with an effect. But +a sacrament is a sign of grace. Therefore it is not its cause. + +Obj. 2: Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing: +since "the agent is more excellent than the patient," as Augustine +says (Gen. ad lit. xii). But the subject of grace is the human mind, +which is something spiritual. Therefore the sacraments cannot cause +grace. + +Obj. 3: Further, what is proper to God should not be ascribed to a +creature. But it is proper to God to cause grace, according to Ps. +83:12: "The Lord will give grace and glory." Since, therefore, the +sacraments consist in certain words and created things, it seems that +they cannot cause grace. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) that the +baptismal water "touches the body and cleanses the heart." But the +heart is not cleansed save through grace. Therefore it causes grace: +and for like reason so do the other sacraments of the Church. + +_I answer that,_ We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of +the New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the +sacraments of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the +Apostle says of Baptism (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been +baptized in Christ have put on Christ." And man is made a member of +Christ through grace alone. + +Some, however, say that they are the cause of grace not by their own +operation, but in so far as God causes grace in the soul when the +sacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on +presenting a leaden coin, receives, by the king's command, a hundred +pounds: not as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own, +caused him to be given that sum of money; this being the effect of +the mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the +Lord's Supper: "Just as a canon is invested by means of a book, an +abbot by means of a crozier, a bishop by means of a ring, so by the +various sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred." But if we +examine the question properly, we shall see that according to the +above mode the sacraments are mere signs. For the leaden coin is +nothing but a sign of the king's command that this man should receive +money. In like manner the book is a sign of the conferring of a +canonry. Hence, according to this opinion the sacraments of the New +Law would be mere signs of grace; whereas we have it on the authority +of many saints that the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, +but also cause grace. + +We must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold, +principal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of +its form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its +own heat makes something hot. In this way none but God can cause +grace: since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of +the Divine Nature, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: "He hath given us most +great and precious promises; that we may be [Vulg.: 'you may be +made'] partakers of the Divine Nature." But the instrumental cause +works not by the power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it +is moved by the principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to +the instrument but to the principal agent: for instance, the couch is +not like the axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman's mind. +And it is thus that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for +they are instituted by God to be employed for the purpose of +conferring grace. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): "All +these things," viz. pertaining to the sacraments, "are done and pass +away, but the power," viz. of God, "which works by them, remains +ever." Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone +works: wherefore it is written (Titus 3:5): "He saved us by the laver +of regeneration." + +Reply Obj. 1: The principal cause cannot properly be called a sign of +its effect, even though the latter be hidden and the cause itself +sensible and manifest. But an instrumental cause, if manifest, can be +called a sign of a hidden effect, for this reason, that it is not +merely a cause but also in a measure an effect in so far as it is +moved by the principal agent. And in this sense the sacraments of the +New Law are both cause and signs. Hence, too, is it that, to use the +common expression, "they effect what they signify." From this it is +clear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions of a sacrament; being +ordained to something sacred, not only as a sign, but also as a cause. + +Reply Obj. 2: An instrument has a twofold action; one is +instrumental, in respect of which it works not by its own power but +by the power of the principal agent: the other is its proper action, +which belongs to it in respect of its proper form: thus it belongs to +an axe to cut asunder by reason of its sharpness, but to make a +couch, in so far as it is the instrument of an art. But it does not +accomplish the instrumental action save by exercising its proper +action: for it is by cutting that it makes a couch. In like manner +the corporeal sacraments by their operation, which they exercise on +the body that they touch, accomplish through the Divine institution +an instrumental operation on the soul; for example, the water of +baptism, in respect of its proper power, cleanses the body, and +thereby, inasmuch as it is the instrument of the Divine power, +cleanses the soul: since from soul and body one thing is made. And +thus it is that Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that it "touches +the body and cleanses the heart." + +Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers that which causes grace as +principal agent; for this belongs to God alone, as stated above. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 2] + +Whether Sacramental Grace Confers Anything in Addition to the Grace +of the Virtues and Gifts? + +Objection 1: It seems that sacramental grace confers nothing in +addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. For the grace of the +virtues and gifts perfects the soul sufficiently, both in its essence +and in its powers; as is clear from what was said in the Second Part +(I-II, Q. 110, AA. 3, 4). But grace is ordained to the perfecting of +the soul. Therefore sacramental grace cannot confer anything in +addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. + +Obj. 2: Further, the soul's defects are caused by sin. But all sins +are sufficiently removed by the grace of the virtues and gifts: +because there is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue. Since, +therefore, sacramental grace is ordained to the removal of the soul's +defects, it cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the +virtues and gifts. + +Obj. 3: Further, every addition or subtraction of form varies the +species (Metaph. viii). If, therefore, sacramental grace confers +anything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it +follows that it is called grace equivocally: and so we are none the +wiser when it is said that the sacraments cause grace. + +_On the contrary,_ If sacramental grace confers nothing in addition +to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it is useless to confer the +sacraments on those who have the virtues and gifts. But there is +nothing useless in God's works. Therefore it seems that sacramental +grace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and +gifts. + +_I answer that,_ As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 110, AA. 3, +4), grace, considered in itself, perfects the essence of the soul, in +so far as it is a certain participated likeness of the Divine Nature. +And just as the soul's powers flow from its essence, so from grace +there flow certain perfections into the powers of the soul, which are +called virtues and gifts, whereby the powers are perfected in +reference to their actions. Now the sacraments are ordained unto +certain special effects which are necessary in the Christian life: +thus Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual regeneration, by +which man dies to vice and becomes a member of Christ: which effect +is something special in addition to the actions of the soul's powers: +and the same holds true of the other sacraments. Consequently just as +the virtues and gifts confer, in addition to grace commonly so +called, a certain special perfection ordained to the powers' proper +actions, so does sacramental grace confer, over and above grace +commonly so called, and in addition to the virtues and gifts, a +certain Divine assistance in obtaining the end of the sacrament. It +is thus that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the +grace of the virtues and gifts. + +Reply Obj. 1: The grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the essence +and powers of the soul sufficiently as regards ordinary conduct: but +as regards certain special effects which are necessary in a Christian +life, sacramental grace is needed. + +Reply Obj. 2: Vices and sins are sufficiently removed by virtues and +gifts, as to present and future time, in so far as they prevent man +from sinning. But in regard to past sins, the acts of which are +transitory whereas their guilt remains, man is provided with a +special remedy in the sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 3: Sacramental grace is compared to grace commonly so +called, as species to genus. Wherefore just as it is not equivocal to +use the term "animal" in its generic sense, and as applied to a man, +so neither is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly so called and +of sacramental grace. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 3] + +Whether the Sacraments of the New Law Contain Grace? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not +contain grace. For it seems that what is contained is in the +container. But grace is not in the sacraments; neither as in a +subject, because the subject of grace is not a body but a spirit; nor +as in a vessel, for according to _Phys._ iv, "a vessel is a movable +place," and an accident cannot be in a place. Therefore it seems that +the sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace. + +Obj. 2: Further, sacraments are instituted as means whereby men may +obtain grace. But since grace is an accident it cannot pass from one +subject to another. Therefore it would be of no account if grace were +in the sacraments. + +Obj. 3: Further, a spiritual thing is not contained by a corporeal, +even if it be therein; for the soul is not contained by the body; +rather does it contain the body. Since, therefore, grace is something +spiritual, it seems that it cannot be contained in a corporeal +sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i) that "a +sacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an invisible grace." + +_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be in another in various ways; in +two of which grace is said to be in the sacraments. First, as in its +sign; for a sacrament is a sign of grace. Secondly, as in its cause; +for, as stated above (A. 1) a sacrament of the New Law is an +instrumental cause of grace. Wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the +New Law, not as to its specific likeness, as an effect in its +univocal cause; nor as to some proper and permanent form proportioned +to such an effect, as effects in non-univocal causes, for instance, +as things generated are in the sun; but as to a certain instrumental +power transient and incomplete in its natural being, as will be +explained later on (A. 4). + +Reply Obj. 1: Grace is said to be in a sacrament not as in its +subject; nor as in a vessel considered as a place, but understood as +the instrument of some work to be done, according to Ezech. 9:1: +"Everyone hath a destroying vessel [Douay: 'weapon'] in his hand." + +Reply Obj. 2: Although an accident does not pass from one subject to +another, nevertheless in a fashion it does pass from its cause into +its subject through the instrument; not so that it be in each of +these in the same way, but in each according to its respective nature. + +Reply Obj. 3: If a spiritual thing exist perfectly in something, it +contains it and is not contained by it. But, in a sacrament, grace +has a passing and incomplete mode of being: and consequently it is +not unfitting to say that the sacraments contain grace. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 4] + +Whether There Be in the Sacraments a Power of Causing Grace? + +Objection 1: It seems that there is not in the sacraments a power of +causing grace. For the power of causing grace is a spiritual power. +But a spiritual power cannot be in a body; neither as proper to it, +because power flows from a thing's essence and consequently cannot +transcend it; nor as derived from something else, because that which +is received into anything follows the mode of the recipient. +Therefore in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace. + +Obj. 2: Further, whatever exists is reducible to some kind of being +and some degree of good. But there is no assignable kind of being to +which such a power can belong; as anyone may see by running through +them all. Nor is it reducible to some degree of good; for neither is +it one of the goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary +for salvation: nor is it an intermediate good, such as are the powers +of the soul, which are natural powers; nor is it one of the greater +goods, for it is neither grace nor a virtue of the mind. Therefore it +seems that in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace. + +Obj. 3: Further, if there be such a power in the sacraments, its +presence there must be due to nothing less than a creative act of +God. But it seems unbecoming that so excellent a being created by God +should cease to exist as soon as the sacrament is complete. Therefore +it seems that in the sacraments there is no power for causing grace. + +Obj. 4: Further, the same thing cannot be in several. But several +things concur in the completion of a sacrament, namely, words and +things: while in one sacrament there can be but one power. Therefore +it seems that there is no power of causing grace in the sacraments. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "Whence +hath water so great power, that it touches the body and cleanses the +heart?" And Bede says that "Our Lord conferred a power of +regeneration on the waters by the contact of His most pure body." + +_I answer that,_ Those who hold that the sacraments do not cause +grace save by a certain coincidence, deny the sacraments any power +that is itself productive of the sacramental effect, and hold that +the Divine power assists the sacraments and produces their effect. +But if we hold that a sacrament is an instrumental cause of grace, we +must needs allow that there is in the sacraments a certain +instrumental power of bringing about the sacramental effects. Now +such power is proportionate to the instrument: and consequently it +stands in comparison to the complete and perfect power of anything, +as the instrument to the principal agent. For an instrument, as +stated above (A. 1), does not work save as moved by the principal +agent, which works of itself. And therefore the power of the +principal agent exists in nature completely and perfectly: whereas +the instrumental power has a being that passes from one thing into +another, and is incomplete; just as motion is an imperfect act +passing from agent to patient. + +Reply Obj. 1: A spiritual power cannot be in a corporeal subject, +after the manner of a permanent and complete power, as the argument +proves. But there is nothing to hinder an instrumental spiritual +power from being in a body; in so far as a body can be moved by a +particular spiritual substance so as to produce a particular +spiritual effect; thus in the very voice which is perceived by the +senses there is a certain spiritual power, inasmuch as it proceeds +from a mental concept, of arousing the mind of the hearer. It is in +this way that a spiritual power is in the sacraments, inasmuch as +they are ordained by God unto the production of a spiritual effect. + +Reply Obj. 2: Just as motion, through being an imperfect act, is not +properly in a genus, but is reducible to a genus of perfect act, for +instance, alteration to the genus of quality: so, instrumental power, +properly speaking, is not in any genus, but is reducible to a genus +and species of perfect act. + +Reply Obj. 3: Just as an instrumental power accrues to an instrument +through its being moved by the principal agent, so does a sacrament +receive spiritual power from Christ's blessing and from the action of +the minister in applying it to a sacramental use. Hence Augustine +says in a sermon on the Epiphany (St. Maximus of Turin, Serm. xii): +"Nor should you marvel, if we say that water, a corporeal substance, +achieves the cleansing of the soul. It does indeed, and penetrates +every secret hiding-place of the conscience. For subtle and clear as +it is, the blessing of Christ makes it yet more subtle, so that it +permeates into the very principles of life and searches the innermost +recesses of the heart." + +Reply Obj. 4: Just as the one same power of the principal agent is +instrumentally in all the instruments that are ordained unto the +production of an effect, forasmuch as they are one as being so +ordained: so also the one same sacramental power is in both words and +things, forasmuch as words and things combine to form one sacrament. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 5] + +Whether the Sacraments of the New Law Derive Their Power from +Christ's Passion? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not +derive their power from Christ's Passion. For the power of the +sacraments is in the causing of grace which is the principle of +spiritual life in the soul. But as Augustine says (Tract. xix in +Joan.): "The Word, as He was in the beginning with God, quickens +souls; as He was made flesh, quickens bodies." Since, therefore, +Christ's Passion pertains to the Word as made flesh, it seems that it +cannot cause the power of the sacraments. + +Obj. 2: Further, the power of the sacraments seems to depend on +faith. for as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.), the Divine Word +perfects the sacrament "not because it is spoken, but because it is +believed." But our faith regards not only Christ's Passion, but also +the other mysteries of His humanity, and in a yet higher measure, His +Godhead. Therefore it seems that the power of the sacraments is not +due specially to Christ's Passion. + +Obj. 3: Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's +justification, according to 1 Cor. 6:11: "You are washed . . . you +are justified." Now justification is ascribed to the Resurrection, +according to Rom. 4:25: "(Who) rose again for our justification." +Therefore it seems that the sacraments derive their power from +Christ's Resurrection rather than from His Passion. + +_On the contrary,_ on Rom. 5:14: "After the similitude of the +transgression of Adam," etc., the gloss says: "From the side of +Christ asleep on the Cross flowed the sacraments which brought +salvation to the Church." Consequently, it seems that the sacraments +derive their power from Christ's Passion. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) a sacrament in causing grace +works after the manner of an instrument. Now an instrument is +twofold; the one, separate, as a stick, for instance; the other, +united, as a hand. Moreover, the separate instrument is moved by +means of the united instrument, as a stick by the hand. Now the +principal efficient cause of grace is God Himself, in comparison with +Whom Christ's humanity is as a united instrument, whereas the +sacrament is as a separate instrument. Consequently, the saving power +must needs be derived by the sacraments from Christ's Godhead through +His humanity. + +Now sacramental grace seems to be ordained principally to two things: +namely, to take away the defects consequent on past sins, in so far +as they are transitory in act, but endure in guilt; and, further, to +perfect the soul in things pertaining to Divine Worship in regard to +the Christian Religion. But it is manifest from what has been stated +above (Q. 48, AA. 1, 2, 6; Q. 49, AA. 1, 3) that Christ delivered us +from our sins principally through His Passion, not only by way of +efficiency and merit, but also by way of satisfaction. Likewise by +His Passion He inaugurated the Rites of the Christian Religion by +offering "Himself--an oblation and a sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2). +Wherefore it is manifest that the sacraments of the Church derive +their power specially from Christ's Passion, the virtue of which is +in a manner united to us by our receiving the sacraments. It was in +sign of this that from the side of Christ hanging on the Cross there +flowed water and blood, the former of which belongs to Baptism, the +latter to the Eucharist, which are the principal sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 1: The Word, forasmuch as He was in the beginning with +God, quickens souls as principal agent; but His flesh, and the +mysteries accomplished therein, are as instrumental causes in the +process of giving life to the soul: while in giving life to the body +they act not only as instrumental causes, but also to a certain +extent as exemplars, as we stated above (Q. 56, A. 1, ad 3). + +Reply Obj. 2: Christ dwells in us "by faith" (Eph. 3:17). +Consequently, by faith Christ's power is united to us. Now the power +of blotting out sin belongs in a special way to His Passion. And +therefore men are delivered from sin especially by faith in His +Passion, according to Rom. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a +propitiation through faith in His Blood." Therefore the power of the +sacraments which is ordained unto the remission of sins is derived +principally from faith in Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 3: Justification is ascribed to the Resurrection by reason +of the term "whither," which is newness of life through grace. But it +is ascribed to the Passion by reason of the term "whence," i.e. in +regard to the forgiveness of sin. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 6] + +Whether the Sacraments of the Old Law Caused Grace? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the Old Law caused +grace. For, as stated above (A. 5, ad 2) the sacraments of the New +Law derive their efficacy from faith in Christ's Passion. But there +was faith in Christ's Passion under the Old Law, as well as under the +New, since we have "the same spirit of faith" (2 Cor. 4:13). +Therefore just as the sacraments of the New Law confer grace, so did +the sacraments of the Old Law. + +Obj. 2: Further, there is no sanctification save by grace. But men +were sanctified by the sacraments of the Old Law: for it is written +(Lev. 8:31): "And when he," i.e. Moses, "had sanctified them," i.e. +Aaron and his sons, "in their vestments," etc. Therefore it seems +that the sacraments of the Old Law conferred grace. + +Obj. 3: Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circumcision: "Under +the Law circumcision provided the same health-giving balm against the +wound of original sin, as baptism in the time of revealed grace." But +Baptism confers grace now. Therefore circumcision conferred grace; +and in like manner, the other sacraments of the Law; for just as +Baptism is the door of the sacraments of the New Law, so was +circumcision the door of the sacraments of the Old Law: hence the +Apostle says (Gal. 5:3): "I testify to every man circumcising +himself, that he is a debtor to the whole law." + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 4:9): "Turn you again to the +weak and needy elements?" i.e. "to the Law," says the gloss, "which +is called weak, because it does not justify perfectly." But grace +justifies perfectly. Therefore the sacraments of the old Law did not +confer grace. + +_I answer that,_ It cannot be said that the sacraments of the Old Law +conferred sanctifying grace of themselves, i.e. by their own power: +since thus Christ's Passion would not have been necessary, according +to Gal. 2:21: "If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain." + +But neither can it be said that they derived the power of conferring +sanctifying grace from Christ's Passion. For as it was stated above +(A. 5), the power of Christ's Passion is united to us by faith and +the sacraments, but in different ways; because the link that comes +from faith is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link that +comes from the sacraments, is produced by making use of exterior +things. Now nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of +time, from causing movement, even before it exists in reality, in so +far as it pre-exists in an act of the soul: thus the end, which is +subsequent in point of time, moves the agent in so far as it is +apprehended and desired by him. On the other hand, what does not yet +actually exist, does not cause movement if we consider the use of +exterior things. Consequently, the efficient cause cannot in point of +time come into existence after causing movement, as does the final +cause. It is therefore clear that the sacraments of the New Law do +reasonably derive the power of justification from Christ's Passion, +which is the cause of man's righteousness; whereas the sacraments of +the Old Law did not. + +Nevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ's +Passion, just as we are. And the sacraments of the old Law were a +kind of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified +Christ's Passion and its effects. It is therefore manifest that the +sacraments of the Old Law were not endowed with any power by which +they conduced to the bestowal of justifying grace: and they merely +signified faith by which men were justified. + +Reply Obj. 1: The Fathers of old had faith in the future Passion of +Christ, which, inasmuch as it was apprehended by the mind, was able +to justify them. But we have faith in the past Passion of Christ, +which is able to justify, also by the real use of sacramental things +as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 2: That sanctification was but a figure: for they were +said to be sanctified forasmuch as they gave themselves up to the +Divine worship according to the rite of the Old Law, which was wholly +ordained to the foreshadowing of Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 3: There have been many opinions about Circumcision. For, +according to some, Circumcision conferred no grace, but only remitted +sin. But this is impossible; because man is not justified from sin +save by grace, according to Rom. 3:24: "Being justified freely by His +grace." + +Wherefore others said that by Circumcision grace is conferred, as to +the privative effects of sin, but not as to its positive effects. But +this also appears to be false, because by Circumcision, children +received the faculty of obtaining glory, which is the ultimate +positive effect of grace. Moreover, as regards the order of the +formal cause, positive effects are naturally prior to privative +effects, though according to the order of the material cause, the +reverse is the case: for a form does not exclude privation save by +informing the subject. + +Hence others say that Circumcision conferred grace also as regards a +certain positive effect, i.e. by making man worthy of eternal life, +but not so as to repress concupiscence which makes man prone to sin. +And so at one time it seemed to me. But if the matter be considered +carefully, this too appears to be untrue; because the very least +grace is sufficient to resist any degree of concupiscence, and to +merit eternal life. + +And therefore it seems better to say that Circumcision was a sign of +justifying faith: wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 4:11) that Abraham +"received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith." +Consequently grace was conferred in Circumcision in so far as it was +a sign of Christ's future Passion, as will be made clear further on +(Q. 70, A. 4). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 63 + +OF THE OTHER EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS, WHICH IS A CHARACTER +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider the other effect of the sacraments, which is +a character: and concerning this there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether by the sacraments a character is produced in the soul? + +(2) What is this character? + +(3) Of whom is this character? + +(4) What is its subject? + +(5) Is it indelible? + +(6) Whether every sacrament imprints a character? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 1] + +Whether a Sacrament Imprints a Character on the Soul? + +Objection 1: It seems that a sacrament does not imprint a character +on the soul. For the word "character" seems to signify some kind of +distinctive sign. But Christ's members are distinguished from others +by eternal predestination, which does not imply anything in the +predestined, but only in God predestinating, as we have stated in the +First Part (Q. 23, A. 2). For it is written (2 Tim. 2:19): "The sure +foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: The Lord knoweth +who are His." Therefore the sacraments do not imprint a character on +the soul. + +Obj. 2: Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now a sign, as +Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) "is that which conveys +something else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on +the senses." But nothing in the soul can impress a species on the +senses. Therefore it seems that no character is imprinted on the soul +by the sacraments. + +Obj. 3: Further, just as the believer is distinguished from the +unbeliever by the sacraments of the New Law, so was it under the Old +Law. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not imprint a character; +whence they are called "justices of the flesh" (Heb. 9:10) by the +Apostle. Therefore neither seemingly do the sacraments of the New Law. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (2 Cor. 1:21, 22): "He . . . that +hath anointed us is God; Who also hath sealed us, and given the +pledge of the spirit in our hearts." But a character means nothing +else than a kind of sealing. Therefore it seems that by the +sacraments God imprints His character on us. + +_I answer that,_ As is clear from what has been already stated (Q. +62, A. 5) the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for a twofold +purpose; namely, for a remedy against sins; and for the perfecting of +the soul in things pertaining to the Divine worship according to the +rite of the Christian life. Now whenever anyone is deputed to some +definite purpose he is wont to receive some outward sign thereof; +thus in olden times soldiers who enlisted in the ranks used to be +marked with certain characters on the body, through being deputed to +a bodily service. Since, therefore, by the sacraments men are deputed +to a spiritual service pertaining to the worship of God, it follows +that by their means the faithful receive a certain spiritual +character. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "If a +deserter from the battle, through dread of the mark of enlistment on +his body, throws himself on the emperor's clemency, and having +besought and received mercy, return to the fight; is that character +renewed, when the man has been set free and reprimanded? is it not +rather acknowledged and approved? Are the Christian sacraments, by +any chance, of a nature less lasting than this bodily mark?" + +Reply Obj. 1: The faithful of Christ are destined to the reward of +the glory that is to come, by the seal of Divine Predestination. But +they are deputed to acts becoming the Church that is now, by a +certain spiritual seal that is set on them, and is called a character. + +Reply Obj. 2: The character imprinted on the soul is a kind of sign +in so far as it is imprinted by a sensible sacrament: since we know +that a certain one has received the baptismal character, through his +being cleansed by the sensible water. Nevertheless from a kind of +likeness, anything that assimilates one thing to another, or +discriminates one thing from another, even though it be not sensible, +can be called a character or a seal; thus the Apostle calls Christ +"the figure" or _charakter_ "of the substance of the Father" (Heb. +1:3). + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 62, A. 6) the sacraments of the Old +Law had not in themselves any spiritual power of producing a +spiritual effect. Consequently in those sacraments there was no need +of a spiritual character, and bodily circumcision sufficed, which the +Apostle calls "a seal" (Rom. 4:11). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 2] + +Whether a Character Is a Spiritual Power? + +Objection 1: It seems that a character is not a spiritual power. For +"character" seems to be the same thing as "figure"; hence (Heb. 1:3), +where we read "figure of His substance," for "figure" the Greek has +_charakter_. Now "figure" is in the fourth species of quality, and +thus differs from power which is in the second species. Therefore +character is not a spiritual power. + +Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii): "The Divine +Beatitude admits him that seeks happiness to a share in Itself, and +grants this share to him by conferring on him Its light as a kind of +seal." Consequently, it seems that a character is a kind of light. +Now light belongs rather to the third species of quality. Therefore a +character is not a power, since this seems to belong to the second +species. + +Obj. 3: Further, character is defined by some thus: "A character is a +holy sign of the communion of faith and of the holy ordination +conferred by a hierarch." Now a sign is in the genus of _relation,_ +not of _power._ Therefore a character is not a spiritual power. + +Obj. 4: Further, a power is in the nature of a cause and principle +(Metaph. v). But a _sign_ which is set down in the definition of a +character is rather in the nature of an effect. Therefore a character +is not a spiritual power. + +_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii): "There are three +things in the soul, power, habit, and passion." Now a character is +not a passion: since a passion passes quickly, whereas a character is +indelible, as will be made clear further on (A. 5). In like manner it +is not a habit: because no habit is indifferent to acting well or +ill: whereas a character is indifferent to either, since some use it +well, some ill. Now this cannot occur with a habit: because no one +abuses a habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains, +therefore, that a character is a power. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the sacraments of the New +Law produce a character, in so far as by them we are deputed to the +worship of God according to the rite of the Christian religion. +Wherefore Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), after saying that God "by a +kind of sign grants a share of Himself to those that approach Him," +adds "by making them Godlike and communicators of Divine gifts." Now +the worship of God consists either in receiving Divine gifts, or in +bestowing them on others. And for both these purposes some power is +needed; for to bestow something on others, active power is necessary; +and in order to receive, we need a passive power. Consequently, a +character signifies a certain spiritual power ordained unto things +pertaining to the Divine worship. + +But it must be observed that this spiritual power is instrumental: as +we have stated above (Q. 62, A. 4) of the virtue which is in the +sacraments. For to have a sacramental character belongs to God's +ministers: and a minister is a kind of instrument, as the Philosopher +says (Polit. i). Consequently, just as the virtue which is in the +sacraments is not of itself in a genus, but is reducible to a genus, +for the reason that it is of a transitory and incomplete nature: so +also a character is not properly in a genus or species, but is +reducible to the second species of quality. + +Reply Obj. 1: Configuration is a certain boundary of quantity. +Wherefore, properly speaking, it is only in corporeal things; and of +spiritual things is said metaphorically. Now that which decides the +genus or species of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly. +Consequently, a character cannot be in the fourth species of quality, +although some have held this to be the case. + +Reply Obj. 2: The third species of quality contains only sensible +passions or sensible qualities. Now a character is not a sensible +light. Consequently, it is not in the third species of quality as +some have maintained. + +Reply Obj. 3: The relation signified by the word "sign" must needs +have some foundation. Now the relation signified by this sign which +is a character, cannot be founded immediately on the essence of the +soul: because then it would belong to every soul naturally. +Consequently, there must be something in the soul on which such a +relation is founded. And it is in this that a character essentially +consists. Therefore it need not be in the genus "relation" as some +have held. + +Reply Obj. 4: A character is in the nature of a sign in comparison to +the sensible sacrament by which it is imprinted. But considered in +itself, it is in the nature of a principle, in the way already +explained. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 3] + +Whether the Sacramental Character Is the Character of Christ? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental character is not the +character of Christ. For it is written (Eph. 4:30): "Grieve not the +Holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed." But a character consists +essentially in something that seals. Therefore the sacramental +character should be attributed to the Holy Ghost rather than to +Christ. + +Obj. 2: Further, a character has the nature of a sign. And it is a +sign of the grace that is conferred by the sacrament. Now grace is +poured forth into the soul by the whole Trinity; wherefore it is +written (Ps. 83:12): "The Lord will give grace and glory." Therefore +it seems that the sacramental character should not be attributed +specially to Christ. + +Obj. 3: Further, a man is marked with a character that he may be +distinguishable from others. But the saints are distinguishable from +others by charity, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv), "alone +separates the children of the Kingdom from the children of +perdition": wherefore also the children of perdition are said to have +"the character of the beast" (Apoc. 13:16, 17). But charity is not +attributed to Christ, but rather to the Holy Ghost according to Rom. +5:5: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy +Ghost, Who is given to us"; or even to the Father, according to 2 +Cor. 13:13: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of +God." Therefore it seems that the sacramental character should not be +attributed to Christ. + +_On the contrary,_ Some define character thus: "A character is a +distinctive mark printed in a man's rational soul by the eternal +Character, whereby the created trinity is sealed with the likeness of +the creating and re-creating Trinity, and distinguishing him from +those who are not so enlikened, according to the state of faith." But +the eternal Character is Christ Himself, according to Heb. 1:3: "Who +being the brightness of His glory and the figure," or character, "of +His substance." It seems, therefore, that the character should +properly be attributed to Christ. + +_I answer that,_ As has been made clear above (A. 1), a character is +properly a kind of seal, whereby something is marked, as being +ordained to some particular end: thus a coin is marked for use in +exchange of goods, and soldiers are marked with a character as being +deputed to military service. Now the faithful are deputed to a +twofold end. First and principally to the enjoyment of glory. And for +this purpose they are marked with the seal of grace according to +Ezech. 9:4: "Mark Thou upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and +mourn"; and Apoc. 7:3: "Hurt not the earth, nor the sea, nor the +trees, till we sign the servants of our God in their foreheads." + +Secondly, each of the faithful is deputed to receive, or to bestow on +others, things pertaining to the worship of God. And this, properly +speaking, is the purpose of the sacramental character. Now the whole +rite of the Christian religion is derived from Christ's priesthood. +Consequently, it is clear that the sacramental character is specially +the character of Christ, to Whose character the faithful are likened +by reason of the sacramental characters, which are nothing else than +certain participations of Christ's Priesthood, flowing from Christ +Himself. + +Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle speaks there of that sealing by which a man +is assigned to future glory, and which is effected by grace. Now +grace is attributed to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it is through love +that God gives us something gratis, which is the very nature of +grace: while the Holy Ghost is love. Wherefore it is written (1 Cor. +12:4): "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." + +Reply Obj. 2: The sacramental character is a thing as regards the +exterior sacrament, and a sacrament in regard to the ultimate effect. +Consequently, something can be attributed to a character in two ways. +First, if the character be considered as a sacrament: and thus it is +a sign of the invisible grace which is conferred in the sacrament. +Secondly, if it be considered as a character. And thus it is a sign +conferring on a man a likeness to some principal person in whom is +vested the authority over that to which he is assigned: thus soldiers +who are assigned to military service, are marked with their leader's +sign, by which they are, in a fashion, likened to him. And in this +way those who are deputed to the Christian worship, of which Christ +is the author, receive a character by which they are likened to +Christ. Consequently, properly speaking, this is Christ's character. + +Reply Obj. 3: A character distinguishes one from another, in relation +to some particular end, to which he, who receives the character is +ordained: as has been stated concerning the military character (A. 1) +by which a soldier of the king is distinguished from the enemy's +soldier in relation to the battle. In like manner the character of +the faithful is that by which the faithful of Christ are +distinguished from the servants of the devil, either in relation to +eternal life, or in relation to the worship of the Church that now +is. Of these the former is the result of charity and grace, as the +objection runs; while the latter results from the sacramental +character. Wherefore the "character of the beast" may be understood +by opposition, to mean either the obstinate malice for which some are +assigned to eternal punishment, or the profession of an unlawful form +of worship. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 4] + +Whether the Character Be Subjected in the Powers of the Soul? + +Objection 1: It seems that the character is not subjected in the +powers of the soul. For a character is said to be a disposition to +grace. But grace is subjected in the essence of the soul as we have +stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 110, A. 4). Therefore it seems +that the character is in the essence of the soul and not in the +powers. + +Obj. 2: Further, a power of the soul does not seem to be the subject +of anything save habit and disposition. But a character, as stated +above (A. 2), is neither habit nor disposition, but rather a power: +the subject of which is nothing else than the essence of the soul. +Therefore it seems that the character is not subjected in a power of +the soul, but rather in its essence. + +Obj. 3: Further, the powers of the soul are divided into those of +knowledge and those of appetite. But it cannot be said that a +character is only in a cognitive power, nor, again, only in an +appetitive power: since it is neither ordained to knowledge only, nor +to desire only. Likewise, neither can it be said to be in both, +because the same accident cannot be in several subjects. Therefore it +seems that a character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but +rather in the essence. + +_On the contrary,_ A character, according to its definition given +above (A. 3), is imprinted in the rational soul "by way of an image." +But the image of the Trinity in the soul is seen in the powers. +Therefore a character is in the powers of the soul. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), a character is a kind of +seal by which the soul is marked, so that it may receive, or bestow +on others, things pertaining to Divine worship. Now the Divine +worship consists in certain actions: and the powers of the soul are +properly ordained to actions, just as the essence is ordained to +existence. Therefore a character is subjected not in the essence of +the soul, but in its power. + +Reply Obj. 1: The subject is ascribed to an accident in respect of +that to which the accident disposes it proximately, but not in +respect of that to which it disposes it remotely or indirectly. Now a +character disposes the soul directly and proximately to the +fulfilling of things pertaining to Divine worship: and because such +cannot be accomplished suitably without the help of grace, since, +according to John 4:24, "they that adore" God "must adore Him in +spirit and in truth," consequently, the Divine bounty bestows grace +on those who receive the character, so that they may accomplish +worthily the service to which they are deputed. Therefore the subject +should be ascribed to a character in respect of those actions that +pertain to the Divine worship, rather than in respect of grace. + +Reply Obj. 2: The essence of the soul is the subject of the natural +power, which flows from the principles of the essence. Now a +character is not a power of this kind, but a spiritual power coming +from without. Wherefore, just as the essence of the soul, from which +man has his natural life, is perfected by grace from which the soul +derives spiritual life; so the natural power of the soul is perfected +by a spiritual power, which is a character. For habit and disposition +belong to a power of the soul, since they are ordained to actions of +which the powers are the principles. And in like manner whatever is +ordained to action, should be attributed to a power. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above, a character is ordained unto things +pertaining to the Divine worship; which is a protestation of faith +expressed by exterior signs. Consequently, a character needs to be in +the soul's cognitive power, where also is faith. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 5] + +Whether a Character Can Be Blotted Out from the Soul? + +Objection 1: It seems that a character can be blotted out from the +soul. Because the more perfect an accident is, the more firmly does +it adhere to its subject. But grace is more perfect than a character; +because a character is ordained unto grace as to a further end. Now +grace is lost through sin. Much more, therefore, is a character so +lost. + +Obj. 2: Further, by a character a man is deputed to the Divine +worship, as stated above (AA. 3, 4). But some pass from the worship +of God to a contrary worship by apostasy from the faith. It seems, +therefore, that such lose the sacramental character. + +Obj. 3: Further, when the end ceases, the means to the end should +cease also: thus after the resurrection there will be no marriage, +because begetting will cease, which is the purpose of marriage. Now +the exterior worship to which a character is ordained, will not +endure in heaven, where there will be no shadows, but all will be +truth without a veil. Therefore the sacramental character does not +last in the soul for ever: and consequently it can be blotted out. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "The Christian +sacraments are not less lasting than the bodily mark" of military +service. But the character of military service is not repeated, but +is "recognized and approved" in the man who obtains the emperor's +forgiveness after offending him. Therefore neither can the +sacramental character be blotted out. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), in a sacramental character +Christ's faithful have a share in His Priesthood; in the sense that +as Christ has the full power of a spiritual priesthood, so His +faithful are likened to Him by sharing a certain spiritual power with +regard to the sacraments and to things pertaining to the Divine +worship. For this reason it is unbecoming that Christ should have a +character: but His Priesthood is compared to a character, as that +which is complete and perfect is compared to some participation of +itself. Now Christ's Priesthood is eternal, according to Ps. 109:4: +"Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech." +Consequently, every sanctification wrought by His Priesthood, is +perpetual, enduring as long as the thing sanctified endures. This is +clear even in inanimate things; for the consecration of a church or +an altar lasts for ever unless they be destroyed. Since, therefore, +the subject of a character is the soul as to its intellective part, +where faith resides, as stated above (A. 4, ad 3); it is clear that, +the intellect being perpetual and incorruptible, a character cannot +be blotted out from the soul. + +Reply Obj. 1: Both grace and character are in the soul, but in +different ways. For grace is in the soul, as a form having complete +existence therein: whereas a character is in the soul, as an +instrumental power, as stated above (A. 2). Now a complete form is in +its subject according to the condition of the subject. And since the +soul as long as it is a wayfarer is changeable in respect of the +free-will, it results that grace is in the soul in a changeable +manner. But an instrumental power follows rather the condition of the +principal agent: and consequently a character exists in the soul in +an indelible manner, not from any perfection of its own, but from the +perfection of Christ's Priesthood, from which the character flows +like an instrumental power. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), "even apostates +are not deprived of their baptism, for when they repent and return to +the fold they do not receive it again; whence we conclude that it +cannot be lost." The reason of this is that a character is an +instrumental power, as stated above (ad 1), and the nature of an +instrument as such is to be moved by another, but not to move itself; +this belongs to the will. Consequently, however much the will be +moved in the contrary direction, the character is not removed, by +reason of the immobility of the principal mover. + +Reply Obj. 3: Although external worship does not last after this +life, yet its end remains. Consequently, after this life the +character remains, both in the good as adding to their glory, and in +the wicked as increasing their shame: just as the character of the +military service remains in the soldiers after the victory, as the +boast of the conquerors, and the disgrace of the conquered. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 6] + +Whether a Character Is Imprinted by Each Sacrament of the New Law? + +Objection 1: It seems that a character is imprinted by all the +sacraments of the New Law: because each sacrament of the New Law +makes man a participator in Christ's Priesthood. But the sacramental +character is nothing but a participation in Christ's Priesthood, as +already stated (AA. 3, 5). Therefore it seems that a character is +imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law. + +Obj. 2: Further, a character may be compared to the soul in which it +is, as a consecration to that which is consecrated. But by each +sacrament of the New Law man becomes the recipient of sanctifying +grace, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 1). Therefore it seems that a +character is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law. + +Obj. 3: Further, a character is both a reality and a sacrament. But +in each sacrament of the New Law, there is something which is only a +reality, and something which is only a sacrament, and something which +is both reality and sacrament. Therefore a character is imprinted by +each sacrament of the New Law. + +_On the contrary,_ Those sacraments in which a character is +imprinted, are not reiterated, because a character is indelible, as +stated above (A. 5): whereas some sacraments are reiterated, for +instance, penance and matrimony. Therefore not all the sacraments +imprint a character. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 62, AA. 1, 5), the sacraments of +the New Law are ordained for a twofold purpose, namely, as a remedy +for sin, and for the Divine worship. Now all the sacraments, from the +fact that they confer grace, have this in common, that they afford a +remedy against sin: whereas not all the sacraments are directly +ordained to the Divine worship. Thus it is clear that penance, +whereby man is delivered from sin, does not afford man any advance in +the Divine worship, but restores him to his former state. + +Now a sacrament may belong to the Divine worship in three ways: first +in regard to the thing done; secondly, in regard to the agent; +thirdly, in regard to the recipient. In regard to the thing done, the +Eucharist belongs to the Divine worship, for the Divine worship +consists principally therein, so far as it is the sacrifice of the +Church. And by this same sacrament a character is not imprinted on +man; because it does not ordain man to any further sacramental action +or benefit received, since rather is it "the end and consummation of +all the sacraments," as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). But it +contains within itself Christ, in Whom there is not the character, +but the very plenitude of the Priesthood. + +But it is the sacrament of order that pertains to the sacramental +agents: for it is by this sacrament that men are deputed to confer +sacraments on others: while the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the +recipients, since it confers on man the power to receive the other +sacraments of the Church; whence it is called the "door of the +sacraments." In a way Confirmation also is ordained for the same +purpose, as we shall explain in its proper place (Q. 65, A. 3). +Consequently, these three sacraments imprint a character, namely, +Baptism, Confirmation, and order. + +Reply Obj. 1: Every sacrament makes man a participator in Christ's +Priesthood, from the fact that it confers on him some effect thereof. +But every sacrament does not depute a man to do or receive something +pertaining to the worship of the priesthood of Christ: while it is +just this that is required for a sacrament to imprint a character. + +Reply Obj. 2: Man is sanctified by each of the sacraments, since +sanctity means immunity from sin, which is the effect of grace. But +in a special way some sacraments, which imprint a character, bestow +on man a certain consecration, thus deputing him to the Divine +worship: just as inanimate things are said to be consecrated +forasmuch as they are deputed to Divine worship. + +Reply Obj. 3: Although a character is a reality and a sacrament, it +does not follow that whatever is a reality and a sacrament, is also a +character. With regard to the other sacraments we shall explain +further on what is the reality and what is the sacrament. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 64 + +OF THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS +(In Ten Articles) + +In the next place we have to consider the causes of the sacraments, +both as to authorship and as to ministration. Concerning which there +are ten points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether God alone works inwardly in the sacraments? + +(2) Whether the institution of the sacraments is from God alone? + +(3) Of the power which Christ exercised over the sacraments; + +(4) Whether He could transmit that power to others? + +(5) Whether the wicked can have the power of administering the +sacraments? + +(6) Whether the wicked sin in administering the sacraments? + +(7) Whether the angels can be ministers of the sacraments? + +(8) Whether the minister's intention is necessary in the sacraments? + +(9) Whether right faith is required therein; so that it be impossible +for an unbeliever to confer a sacrament? + +(10) Whether a right intention is required therein? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 1] + +Whether God Alone, or the Minister Also, Works Inwardly Unto the +Sacramental Effect? + +Objection 1: It seems that not God alone, but also the minister, +works inwardly unto the sacramental effect. For the inward +sacramental effect is to cleanse man from sin and enlighten him by +grace. But it belongs to the ministers of the Church "to cleanse, +enlighten and perfect," as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v). +Therefore it seems that the sacramental effect is the work not only +of God, but also of the ministers of the Church. + +Obj. 2: Further, certain prayers are offered up in conferring the +sacraments. But the prayers of the righteous are more acceptable to +God than those of any other, according to John 9:31: "If a man be a +server of God, and doth His will, him He heareth." Therefore it stems +that a man obtains a greater sacramental effect if he receive it from +a good minister. Consequently, the interior effect is partly the work +of the minister and not of God alone. + +Obj. 3: Further, man is of greater account than an inanimate thing. +But an inanimate thing contributes something to the interior effect: +since "water touches the body and cleanses the soul," as Augustine +says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.). Therefore the interior sacramental +effect is partly the work of man and not of God alone. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 8:33): "God that justifieth." +Since, then, the inward effect of all the sacraments is +justification, it seems that God alone works the interior sacramental +effect. + +_I answer that,_ There are two ways of producing an effect; first, as +a principal agent; secondly, as an instrument. In the former way the +interior sacramental effect is the work of God alone: first, because +God alone can enter the soul wherein the sacramental effect takes +place; and no agent can operate immediately where it is not: +secondly, because grace which is an interior sacramental effect is +from God alone, as we have established in the Second Part (I-II, Q. +112, A. 1); while the character which is the interior effect of +certain sacraments, is an instrumental power which flows from the +principal agent, which is God. In the second way, however, the +interior sacramental effect can be the work of man, in so far as he +works as a minister. For a minister is of the nature of an +instrument, since the action of both is applied to something +extrinsic, while the interior effect is produced through the power of +the principal agent, which is God. + +Reply Obj. 1: Cleansing in so far as it is attributed to the +ministers of the Church is not a washing from sin: deacons are said +to "cleanse," inasmuch as they remove the unclean from the body of +the faithful, or prepare them by their pious admonitions for the +reception of the sacraments. In like manner also priests are said to +"enlighten" God's people, not indeed by giving them grace, but by +conferring on them the sacraments of grace; as Dionysius explains +(Coel. Hier. v). + +Reply Obj. 2: The prayers which are said in giving the sacraments, +are offered to God, not on the part of the individual, but on the +part of the whole Church, whose prayers are acceptable to God, +according to Matt. 18:19: "If two of you shall consent upon earth, +concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to +them by My Father." Nor is there any reason why the devotion of a +just man should not contribute to this effect. But that which is the +sacramental effect is not impetrated by the prayer of the Church or +of the minister, but through the merit of Christ's Passion, the power +of which operates in the sacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5). +Wherefore the sacramental effect is made no better by a better +minister. And yet something in addition may be impetrated for the +receiver of the sacrament through the devotion of the minister: but +this is not the work of the minister, but the work of God Who hears +the minister's prayer. + +Reply Obj. 3: Inanimate things do not produce the sacramental effect, +except instrumentally, as stated above. In like manner neither do men +produce the sacramental effect, except ministerially, as also stated +above. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 2] + +Whether the Sacraments Are Instituted by God Alone? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments are not instituted by God +alone. For those things which God has instituted are delivered to us +in Holy Scripture. But in the sacraments certain things are done +which are nowhere mentioned in Holy Scripture; for instance, the +chrism with which men are confirmed, the oil with which priests are +anointed, and many others, both words and actions, which we employ in +the sacraments. Therefore the sacraments were not instituted by God +alone. + +Obj. 2: Further, a sacrament is a kind of sign. Now sensible things +have their own natural signification. Nor can it be said that God +takes pleasure in certain significations and not in others; because +He approves of all that He made. Moreover, it seems to be peculiar to +the demons to be enticed to something by means of signs; for +Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi): "The demons are enticed . . . by +means of creatures, which were created not by them but by God, by +various means of attraction according to their various natures, not +as an animal is enticed by food, but as a spirit is drawn by a sign." +It seems, therefore, that there is no need for the sacraments to be +instituted by God. + +Obj. 3: Further, the apostles were God's vicegerents on earth: hence +the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:10): "For what I have pardoned, if I have +pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of +Christ," i.e. as though Christ Himself had pardoned. Therefore it +seems that the apostles and their successors can institute new +sacraments. + +_On the contrary,_ The institutor of anything is he who gives it +strength and power: as in the case of those who institute laws. But +the power of a sacrament is from God alone, as we have shown above +(A. 1; Q. 62, A. 1). Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ As appears from what has been said above (A. 1; Q. +62, A. 1), the sacraments are instrumental causes of spiritual +effects. Now an instrument has its power from the principal agent. +But an agent in respect of a sacrament is twofold; viz. he who +institutes the sacraments, and he who makes use of the sacrament +instituted, by applying it for the production of the effect. Now the +power of a sacrament cannot be from him who makes use of the +sacrament: because he works but as a minister. Consequently, it +follows that the power of the sacrament is from the institutor of the +sacrament. Since, therefore, the power of the sacrament is from God +alone, it follows that God alone can institute the sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 1: Human institutions observed in the sacraments are not +essential to the sacrament; but belong to the solemnity which is +added to the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in +the recipients. But those things that are essential to the sacrament, +are instituted by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they +are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them +from the intimate tradition of the apostles, according to the saying +of the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:34): "The rest I will set in order when I +come." + +Reply Obj. 2: From their very nature sensible things have a certain +aptitude for the signifying of spiritual effects: but this aptitude +is fixed by the Divine institution to some special signification. +This is what Hugh of St. Victor means by saying (De Sacram. i) that +"a sacrament owes its signification to its institution." Yet God +chooses certain things rather than others for sacramental +signification, not as though His choice were restricted to them, but +in order that their signification be more suitable to them. + +Reply Obj. 3: The apostles and their successors are God's vicars in +governing the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of +faith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so +neither may they deliver another faith, nor institute other +sacraments: on the contrary, the Church is said to be built up with +the sacraments "which flowed from the side of Christ while hanging on +the Cross." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ As Man Had the Power of Producing the Inward +Sacramental Effect? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ as man had the power of producing +the interior sacramental effect. For John the Baptist said (John +1:33): "He, Who sent me to baptize in water, said to me: He upon Whom +thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is +that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." But to baptize with the Holy +Ghost is to confer inwardly the grace of the Holy Ghost. And the Holy +Ghost descended upon Christ as man, not as God: for thus He Himself +gives the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, had the +power of producing the inward sacramental effect. + +Obj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 9:6): "That you may know that +the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins." But forgiveness +of sins is an inward sacramental effect. Therefore it seems that +Christ as man produces the inward sacramental effect. + +Obj. 3: Further, the institution of the sacraments belongs to him who +acts as principal agent in producing the inward sacramental effect. +Now it is clear that Christ instituted the sacraments. Therefore it +is He that produces the inward sacramental effect. + +Obj. 4: Further, no one can confer the sacramental effect without +conferring the sacrament, except he produce the sacramental effect by +his own power. But Christ conferred the sacramental effect without +conferring the sacrament; as in the case of Magdalen to whom He said: +"Thy sins are forgiven Thee" (Luke 7:48). Therefore it seems that +Christ, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect. + +Obj. 5: Further, the principal agent in causing the inward effect is +that in virtue of which the sacrament operates. But the sacraments +derive their power from Christ's Passion and through the invocation +of His Name; according to 1 Cor. 1:13: "Was Paul then crucified for +you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" Therefore Christ, as +man, produces the inward sacramental effect. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Isidore, Etym. vi) says: "The Divine +power in the sacraments works inwardly in producing their salutary +effect." Now the Divine power is Christ's as God, not as man. +Therefore Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, not as man +but as God. + +_I answer that,_ Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, both +as God and as man, but not in the same way. For, as God, He works in +the sacraments by authority: but, as man, His operation conduces to +the inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently, but +instrumentally. For it has been stated (Q. 48, AA. 1, 6; Q. 49, A. 1) +that Christ's Passion which belongs to Him in respect of His human +nature, is the cause of justification, both meritoriously and +efficiently, not as the principal cause thereof, or by His own +authority, but as an instrument, in so far as His humanity is the +instrument of His Godhead, as stated above (Q. 13, AA. 2, 3; Q. 19, +A. 1). + +Nevertheless, since it is an instrument united to the Godhead in +unity of Person, it has a certain headship and efficiency in regard +to extrinsic instruments, which are the ministers of the Church and +the sacraments themselves, as has been explained above (A. 1). +Consequently, just as Christ, as God, has power of _authority_ over +the sacraments, so, as man, He has the power of ministry in chief, or +power of _excellence._ And this consists in four things. First in +this, that the merit and power of His Passion operates in the +sacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5). And because the power of +the Passion is communicated to us by faith, according to Rom. 3:25: +"Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His +blood," which faith we proclaim by calling on the name of Christ: +therefore, secondly, Christ's power of excellence over the sacraments +consists in this, that they are sanctified by the invocation of His +name. And because the sacraments derive their power from their +institution, hence, thirdly, the excellence of Christ's power +consists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute +the sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect, but rather +conversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He +could bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior +sacrament. Thus it is clear how to solve the objections; for the +arguments on either side are true to a certain extent, as explained +above. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 4] + +Whether Christ Could Communicate to Ministers the Power Which He Had +in the Sacraments? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ could not communicate to ministers +the power which He had in the sacraments. For as Augustine argues +against Maximin, "if He could, but would not, He was jealous of His +power." But jealousy was far from Christ Who had the fulness of +charity. Since, therefore, Christ did not communicate His power to +ministers, it seems that He could not. + +Obj. 2: Further, on John 14:12: "Greater than these shall he do," +Augustine says (Tract. lxxii): "I affirm this to be altogether +greater," namely, for a man from being ungodly to be made righteous, +"than to create heaven and earth." But Christ could not communicate +to His disciples the power of creating heaven and earth: neither, +therefore, could He give them the power of making the ungodly to be +righteous. Since, therefore, the justification of the ungodly is +effected by the power that Christ has in the sacraments, it seems +that He could not communicate that power to ministers. + +Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the Church that +grace should flow from Him to others, according to John 1:16: "Of His +fulness we all have received." But this could not be communicated to +others; since then the Church would be deformed, having many heads. +Therefore it seems that Christ could not communicate His power to +ministers. + +_On the contrary,_ on John 1:31: "I knew Him not," Augustine says +(Tract. v) that "he did not know that our Lord having the authority +of baptizing . . . would keep it to Himself." But John would not have +been in ignorance of this, if such a power were incommunicable. +Therefore Christ could communicate His power to ministers. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), Christ had a twofold power +in the sacraments. One was the power of _authority,_ which belongs to +Him as God: and this power He could not communicate to any creature; +just as neither could He communicate the Divine Essence. The other +was the power of _excellence,_ which belongs to Him as man. This +power He could communicate to ministers; namely, by giving them such +a fulness of grace--that their merits would conduce to the +sacramental effect--that by the invocation of their names, the +sacraments would be sanctified--and that they themselves might +institute sacraments, and by their mere will confer the sacramental +effect without observing the sacramental rite. For a united +instrument, the more powerful it is, is all the more able to lend its +power to the separated instrument; as the hand can to a stick. + +Reply Obj. 1: It was not through jealousy that Christ refrained from +communicating to ministers His power of excellence, but for the good +of the faithful; lest they should put their trust in men, and lest +there should be various kinds of sacraments, giving rise to division +in the Church; as may be seen in those who said: "I am of Paul, I am +of Apollo, and I of Cephas" (1 Cor. 1:12). + +Reply Obj. 2: This objection is true of the power of authority, which +belongs to Christ as God. At the same time the power of excellence +can be called authority in comparison to other ministers. Whence on 1 +Cor. 1:13: "Is Christ divided?" the gloss says that "He could give +power of authority in baptizing, to those to whom He gave the power +of administering it." + +Reply Obj. 3: It was in order to avoid the incongruity of many heads +in the Church, that Christ was unwilling to communicate to ministers +His power of excellence. If, however, He had done so, He would have +been Head in chief; the others in subjection to Him. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 5] + +Whether the Sacraments Can Be Conferred by Evil Ministers? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil +ministers. For the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for the +purpose of cleansing from sin and for the bestowal of grace. Now evil +men, being themselves unclean, cannot cleanse others from sin, +according to Ecclus. 34:4: "Who [Vulg.: 'What'] can be made clean by +the unclean?" Moreover, since they have not grace, it seems that they +cannot give grace, for "no one gives what he has not." It seems, +therefore, that the sacraments cannot be conferred by wicked men. + +Obj. 2: Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from +Christ, as stated above (A. 3; Q. 62, A. 5). But evil men are cut off +from Christ: because they have not charity, by which the members are +united to their Head, according to 1 John 4:16: "He that abideth in +charity, abideth in God, and God in him." Therefore it seems that the +sacraments cannot be conferred by evil men. + +Obj. 3: Further, if anything is wanting that is required for the +sacraments, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the required +matter or form be wanting. But the minister required for a sacrament +is one who is without the stain of sin, according to Lev. 21:17, 18: +"Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he +shall not offer bread to his God, neither shall he approach to +minister to Him." Therefore it seems that if the minister be wicked, +the sacrament has no effect. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says on John 1:33: "He upon Whom thou +shalt see the Spirit," etc. (Tract. v in Joan.), that "John did not +know that our Lord, having the authority of baptizing, would keep it +to Himself, but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good +and evil men . . . What is a bad minister to thee, where the Lord is +good?" + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the ministers of the Church +work instrumentally in the sacraments, because, in a way, a minister +is of the nature of an instrument. But, as stated above (Q. 62, AA. +1, 4), an instrument acts not by reason of its own form, but by the +power of the one who moves it. Consequently, whatever form or power +an instrument has in addition to that which it has as an instrument, +is accidental to it: for instance, that a physician's body, which is +the instrument of his soul, wherein is his medical art, be healthy or +sickly; or that a pipe, through which water passes, be of silver or +lead. Therefore the ministers of the Church can confer the +sacraments, though they be wicked. + +Reply Obj. 1: The ministers of the Church do not by their own power +cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, nor do they +confer grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power +while He employs them as instruments. Consequently, those who +approach the sacraments receive an effect whereby they are enlikened +not to the ministers but to Christ. + +Reply Obj. 2: Christ's members are united to their Head by charity, +so that they may receive life from Him; for as it is written (1 John +3:14): "He that loveth not abideth in death." Now it is possible for +a man to work with a lifeless instrument, and separated from him as +to bodily union, provided it be united to him by some sort of motion: +for a workman works in one way with his hand, in another with his +axe. Consequently, it is thus that Christ works in the sacraments, +both by wicked men as lifeless instruments, and by good men as living +instruments. + +Reply Obj. 3: A thing is required in a sacrament in two ways. First, +as being essential to it: and if this be wanting, the sacrament is +invalid; for instance, if the due form or matter be wanting. +Secondly, a thing is required for a sacrament, by reason of a certain +fitness. And in this way good ministers are required for a sacrament. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 6] + +Whether Wicked Men Sin in Administering the Sacraments? + +Objection 1: It seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the +sacraments. For just as men serve God in the sacraments, so do they +serve Him in works of charity; whence it is written (Heb. 13:16): "Do +not forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's +favor is obtained." But the wicked do not sin in serving God by works +of charity: indeed, they should be persuaded to do so, according to +Dan. 4:24: "Let my counsel be acceptable" to the king; "Redeem thou +thy sins with alms." Therefore it seems that wicked men do not sin in +administering the sacraments. + +Obj. 2: Further, whoever co-operates with another in his sin, is also +guilty of sin, according to Rom. 1:32: "He is [Vulg.: 'They are'] +worthy of death; not only he that commits the sin, but also he who +consents to them that do them." But if wicked ministers sin in +administering sacraments, those who receive sacraments from them, +co-operate in their sin. Therefore they would sin also; which seems +unreasonable. + +Obj. 3: Further, it seems that no one should act when in doubt, for +thus man would be driven to despair, as being unable to avoid sin. +But if the wicked were to sin in administering sacraments, they would +be in a state of perplexity: since sometimes they would sin also if +they did not administer sacraments; for instance, when by reason of +their office it is their bounden duty to do so; for it is written (1 +Cor. 9:16): "For a necessity lieth upon me: Woe is unto me if I +preach not the gospel." Sometimes also on account of some danger; for +instance, if a child in danger of death be brought to a sinner for +baptism. Therefore it seems that the wicked do not sin in +administering the sacraments. + +_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. i) that "it is wrong +for the wicked even to touch the symbols," i.e. the sacramental +signs. And he says in the epistle to Demophilus: "It seems +presumptuous for such a man," i.e. a sinner, "to lay hands on +priestly things; he is neither afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that +he is, to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does +not see what he sees in himself: he thinks, by false pretenses, to +cheat Him Whom he calls his Father; he dares to utter, in the person +of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them +prayers, over the Divine symbols." + +_I answer that,_ A sinful action consists in this, that a man "fails +to act as he ought to," as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. ii). Now +it has been said (A. 5, ad 3) that it is fitting for the ministers of +sacraments to be righteous; because ministers should be like unto +their Lord, according to Lev. 19:2: "Be ye holy, because I . . . am +holy"; and Ecclus. 10:2: "As the judge of the people is himself, so +also are his ministers." Consequently, there can be no doubt that the +wicked sin by exercising the ministry of God and the Church, by +conferring the sacraments. And since this sin pertains to irreverence +towards God and the contamination of holy things, as far as the man +who sins is concerned, although holy things in themselves cannot be +contaminated; it follows that such a sin is mortal in its genus. + +Reply Obj. 1: Works of charity are not made holy by some process of +consecration, but they belong to the holiness of righteousness, as +being in a way parts of righteousness. Consequently, when a man shows +himself as a minister of God, by doing works of charity, if he be +righteous, he will be made yet holier; but if he be a sinner, he is +thereby disposed to holiness. On the other hand, the sacraments are +holy in themselves owing to their mystical consecration. Wherefore +the holiness of righteousness is required in the minister, that he +may be suitable for his ministry: for which reason he acts +unbecomingly and sins, if while in a state of sin he attempts to +fulfil that ministry. + +Reply Obj. 2: He who approaches a sacrament, receives it from a +minister of the Church, not because he is such and such a man, but +because he is a minister of the Church. Consequently, as long as the +latter is tolerated in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament +from him, does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the +Church from whom he has his ministry. But if the Church, by +degrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not tolerate him +in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him sins, because +he communicates in his sin. + +Reply Obj. 3: A man who is in mortal sin is not perplexed simply, if +by reason of his office it be his bounden duty to minister +sacraments; because he can repent of his sin and so minister +lawfully. But there is nothing unreasonable in his being perplexed, +if we suppose that he wishes to remain in sin. + +However, in a case of necessity when even a lay person might baptize, +he would not sin in baptizing. For it is clear that then he does not +exercise the ministry of the Church, but comes to the aid of one who +is in need of his services. It is not so with the other sacraments, +which are not so necessary as baptism, as we shall show further on +(Q. 65, AA. 3, 4; Q. 62, A. 3). +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 7] + +Whether Angels Can Administer Sacraments? + +Objection 1: It seems that angels can administer sacraments. Because +a higher minister can do whatever the lower can; thus a priest can do +whatever a deacon can: but not conversely. But angels are higher +ministers in the hierarchical order than any men whatsoever, as +Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix). Therefore, since men can be +ministers of sacraments, it seems that much more can angels be. + +Obj. 2: Further, in heaven holy men are likened to the angels (Matt. +22:30). But some holy men, when in heaven, can be ministers of the +sacraments; since the sacramental character is indelible, as stated +above (Q. 63, A. 5). Therefore it seems that angels too can be +ministers of sacraments. + +Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (Q. 8, A. 7), the devil is head of +the wicked, and the wicked are his members. But sacraments can be +administered by the wicked. Therefore it seems that they can be +administered even by demons. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 5:1): "Every high priest taken +from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to +God." But angels whether good or bad are not taken from among men. +Therefore they are not ordained ministers in the things that +appertain to God, i.e. in the sacraments. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3; Q. 62, A. 5), the whole power +of the sacraments flows from Christ's Passion, which belongs to Him +as man. And Him in their very nature men, not angels, resemble; +indeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being "a little +lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:9). Consequently, it belongs to men, +but not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and to take part in +their administration. + +But it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the +sacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect +without conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to +the ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power +to administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of +truth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it +should be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this +is being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are +said to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [*See +Acta S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are "lying spirits," +were to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as +invalid. + +Reply Obj. 1: What men do in a less perfect manner, i.e. by sensible +sacraments, which are proportionate to their nature, angels also do, +as ministers of a higher degree, in a more perfect manner, i.e. +invisibly--by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting. + +Reply Obj. 2: The saints in heaven resemble the angels as to their +share of glory, but not as to the conditions of their nature: and +consequently not in regard to the sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 3: Wicked men do not owe their power of conferring +sacraments to their being members of the devil. Consequently, it does +not follow that _a fortiori_ the devil, their head, can do so. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 8] + +Whether the Minister's Intention Is Required for the Validity of a +Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the minister's intention is not required +for the validity of a sacrament. For the minister of a sacrament +works instrumentally. But the perfection of an action does not depend +on the intention of the instrument, but on that of the principal +agent. Therefore the minister's intention is not necessary for the +perfecting of a sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, one man's intention cannot be known to another. +Therefore if the minister's intention were required for the validity +of a sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether +he has received the sacrament. Consequently he could have no +certainty in regard to salvation; the more that some sacraments are +necessary for salvation, as we shall state further on (Q. 65, A. 4). + +Obj. 3: Further, a man's intention cannot bear on that to which he +does not attend. But sometimes ministers of sacraments do not attend +to what they say or do, through thinking of something else. Therefore +in this respect the sacrament would be invalid through want of +intention. + +_On the contrary,_ What is unintentional happens by chance. But this +cannot be said of the sacramental operation. Therefore the sacraments +require the intention of the minister. + +_I answer that,_ When a thing is indifferent to many uses, it must +needs be determined to one, if that one has to be effected. Now those +things which are done in the sacraments, can be done with various +intent; for instance, washing with water, which is done in baptism, +may be ordained to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to +amusement, and many other similar things. Consequently, it needs to +be determined to one purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the +intention of him who washes. And this intention is expressed by the +words which are pronounced in the sacraments; for instance the words, +"I baptize thee in the name of the Father," etc. + +Reply Obj. 1: An inanimate instrument has no intention regarding the +effect; but instead of the intention there is the motion whereby it +is moved by the principal agent. But an animate instrument, such as a +minister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far +as by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his +intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal +agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which +Christ and the Church do. + +Reply Obj. 2: On this point there are two opinions. For some hold +that the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the +absence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in +the case of children who have not the intention of approaching the +sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in +adults, who have that intention, this defect is made good by their +faith and devotion. + +This might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e. justification +from sins; but as to that effect which is both real and sacramental, +viz. the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made +good by the devotion of the recipient, since a character is never +imprinted save by a sacrament. + +Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a +sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he +is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is +expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, +except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister +or of the recipient of the sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: Although he who thinks of something else, has no actual +intention, yet he has habitual intention, which suffices for the +validity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to +baptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church does. +Wherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be +distracted by other matters, the sacrament is valid in virtue of his +original intention. Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament should +take great care to have actual intention. But this is not entirely in +man's power, because when a man wishes to be very intent on +something, he begins unintentionally to think of other things, +according to Ps. 39:18: "My heart hath forsaken me." +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 9] + +Whether Faith Is Required of Necessity in the Minister of a Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that faith is required of necessity in the +minister of a sacrament. For, as stated above (A. 8), the intention +of the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament. But +"faith directs in intention" as Augustine says against Julian (In +Psalm xxxi, cf. Contra Julian iv). Therefore, if the minister is +without the true faith, the sacrament is invalid. + +Obj. 2: Further, if a minister of the Church has not the true faith, +it seems that he is a heretic. But heretics, seemingly, cannot confer +sacraments. For Cyprian says in an epistle against heretics (lxxiii): +"Everything whatsoever heretics do, is carnal, void and counterfeit, +so that nothing that they do should receive our approval." And Pope +Leo says in his epistle to Leo Augustus (clvi): "It is a matter of +notoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is +extinguished in the see of Alexandria, by an act of dire and +senseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no longer offered, the chrism is +no longer consecrated, all the mysteries of religion have fled at the +touch of the parricide hands of ungodly men." Therefore a sacrament +requires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith. + +Obj. 3: Further, those who have not the true faith seem to be +separated from the Church by excommunication: for it is written in +the second canonical epistle of John (10): "If any man come to you, +and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say +to him; God speed you": and (Titus 3:10): "A man that is a heretic, +after the first and second admonition avoid." But it seems that an +excommunicate cannot confer a sacrament of the Church: since he is +separated from the Church, to whose ministry the dispensation of the +sacraments belongs. Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that +the minister should have the true faith. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says against the Donatist Petilian: +"Remember that the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to +God's sacraments, by rendering them either invalid or less holy." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), since the minister works +instrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by +Christ's power. Now just as charity belongs to a man's own power so +also does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does +not require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners +can confer sacraments, as stated above (A. 5); so neither is it +necessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can +confer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there. + +Reply Obj. 1: It may happen that a man's faith is defective in regard +to something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament +which he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to +swear in any case whatever, and yet he may believe that baptism is an +efficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder +the intention of conferring the sacrament. But if his faith be +defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although +he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done +outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to +confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his +unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, +albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for +a sacrament: because as stated above (A. 8, ad 2) the minister of a +sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect +in the minister's faith is made good. + +Reply Obj. 2: Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe +the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the +sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. But some do observe the +form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament +but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are +outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that +anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently +is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament. Wherefore +Augustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Pet.) says: "Be well assured and +have no doubt whatever that those who are baptized outside the +Church, unless they come back to the Church, will reap disaster from +their Baptism." In this sense Pope Leo says that "the light of the +sacraments was extinguished in the Church of Alexandria"; viz. in +regard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to the sacrament +itself. + +Cyprian, however, thought that heretics do not confer even the +sacrament: but in this respect we do not follow his opinion. Hence +Augustine says (De unico Baptismo xiii): "Though the martyr Cyprian +refused to recognize Baptism conferred by heretics or schismatics, +yet so great are his merits, culminating in the crown of martyrdom, +that the light of his charity dispels the darkness of his fault, and +if anything needed pruning, the sickle of his passion cut it off." + +Reply Obj. 3: The power of administering the sacraments belongs to +the spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above (Q. +63, A. 3). Consequently, if a man be suspended by the Church, or +excommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring +sacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does +indeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing. He also sins +that receives a sacrament from such a man: so that he does not +receive the reality of the sacrament, unless ignorance excuses him. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 10] + +Whether the Validity of a Sacrament Requires a Good Intention in the +Minister? + +Objection 1: It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a +good intention in the minister. For the minister's intention should +be in conformity with the Church's intention, as explained above (A. +8, ad 1). But the intention of the Church is always good. Therefore +the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in +the minister. + +Obj. 2: Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one. +But a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance, if +someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more, +therefore, does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament: for +instance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him +afterwards. + +Obj. 3: Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work, +according to Luke 11:34: "If thy eye be evil, thy" whole "body will +be darksome." But the sacraments of Christ cannot be contaminated by +evil men; as Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii). +Therefore it seems that, if the minister's intention is perverse, the +sacrament is invalid. + +_On the contrary,_ A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of +the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the +sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention. + +_I answer that,_ The minister's intention may be perverted in two +ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does +not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a +perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially +if it be manifested outwardly. + +Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something +that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to +baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the +Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which +comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such +a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister +himself sins grievously in having such an intention. + +Reply Obj. 1: The Church has a good intention both as to the validity +of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former +intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to +the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his +intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the +latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself. + +Reply Obj. 2: The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind +of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. +Consequently, there is no comparison. + +Reply Obj. 3: A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who +has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the +perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far +as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, +Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some +man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas +his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 65 + +OF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider the number of the sacraments: and concerning +this there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether there are seven sacraments? + +(2) The order of the sacraments among themselves; + +(3) Their mutual comparison; + +(4) Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 65, Art. 1] + +Whether There Should Be Seven Sacraments? + +Objection 1: It seems that there ought not to be seven sacraments. +For the sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine power, and +the power of Christ's Passion. But the Divine power is one, and +Christ's Passion is one; since "by one oblation He hath perfected for +ever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). Therefore there should +be but one sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, a sacrament is intended as a remedy for the defect +caused by sin. Now this is twofold, punishment and guilt. Therefore +two sacraments would be enough. + +Obj. 3: Further, sacraments belong to the actions of the +ecclesiastical hierarchy, as Dionysius explains (Eccl. Hier. v). But, +as he says, there are three actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, +namely, "to cleanse, to enlighten, to perfect." Therefore there +should be no more than three sacraments. + +Obj. 4: Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the +"sacraments" of the New Law are "less numerous" than those of the Old +Law. But in the Old Law there was no sacrament corresponding to +Confirmation and Extreme Unction. Therefore these should not be +counted among the sacraments of the New Law. + +Obj. 5: Further, lust is not more grievous than other sins, as we +have made clear in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 74, A. 5; II-II, Q. 154, +A. 3). But there is no sacrament instituted as a remedy for other +sins. Therefore neither should matrimony be instituted as a remedy +for lust. + +Obj. 6: On the other hand, It seems that there should be more than +seven sacraments. For sacraments are a kind of sacred sign. But in +the Church there are many sanctifications by sensible signs, such as +Holy Water the Consecration of Altars, and such like. Therefore there +are more than seven sacraments. + +Obj. 7: Further, Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) says that the +sacraments of the Old Law were oblations, tithes and sacrifices. But +the Sacrifice of the Church is one sacrament, called the Eucharist. +Therefore oblations also and tithes should be called sacraments. + +Obj. 8: Further, there are three kinds of sin, original, mortal and +venial. Now Baptism is intended as a remedy against original sin, and +Penance against mortal sin. Therefore besides the seven sacraments, +there should be another against venial sin. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 62, A. 5; Q. 63, A. 1), the +sacraments of the Church were instituted for a twofold purpose: +namely, in order to perfect man in things pertaining to the worship +of God according to the religion of Christian life, and to be a +remedy against the defects caused by sin. And in either way it is +becoming that there should be seven sacraments. + +For spiritual life has a certain conformity with the life of the +body: just as other corporeal things have a certain likeness to +things spiritual. Now a man attains perfection in the corporeal life +in two ways: first, in regard to his own person; secondly, in regard +to the whole community of the society in which he lives, for man is +by nature a social animal. With regard to himself man is perfected in +the life of the body, in two ways; first, directly (_per se_), i.e. +by acquiring some vital perfection; secondly, indirectly (_per +accidens_), i.e. by the removal of hindrances to life, such as +ailments, or the like. Now the life of the body is perfected +_directly,_ in three ways. First, by generation whereby a man begins +to be and to live: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life +there is Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration, according to +Titus 3:5: "By the laver of regeneration," etc. Secondly, by growth +whereby a man is brought to perfect size and strength: and +corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Confirmation, in +which the Holy Ghost is given to strengthen us. Wherefore the +disciples who were already baptized were bidden thus: "Stay you in +the city till you be endued with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). +Thirdly, by nourishment, whereby life and strength are preserved to +man; and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the +Eucharist. Wherefore it is said (John 6:54): "Except you eat of the +flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life +in you." + +And this would be enough for man if he had an impassible life, both +corporally and spiritually; but since man is liable at times to both +corporal and spiritual infirmity, i.e. sin, hence man needs a cure +from his infirmity; which cure is twofold. One is the healing, that +restores health: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life +there is Penance, according to Ps. 40:5: "Heal my soul, for I have +sinned against Thee." The other is the restoration of former vigor by +means of suitable diet and exercise: and corresponding to this in the +spiritual life there is Extreme Unction, which removes the remainder +of sin, and prepares man for final glory. Wherefore it is written +(James 5:15): "And if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him." + +In regard to the whole community, man is perfected in two ways. +First, by receiving power to rule the community and to exercise +public acts: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is +the sacrament of order, according to the saying of Heb. 7:27, that +priests offer sacrifices not for themselves only, but also for the +people. Secondly in regard to natural propagation. This is +accomplished by Matrimony both in the corporal and in the spiritual +life: since it is not only a sacrament but also a function of nature. + +We may likewise gather the number of the sacraments from their being +instituted as a remedy against the defect caused by sin. For Baptism +is intended as a remedy against the absence of spiritual life; +Confirmation, against the infirmity of soul found in those of recent +birth; the Eucharist, against the soul's proneness to sin; Penance, +against actual sin committed after baptism; Extreme Unction, against +the remainders of sins--of those sins, namely, which are not +sufficiently removed by Penance, whether through negligence or +through ignorance; order, against divisions in the community; +Matrimony, as a remedy against concupiscence in the individual, and +against the decrease in numbers that results from death. + +Some, again, gather the number of sacraments from a certain +adaptation to the virtues and to the defects and penal effects +resulting from sin. They say that Baptism corresponds to Faith, and +is ordained as a remedy against original sin; Extreme Unction, to +Hope, being ordained against venial sin; the Eucharist, to Charity, +being ordained against the penal effect which is malice; Order, to +Prudence, being ordained against ignorance; Penance to Justice, being +ordained against mortal sin; Matrimony, to Temperance, being ordained +against concupiscence; Confirmation, to Fortitude, being ordained +against infirmity. + +Reply Obj. 1: The same principal agent uses various instruments unto +various effects, in accordance with the thing to be done. In the same +way the Divine power and the Passion of Christ work in us through the +various sacraments as through various instruments. + +Reply Obj. 2: Guilt and punishment are diversified both according to +species, inasmuch as there are various species of guilt and +punishment, and according to men's various states and habitudes. And +in this respect it was necessary to have a number of sacraments, as +explained above. + +Reply Obj. 3: In hierarchical actions we must consider the agents, +the recipients and the actions. The agents are the ministers of the +Church; and to these the sacrament of order belongs. The recipients +are those who approach the sacraments: and these are brought into +being by Matrimony. The actions are "cleansing," "enlightening," +and "perfecting." Mere cleansing, however, cannot be a sacrament of +the New Law, which confers grace: yet it belongs to certain +sacramentals, i.e. catechism and exorcism. But cleansing coupled with +enlightening, according to Dionysius, belongs to Baptism; and, for +him who falls back into sin, they belong secondarily to Penance and +Extreme Unction. And perfecting, as regards power, which is, as it +were, a formal perfection, belongs to Confirmation: while, as regards +the attainment of the end, it belongs to the Eucharist. + +Reply Obj. 4: In the sacrament of Confirmation we receive the fulness +of the Holy Ghost in order to be strengthened; while in Extreme +Unction man is prepared for the immediate attainment of glory; and +neither of these two purposes was becoming to the Old Testament. +Consequently, nothing in the old Law could correspond to these +sacraments. Nevertheless, the sacraments of the old Law were more +numerous, on account of the various kinds of sacrifices and +ceremonies. + +Reply Obj. 5: There was need for a special sacrament to be applied as +a remedy against venereal concupiscence: first because by this +concupiscence, not only the person but also the nature is defiled: +secondly, by reason of its vehemence whereby it clouds the reason. + +Reply Obj. 6: Holy Water and other consecrated things are not called +sacraments, because they do not produce the sacramental effect, which +is the receiving of grace. They are, however, a kind of disposition +to the sacraments: either by removing obstacles, thus holy water is +ordained against the snares of the demons, and against venial sins: +or by making things suitable for the conferring of a sacrament; thus +the altar and vessels are consecrated through reverence for the +Eucharist. + +Reply Obj. 7: Oblations and tithes, both the Law of nature and in the +Law of Moses, ere ordained not only for the sustenance of the +ministers and the poor, but also figuratively; and consequently they +were sacraments. But now they remain no longer as figures, and +therefore they are not sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 8: The infusion of grace is not necessary for the blotting +out of venial sin. Wherefore, since grace is infused in each of the +sacraments of the New Law, none of them was instituted directly +against venial sin. This is taken away by certain sacramentals, for +instance, Holy Water and such like. Some, however, hold that Extreme +Unction is ordained against venial sin. But of this we shall speak in +its proper place (Suppl., Q. 30, A. 1). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 65, Art. 2] + +Whether the Order of the Sacraments, As Given Above, Is Becoming? + +Objection 1: It seems that the order of the sacraments as given above +is unbecoming. For according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 15:46), "that was +. . . first . . . which is natural, afterwards that which is +spiritual." But man is begotten through Matrimony by a first and +natural generation; while in Baptism he is regenerated as by a second +and spiritual generation. Therefore Matrimony should precede Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, through the sacrament of order man receives the +power of agent in sacramental actions. But the agent precedes his +action. Therefore order should precede Baptism and the other +sacraments. + +Obj. 3: Further, the Eucharist is a spiritual food; while +Confirmation is compared to growth. But food causes, and consequently +precedes, growth. Therefore the Eucharist precedes Confirmation. + +Obj. 4: Further, Penance prepares man for the Eucharist. But a +disposition precedes perfection. Therefore Penance should precede the +Eucharist. + +Obj. 5: Further, that which is nearer the last end comes after other +things. But, of all the sacraments, Extreme Unction is nearest to the +last end which is Happiness. Therefore it should be placed last among +the sacraments. + +_On the contrary,_ The order of the sacraments, as given above, is +commonly adopted by all. + +_I answer that,_ The reason of the order among the sacraments appears +from what has been said above (A. 1). For just as unity precedes +multitude, so those sacraments which are intended for the perfection +of the individual, naturally precede those which are intended for the +perfection of the multitude; and consequently the last place among +the sacraments is given to order and Matrimony, which are intended +for the perfection of the multitude: while Matrimony is placed after +order, because it has less participation in the nature of the +spiritual life, to which the sacraments are ordained. Moreover, among +things ordained to the perfection of the individual, those naturally +come first which are ordained directly to the perfection of the +spiritual life, and afterwards, those which are ordained thereto +indirectly, viz. by removing some supervening accidental cause of +harm; such are Penance and Extreme Unction: while, of these, Extreme +Unction is naturally placed last, for it preserves the healing which +was begun by Penance. + +Of the remaining three, it is clear that Baptism which is a spiritual +regeneration, comes first; then Confirmation, which is ordained to +the formal perfection of power; and after these the Eucharist which +is ordained to final perfection. + +Reply Obj. 1: Matrimony as ordained to natural life is a function of +nature. But in so far as it has something spiritual it is a +sacrament. And because it has the least amount of spirituality it is +placed last. + +Reply Obj. 2: For a thing to be an agent it must first of all be +perfect in itself. Wherefore those sacraments by which a man is +perfected in himself, are placed before the sacrament of order, in +which a man is made a perfecter of others. + +Reply Obj. 3: Nourishment both precedes growth, as its cause; and +follows it, as maintaining the perfection of size and power in man. +Consequently, the Eucharist can be placed before Confirmation, as +Dionysius places it (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv), and can be placed after +it, as the Master does (iv, 2, 8). + +Reply Obj. 4: This argument would hold if Penance were required of +necessity as a preparation to the Eucharist. But this is not true: +for if anyone be without mortal sin, he does not need Penance in +order to receive the Eucharist. Thus it is clear that Penance is an +accidental preparation to the Eucharist, that is to say, sin being +supposed. Wherefore it is written in the last chapter of the second +Book of Paralipomenon (cf. 2 Paral 33:18): "Thou, O Lord of the +righteous, didst not impose penance on righteous men." [*The words +quoted are from the apocryphal Prayer of Manasses, which, before the +Council of Trent, was to be found inserted in some Latin copies of +the Bible.] + +Reply Obj. 5: Extreme Unction, for this very reason, is given the +last place among those sacraments which are ordained to the +perfection of the individual. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 65, Art. 3] + +Whether the Eucharist Is the Greatest of the Sacraments? + +Objection 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not the principal of the +sacraments. For the common good is of more account than the good of +the individual (1 _Ethic._ ii). But Matrimony is ordained to the +common good of the human race by means of generation: whereas the +sacrament of the Eucharist is ordained to the private good of the +recipient. Therefore it is not the greatest of the sacraments. + +Obj. 2: Further, those sacraments, seemingly, are greater, which are +conferred by a greater minister. But the sacraments of Confirmation +and order are conferred by a bishop only, who is a greater minister +than a mere minister such as a priest, by whom the sacraments of the +Eucharist is conferred. Therefore those sacraments are greater. + +Obj. 3: Further, those sacraments are greater that have the greater +power. But some of the sacraments imprint a character, viz. Baptism, +Confirmation and order; whereas the Eucharist does not. Therefore +those sacraments are greater. + +Obj. 4: Further, that seems to be greater, on which others depend +without its depending on them. But the Eucharist depends on Baptism: +since no one can receive the Eucharist except he has been baptized. +Therefore Baptism is greater than the Eucharist. + +_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii) that "No one +receives hierarchical perfection save by the most God-like +Eucharist." Therefore this sacrament is greater than all the others +and perfects them. + +_I answer that,_ Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist +is the greatest of all the sacraments: and this may be shown in three +ways. First of all because it contains Christ Himself substantially: +whereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental power +which is a share of Christ's power, as we have shown above (Q. 62, A. +4, ad 3, A. 5). Now that which is essentially such is always of more +account than that which is such by participation. + +Secondly, this is made clear by considering the relation of the +sacraments to one another. For all the other sacraments seem to be +ordained to this one as to their end. For it is manifest that the +sacrament of order is ordained to the consecration of the Eucharist: +and the sacrament of Baptism to the reception of the Eucharist: while +a man is perfected by Confirmation, so as not to fear to abstain from +this sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction man is prepared to +receive the Body of Christ worthily. And Matrimony at least in its +signification, touches this sacrament; in so far as it signifies the +union of Christ with the Church, of which union the Eucharist is a +figure: hence the Apostle says (Eph. 5:32): "This is a great +sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church." + +Thirdly, this is made clear by considering the rites of the +sacraments. For nearly all the sacraments terminate in the Eucharist, +as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): thus those who have been +ordained receive Holy Communion, as also do those who have been +baptized, if they be adults. + +The remaining sacraments may be compared to one another in several +ways. For on the ground of necessity, Baptism is the greatest of the +sacraments; while from the point of view of perfection, order comes +first; while Confirmation holds a middle place. The sacraments of +Penance and Extreme Unction are on a degree inferior to those +mentioned above; because, as stated above (A. 2), they are ordained +to the Christian life, not directly, but accidentally, as it were, +that is to say, as remedies against supervening defects. And among +these, Extreme Unction is compared to Penance, as Confirmation to +Baptism; in such a way, that Penance is more necessary, whereas +Extreme Unction is more perfect. + +Reply Obj. 1: Matrimony is ordained to the common good as regards the +body. But the common spiritual good of the whole Church is contained +substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist. + +Reply Obj. 2: By order and Confirmation the faithful of Christ are +deputed to certain special duties; and this can be done by the prince +alone. Consequently the conferring of these sacraments belongs +exclusively to a bishop, who is, as it were, a prince in the Church. +But a man is not deputed to any duty by the sacrament of the +Eucharist, rather is this sacrament the end of all duties, as stated +above. + +Reply Obj. 3: The sacramental character, as stated above (Q. 63, A. +3), is a kind of participation in Christ's priesthood. Wherefore the +sacrament that unites man to Christ Himself, is greater than a +sacrament that imprints Christ's character. + +Reply Obj. 4: This argument proceeds on the ground of necessity. For +thus Baptism, being of the greatest necessity, is the greatest of the +sacraments, just as order and Confirmation have a certain excellence +considered in their administration; and Matrimony by reason of its +signification. For there is no reason why a thing should not be +greater from a certain point of view which is not greater absolutely +speaking. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 65, Art. 4] + +Whether All the Sacraments Are Necessary for Salvation? + +Objection 1: It seems that all the sacraments are necessary for +salvation. For what is not necessary seems to be superfluous. But no +sacrament is superfluous, because "God does nothing without a +purpose" (De Coelo et Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are +necessary for salvation. + +Obj. 2: Further, just as it is said of Baptism (John 3:5): "Unless a +man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in to +the kingdom of God," so of the Eucharist is it said (John 6:54): +"Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His +blood, you shall not have life in you." Therefore, just as Baptism is +a necessary sacrament, so is the Eucharist. + +Obj. 3: Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism, +provided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt for +religion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on +(Q. 68, A. 2). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a +hindrance to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments +are necessary for salvation. + +_On the contrary,_ Children are saved by Baptism alone without the +other sacraments. + +_I answer that,_ Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold. +First, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be +attained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple +necessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if, +without it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is +necessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end. + +In the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two +of them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and +absolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after +Baptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church, +since "where there is no governor the people shall fall" (Prov. +11:14). + +But in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a +sense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects +Penance; while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers +in the Church. + +Reply Obj. 1: For a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if it be +necessary either in the first or the second way. It is thus that the +sacraments are necessary, as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 2: These words of our Lord are to be understood of +spiritual, and not of merely sacramental, eating, as Augustine +explains (Tract. xxvi super Joan.). + +Reply Obj. 3: Although contempt of any of the sacraments is a +hindrance to salvation, yet it does not amount to contempt of the +sacrament, if anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is +not necessary for salvation. Else those who do not receive orders, +and those who do not contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt +of those sacraments. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 66 + +OF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM +(In Twelve Articles) + +We have now to consider each sacrament specially: (1) Baptism; +(2) Confirmation; (3) the Eucharist; (4) Penance; (5) Extreme +Unction; (6) Order; (7) Matrimony. + +Concerning the first, our consideration will be twofold: (1) of +Baptism itself; (2) of things preparatory to Baptism. + +Concerning the first, four points arise for our consideration: +(1) Things pertaining to the sacrament of Baptism; (2) The minister +of this sacrament; (3) The recipients of this sacrament; (4) The +effect of this sacrament. + +Concerning the first there are twelve points of inquiry: + +(1) What is Baptism? Is it a washing? + +(2) Of the institution of this sacrament; + +(3) Whether water be the proper matter of this sacrament? + +(4) Whether plain water be required? + +(5) Whether this be a suitable form of this sacrament: "I baptize +thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy +Ghost"? + +(6) Whether one could baptize with this form: "I baptize thee in the +name of Christ?" + +(7) Whether immersion is necessary for Baptism? + +(8) Whether trine immersion is necessary? + +(9) Whether Baptism can be reiterated? + +(10) Of the Baptismal rite; + +(11) Of the various kinds of Baptism; + +(12) Of the comparison between various Baptisms. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 1] + +Whether Baptism Is the Mere Washing? + +Objection 1: It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the +washing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something +permanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is +it "the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment," +as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv). + +Obj. 2: Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that +"Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of +sins." But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of +water. + +Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): "The word +is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Now, the +element is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the +washing. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 34:30): "He that washeth +himself (_baptizatur_) after touching the dead, if he touch him +again, what does his washing avail?" It seems, therefore, that +Baptism is the washing or bathing. + +_I answer that,_ In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be +considered: namely, that which is _sacrament only;_ that which is +_reality and sacrament;_ and that which is _reality only._ That which +is sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign, +namely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a +sacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the +sense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing. +Hence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which +seems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St. +Victor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it +is "a material element": and in defining Baptism he says it is +"water." + +But this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect +a certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the +sanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed +in water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not +permanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into +man who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the +sacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the +water to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that +"Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the +prescribed form of words." + +The Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is +something real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental +sign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only, +in this sacrament--namely, the reality signified and not signifying. + +Reply Obj. 1: That which is both sacrament and reality--i.e. the +character--and that which is reality only--i.e. the inward +justification--remain: the character remains and is indelible, as +stated above (Q. 63, A. 5); the justification remains, but can be +lost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is +done outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is +inward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the +character--namely, "seal" and "safeguarding"; inasmuch as the +character which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned, +safeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as +pertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament--namely, +"regeneration" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized +begins the new life of righteousness; and "enlightenment," which +refers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life, +according to Habac 2 (Heb. 10:38; cf. Habac 2:4): "But (My) just man +liveth by faith"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith; +whence it is called the "Sacrament of Faith." Likewise Dionysius +defined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying +(Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is "the principle that forms the habits of +the soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments"; +and again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal +end of all the sacraments, when he adds, "preparing the way for us, +whereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom"; and again as +to the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, "the conferring of +our most sacred and Godlike regeneration." + +Reply Obj. 2: As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on +this question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that +"Baptism is water" may be verified in so far as water is the material +principle of Baptism: and thus there would be "causal predication." + +Reply Obj. 3: When the words are added, the element becomes a +sacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element +is applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified +by those very words which are added to the element, when we say: "I +baptize thee," etc. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 2] + +Whether Baptism Was Instituted After Christ's Passion? + +Objection 1: It seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's +Passion. For the cause precedes the effect. Now Christ's Passion +operates in the sacraments of the New Law. Therefore Christ's Passion +precedes the institution of the sacraments of the New Law: especially +the sacrament of Baptism since the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3): "All we, +who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death," etc. + +Obj. 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law derive their efficacy +from the mandate of Christ. But Christ gave the disciples the mandate +of Baptism after His Passion and Resurrection, when He said: "Going, +teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father," etc. +(Matt. 28:19). Therefore it seems that Baptism was instituted after +Christ's Passion. + +Obj. 3: Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as stated above +(Q. 65, A. 4): wherefore, seemingly, it must have been binding on man +as soon as it was instituted. But before Christ's Passion men were +not bound to be baptized: for Circumcision was still in force, which +was supplanted by Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism was not +instituted before Christ's Passion. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany +(Append. Serm., clxxxv): "As soon as Christ was plunged into the +waters, the waters washed away the sins of all." But this was before +Christ's Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ's +Passion. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 62, A. 1), sacraments derive +from their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it +seems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power +of producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ +was baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we +consider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this +sacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and +Resurrection. First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the +figurative sacraments, which were supplanted by Baptism and the other +sacraments of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is "made +conformable" to Christ's Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he +dies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently +it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to +man his obligation of conforming himself to Christ's Death and +Resurrection. + +Reply Obj. 1: Even before Christ's Passion, Baptism, inasmuch as it +foreshadowed it, derived its efficacy therefrom; but not in the same +way as the sacraments of the Old Law. For these were mere figures: +whereas Baptism derived the power of justifying from Christ Himself, +to Whose power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue. + +Reply Obj. 2: It was not meet that men should be restricted to a +number of figures by Christ, Who came to fulfil and replace the +figure by His reality. Therefore before His Passion He did not make +Baptism obligatory as soon as it was instituted; but wished men to +become accustomed to its use; especially in regard to the Jews, to +whom all things were figurative, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. +iv). But after His Passion and Resurrection He made Baptism +obligatory, not only on the Jews, but also on the Gentiles, when He +gave the commandment: "Going, teach ye all nations." + +Reply Obj. 3: Sacraments are not obligatory except when we are +commanded to receive them. And this was not before the Passion, as +stated above. For our Lord's words to Nicodemus (John 3:5), "Unless a +man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into +the kingdom of God, seem to refer to the future rather than to the +present." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 3] + +Whether Water Is the Proper Matter of Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism. +For Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De +Fide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a +special characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred +with fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the +Baptist said when foretelling Christ's Baptism (Matt. 3:11): "He +shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire." + +Obj. 2: Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism. +But many other things besides water are employed in washing, such as +wine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with +these also; and consequently water is not the proper matter of +Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side of +Christ hanging on the cross, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5). But not +only water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems that +Baptism can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be more +in keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written (Apoc. +1:5): "(Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood." + +Obj. 4: Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3) +and Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by "the touch of His +most pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing +virtue." But all waters are not connected with the waters of the +Jordan which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems +that Baptism cannot be conferred with any water; and therefore water, +as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism. + +Obj. 5: Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of +Baptism, there would be no need to do anything to the water before +using it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used +for baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that +water, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born +again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom +of God." + +_I answer that,_ By Divine institution water is the proper matter of +Baptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of +Baptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this +answers to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds, +from which all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated, +are moist and akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers +held that water is the first principle of all things. + +Secondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the +properties of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it +cleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing +from sins. By reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat: +wherefore it fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By +reason of its transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its +adaptability to Baptism as the "sacrament of Faith." + +Thirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the +mysteries of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom +says (Hom. xxv in Joan.) on John 3:5, "Unless a man be born again," +etc., "When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our +old man is buried, and being submerged is hidden below, and thence he +rises again renewed." + +Fourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter +suitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained +everywhere. + +Reply Obj. 1: Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized does +not become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which "cometh +by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Consequently water is more suitable, than +fire, for Baptism. + +But when we find it said: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and +fire," we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean +the Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of +fiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean +tribulation, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth.): because +tribulation washes away sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as +Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that "when we have been baptized in the +Holy Ghost," we still have to be "perfected by the fire of the +judgment." + +Reply Obj. 2: Wine and oil are not so commonly used for washing, as +water. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is washed +with them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the case +if water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so abundant +as water. + +Reply Obj. 3: Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us; blood, to +redeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the Eucharist, +while water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this latter +sacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of Christ's +blood. + +Reply Obj. 4: Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason of, +not connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says +in a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): "The blessing that +flowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the +course of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring." + +Reply Obj. 5: The blessing of the water is not essential to Baptism, +but belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of the +faithful is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from +impeding the baptismal effect. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 4] + +Whether Plain Water Is Necessary for Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism. +For the water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially +in sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the +earthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this +water may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not +necessary for Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is +poured into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and +plainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not +necessary for Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ +hanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A. 3, +ad 3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements +do not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it +seems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism. + +Obj. 4: Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has the +properties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those of +water. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for +the water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a +sulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it +seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism. + +Obj. 5: Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as chemical +waters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such like +waters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is distilled +from vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and plain +water, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for +Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated +above (A. 3). But plain water alone has the nature of water. +Therefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism. + +_I answer that,_ Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two +ways: first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by +alteration. And each of these may happen in a twofold manner; +artificially and naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature: +because nature gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for +whatever form is given by art is accidental; except perchance when +art applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a +combustible; in which manner animals are produced from certain things +by way of putrefaction. + +Whatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether +by mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is not changed. +Consequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such +a small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the +compound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than +water, and diluted wine is wine rather than water. + +But if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the +water; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the +substance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the +grape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes, +however, there may be a natural change of the water, without +destruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see +in the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the +water of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of +earth. + +We must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no +matter how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is +not destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be +used for Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 1: The change in sea-water and in other waters which we +have to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water. And +therefore such waters may be used for Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 2: Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water by +being mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat +and the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved +that the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be +guided by the specific gravity (_spissitudine_). If, however, from +the liquor thus thickened plain water be strained, it can be used for +Baptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be used +for baptizing. + +Reply Obj. 3: The water which flowed from the side of Christ hanging +on the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have supposed. +For a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as neither can +the blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted from plants. +It was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a +dead body, to prove the reality of our Lord's body, and confute the +error of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four elements, +showing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements; blood, +proving that it was composed of the four humors. + +Reply Obj. 4: Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters of +Sulphur Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated, +artificially or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only +a certain alteration by passing through certain bodies. + +Reply Obj. 5: Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses: +consequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason +chemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the +comparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by +the condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains +a minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid matter +by the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in +this process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot +be produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains no +properties of any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or +chemical waters. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 5] + +Whether This Be a Suitable Form of Baptism: "I Baptize Thee in the +Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"? + +Objection 1: It seems that this is not a suitable form of Baptism: "I +baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the +Holy Ghost." For action should be ascribed to the principal agent +rather than to the minister. Now the minister of a sacrament acts as +an instrument, as stated above (Q. 64, A. 1); while the principal +agent in Baptism is Christ, according to John 1:33, "He upon Whom +thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is +that baptizeth." It is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say, +"I baptize thee": the more so that _Ego_ (I) is understood in the +word _baptizo_ (I baptize), so that it seems redundant. + +Obj. 2: Further, there is no need for a man who does an action, to +make mention of the action done; thus he who teaches, need not say, +"I teach you." Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both +of baptizing and of teaching, when He said (Matt. 28:19): "Going, +teach ye all nations," etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of +Baptism to mention the action of baptizing. + +Obj. 3: Further, the person baptized sometimes does not understand +the words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. But it is useless +to address such a one; according to Ecclus. 32:6: "Where there is no +hearing, pour not out words." Therefore it is unfitting to address +the person baptized with these words: "I baptize thee." + +Obj. 4: Further, it may happen that several are baptized by several +at the same time; thus the apostles on one day baptized three +thousand, and on another, five thousand (Acts 2, 4). Therefore the +form of Baptism should not be limited to the singular number in the +words, "I baptize thee": but one should be able to say, "We baptize +you." + +Obj. 5: Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion. But +Baptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that Christ's +Passion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism. + +Obj. 6: Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But there are +three Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in the +First Part (Q. 32, A. 3). Therefore we should not say, "in the name," +but "in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy +Ghost." + +Obj. 7: Further, the Person of the Father is designated not only by +the name Father, but also by that of "Unbegotten and Begetter"; and +the Son by those of "Word," "Image," and "Begotten"; and the Holy +Ghost by those of "Gift," "Love," and the "Proceeding One." Therefore +it seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Matt. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye +all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the +Son, and of the Holy Ghost." + +_I answer that,_ Baptism receives its consecration from its form, +according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the laver of water in the +word of life." And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that +"Baptism is consecrated by the words of the Gospel." Consequently the +cause of Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now +this cause is twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its +virtue, and this is the Blessed Trinity; and the instrumental cause, +viz. the minister who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both +causes should be expressed in the form of Baptism. Now the minister +is designated by the words, "I baptize thee"; and the principal cause +in the words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the +Holy Ghost." Therefore this is the suitable form of Baptism: "I +baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the +Holy Ghost." + +Reply Obj. 1: Action is attributed to an instrument as to the +immediate agent; but to the principal agent inasmuch as the +instrument acts in virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in +the baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the +act of baptizing, in the words, "I baptize thee"; indeed, our Lord +attributed to the ministers the act of baptizing, when He said: +"Baptizing them," etc. But the principal cause is indicated as +conferring the sacrament by His own power, in the words, "in the name +of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": for Christ +does not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost. + +The Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of baptizing to the +minister, in order to avoid the error of those who in the past +ascribed the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (1 Cor. 1:12): +"I am of Paul . . . and I of Cephas." Wherefore they use the form: +"May the servant of Christ, N . . ., be baptized, in the name of the +Father," etc. And since the action performed by the minister is +expressed with the invocation of the Trinity, the sacrament is +validly conferred. As to the addition of "Ego" in our form, it is not +essential; but it is added in order to lay greater stress on the +intention. + +Reply Obj. 2: Since a man may be washed with water for several +reasons, the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the +words of the form. And this is not done by saying: "In the name of +the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; because we are +bound to do all things in that Name (Col. 3:17). Wherefore unless the +act of baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, +the sacrament is not valid; according to the decretal of Alexander +III: "If anyone dip a child thrice in the water in the name of the +Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, without saying, +I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the +Holy Ghost, Amen, the child is not baptized." + +Reply Obj. 3: The words which are uttered in the sacramental forms, +are said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also for +the purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from that +Word, by Whom "all things were made." Consequently they are +becomingly addressed not only to men, but also to insensible +creatures; for instance, when we say: "I exorcize thee, creature +salt" (Roman Ritual). + +Reply Obj. 4: Several cannot baptize one at the same time: because an +action is multiplied according to the number of the agents, if it be +done perfectly by each. So that if two were to combine, of whom one +were mute, and unable to utter the words, and the other were without +hands, and unable to perform the action, they could not both baptize +at the same time, one saying the words and the other performing the +action. + +On the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be baptized +at the same time; for no single one of them would receive more than +one baptism. But it would be necessary, in that case, to say: "I +baptize ye." Nor would this be a change of form, because "ye" is the +same as "thee and thee." Whereas "we" does not mean "I and I," but "I +and thou"; so that this would be a change of form. + +Likewise it would be a change of form to say, "I baptize myself": +consequently no one can baptize himself. For this reason did Christ +choose to be baptized by John (Extra, De Baptismo et ejus effectu, +cap. Debitum). + +Reply Obj. 5: Although Christ's Passion is the principal cause as +compared to the minister, yet it is an instrumental cause as compared +to the Blessed Trinity. For this reason the Trinity is mentioned +rather than Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 6: Although there are three personal names of the three +Persons, there is but one essential name. Now the Divine power which +works in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say, "in +the name," and not, "in the names." + +Reply Obj. 7: Just as water is used in Baptism, because it is more +commonly employed in washing, so for the purpose of designating the +three Persons, in the form of Baptism, those names are chosen, which +are generally used, in a particular language, to signify the Persons. +Nor is the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 6] + +Whether Baptism Can Be Conferred in the Name of Christ? + +Objection 1: It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of +Christ. For just as there is "one Faith," so is there "one Baptism" +(Eph. 4:5). But it is related (Acts 8:12) that "in the name of Jesus +Christ they were baptized, both men and women." Therefore now also +can Baptism be conferred in the name of Christ. + +Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i): "If you mention +Christ, you designate both the Father by Whom He was anointed, and +the Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy Ghost with Whom He +was anointed." But Baptism can be conferred in the name of the +Trinity: therefore also in the name of Christ. + +Obj. 3: Further, Pope Nicholas I, answering questions put to him by +the Bulgars, said: "Those who have been baptized in the name of the +Trinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the +Apostles (it is all the same, as Blessed Ambrose saith), must not be +rebaptized." But they would be baptized again if they had not been +validly baptized with that form. Therefore Baptism can be celebrated +in the name of Christ by using this form: "I baptize thee in the name +of Christ." + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop Gaudentius: +"If any people living in your Worship's neighborhood, avow that they +have been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any +hesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity, +when they come in quest of the Catholic Faith." Didymus, too, says +(De Spir. Sanct.): "If indeed there be such a one with a mind so +foreign to faith as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid +names," viz. of the three Persons, "he baptizes invalidly." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 64, A. 3), the sacraments derive +their efficacy from Christ's institution. Consequently, if any of +those things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a +sacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did +not bind His power to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the +sacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity. +And consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the +Trinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism. + +Nor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, +as the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he +who mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the +Three; because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does +it require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament +it is not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the +Trinity be expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's +Baptism, wherein was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism, +the Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the Father in the +voice, the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove. + +Reply Obj. 1: It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the +primitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in +order that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and +Gentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy +Ghost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name. + +Reply Obj. 2: Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could, +without inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely, +because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and +therefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in +its integrity, at least implicitly. + +Reply Obj. 3: Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the two +authorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer +to this is clear from the two solutions given above. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 7] + +Whether Immersion in Water Is Necessary for Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that immersion in water is necessary for +Baptism. Because it is written (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one baptism." +But in many parts of the world the ordinary way of baptizing is by +immersion. Therefore it seems that there can be no Baptism without +immersion. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3, 4): "All we who are +baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are +buried together with Him, by Baptism into death." But this is done by +immersion: for Chrysostom says on John 3:5: "Unless a man be born +again of water and the Holy Ghost," etc.: "When we dip our heads +under the water as in a kind of tomb, our old man is buried, and +being submerged, is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed." +Therefore it seems that immersion is essential to Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, if Baptism is valid without total immersion of the +body, it would follow that it would be equally sufficient to pour +water over any part of the body. But this seems unreasonable; since +original sin, to remedy which is the principal purpose of Baptism, is +not in only one part of the body. Therefore it seems that immersion +is necessary for Baptism, and that mere sprinkling is not enough. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 10:22): "Let us draw near with +a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an +evil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water." + +_I answer that,_ In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use +of a washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away +of sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion, +but also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is +safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary +fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by +pouring, according to Ezech. 36:25: "I will pour upon you clean +water," as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized. And +this especially in cases of urgency: either because there is a great +number to be baptized, as was clearly the case in Acts 2 and 4, where +we read that on one day three thousand believed, and on another five +thousand: or through there being but a small supply of water, or +through feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate +for Baptism; or through feebleness of the candidate, whose life might +be endangered by immersion. We must therefore conclude that immersion +is not necessary for Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 1: What is accidental to a thing does not diversify its +essence. Now bodily washing with water is essential to Baptism: +wherefore Baptism is called a "laver," according to Eph. 5:26: +"Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." But that +the washing be done this or that way, is accidental to Baptism. And +consequently such diversity does not destroy the oneness of Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 2: Christ's burial is more clearly represented by +immersion: wherefore this manner of baptizing is more frequently in +use and more commendable. Yet in the other ways of baptizing it is +represented after a fashion, albeit not so clearly; for no matter how +the washing is done, the body of a man, or some part thereof, is put +under water, just as Christ's body was put under the earth. + +Reply Obj. 3: The principal part of the body, especially in relation +to the exterior members, is the head, wherein all the senses, both +interior and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body +cannot be covered with water, because of the scarcity of water, or +because of some other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the +head, in which the principle of animal life is made manifest. + +And although original sin is transmitted through the members that +serve for procreation, yet those members are not to be sprinkled in +preference to the head, because by Baptism the transmission of +original sin to the offspring by the act of procreation is not +deleted, but the soul is freed from the stain and debt of sin which +it has contracted. Consequently that part of the body should be +washed in preference, in which the works of the soul are made +manifest. + +Nevertheless in the Old Law the remedy against original sin was +affixed to the member of procreation; because He through Whom +original sin was to be removed, was yet to be born of the seed of +Abraham, whose faith was signified by circumcision according to Rom. +4:11. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 8] + +Whether Trine Immersion Is Essential to Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism. +For Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, addressed to the +Neophytes: "Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were +baptized in the name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three +times, because you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on +the third day rose again from the dead. For that thrice repeated +immersion reproduces the burial of the Lord by which you were buried +with Christ in Baptism." Now both seem to be essential to Baptism, +namely, that in Baptism the Trinity of Persons should be signified, +and that we should be conformed to Christ's burial. Therefore it +seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's +mandate. But trine immersion was commanded by Christ: for Pope +Pelagius II wrote to Bishop Gaudentius: "The Gospel precept given by +our Lord God Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ, admonishes us to +confer the sacrament of Baptism to each one in the name of the +Trinity and also with trine immersion." Therefore, just as it is +essential to Baptism to call on the name of the Trinity, so is it +essential to baptize by trine immersion. + +Obj. 3: Further, if trine immersion be not essential to Baptism, it +follows that the sacrament of Baptism is conferred at the first +immersion; so that if a second or third immersion be added, it seems +that Baptism is conferred a second or third time, which is absurd. +Therefore one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of +Baptism, and trine immersion is essential thereto. + +_On the contrary,_ Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: "It cannot be +in any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or +a single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three +immersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion." + +I answer that As stated above (A. 7, ad 1), washing with water is of +itself required for Baptism, being essential to the sacrament: +whereas the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament. +Consequently, as Gregory in the words above quoted explains, both +single and trine immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since +one immersion signifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the +Godhead; while trine immersion signifies the three days of Christ's +burial, and also the Trinity of Persons. + +But for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one +mode has been in practice, at one time, the other at another time. +For since from the very earliest days of the Church some have had +false notions concerning the Trinity, holding that Christ is a mere +man, and that He is not called the "Son of God" or "God" except by +reason of His merit, which was chiefly in His death; for this reason +they did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory of +Christ's death, and with one immersion. And this was condemned in the +early Church. Wherefore in the Apostolic Canons (xlix) we read: "If +any priest or bishop confer baptism not with the trine immersion in +the one administration, but with one immersion, which baptism is said +to be conferred by some in the death of the Lord, let him be +deposed": for our Lord did not say, "Baptize ye in My death," but "In +the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." + +Later on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and +heretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan., cf. De Haeres. +lxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their +error, only one immersion was ordered to be made, by the (fourth) +council of Toledo, in the acts of which we read: "In order to avoid +the scandal of schism or the practice of heretical teaching let us +hold to the single baptismal immersion." + +But now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally +observed in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise +would sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It +would, however, be valid Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 1: The Trinity acts as principal agent in Baptism. Now the +likeness of the agent enters into the effect, in regard to the form +and not in regard to the matter. Wherefore the Trinity is signified +in Baptism by the words of the form. Nor is it essential for the +Trinity to be signified by the manner in which the matter is used; +although this is done to make the signification clearer. + +In like manner Christ's death is sufficiently represented in the one +immersion. And the three days of His burial were not necessary for +our salvation, because even if He had been buried or dead for one +day, this would have been enough to consummate our redemption: yet +those three days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality +of His death, as stated above (Q. 53, A. 2). It is therefore clear +that neither on the part of the Trinity, nor on the part of Christ's +Passion, is the trine immersion essential to the sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: Pope Pelagius understood the trine immersion to be +ordained by Christ in its equivalent; in the sense that Christ +commanded Baptism to be conferred "in the name of the Father, and of +the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Nor can we argue from the form to +the use of the matter, as stated above (ad 1). + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 64, A. 8), the intention is +essential to Baptism. Consequently, one Baptism results from the +intention of the Church's minister, who intends to confer one Baptism +by a trine immersion. Wherefore Jerome says on Eph. 4:5, 6: "Though +the Baptism," i.e. the immersion, "be thrice repeated, on account of +the mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed as one Baptism." + +If, however, the intention were to confer one Baptism at each +immersion together with the repetition of the words of the form, it +would be a sin, in itself, because it would be a repetition of +Baptism. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 9] + +Whether Baptism May Be Reiterated? + +Objection 1: It seems that Baptism may be reiterated. For Baptism was +instituted, seemingly, in order to wash away sins. But sins are +reiterated. Therefore much more should Baptism be reiterated: because +Christ's mercy surpasses man's guilt. + +Obj. 2: Further, John the Baptist received special commendation from +Christ, Who said of him (Matt. 11:11): "There hath not risen among +them that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist." But +those whom John had baptized were baptized again, according to Acts +19:1-7, where it is stated that Paul rebaptized those who had +received the Baptism of John. Much more, therefore, should those be +rebaptized, who have been baptized by heretics or sinners. + +Obj. 3: Further, it was decreed in the Council of Nicaea (Can. xix) +that if "any of the Paulianists or Cataphrygians should be converted +to the Catholic Church, they were to be baptized": and this seemingly +should be said in regard to other heretics. Therefore those whom the +heretics have baptized, should be baptized again. + +Obj. 4: Further, Baptism is necessary for salvation. But sometimes +there is a doubt about the baptism of those who really have been +baptized. Therefore it seems that they should be baptized again. + +Obj. 5: Further, the Eucharist is a more perfect sacrament than +Baptism, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 3). But the sacrament of the +Eucharist is reiterated. Much more reason, therefore, is there for +Baptism to be reiterated. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written, (Eph. 4:5): "One faith, one Baptism." + +_I answer that,_ Baptism cannot be reiterated. + +First, because Baptism is a spiritual regeneration; inasmuch as a man +dies to the old life, and begins to lead the new life. Whence it is +written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy +Ghost, He cannot see [Vulg.: 'enter into'] the kingdom of God." Now +one man can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be +reiterated, just as neither can carnal generation. Hence Augustine +says on John 3:4: "'Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb +and be born again': So thou," says he, "must understand the birth of +the Spirit, as Nicodemus understood the birth of the flesh . . . . As +there is no return to the womb, so neither is there to Baptism." + +Secondly, because "we are baptized in Christ's death," by which we +die unto sin and rise again unto "newness of life" (cf. Rom. 6:3, 4). +Now "Christ died" but "once" (Rom. 6:10). Wherefore neither should +Baptism be reiterated. For this reason (Heb. 6:6) is it said against +some who wished to be baptized again: "Crucifying again to themselves +the Son of God"; on which the gloss observes: "Christ's one death +hallowed the one Baptism." + +Thirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which is indelible, +and is conferred with a certain consecration. Wherefore, just as +other consecrations are not reiterated in the Church, so neither is +Baptism. This is the view expressed by Augustine, who says (Contra +Epist. Parmen. ii) that "the military character is not renewed": and +that "the sacrament of Christ is not less enduring than this bodily +mark, since we see that not even apostates are deprived of Baptism, +since when they repent and return they are not baptized anew." + +Fourthly, because Baptism is conferred principally as a remedy +against original sin. Wherefore, just as original sin is not renewed, +so neither is Baptism reiterated, for as it is written (Rom. 5:18), +"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." + +Reply Obj. 1: Baptism derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, as +stated above (A. 2, ad 1). Wherefore, just as subsequent sins do not +cancel the virtue of Christ's Passion, so neither do they cancel +Baptism, so as to call for its repetition. On the other hand the sin +which hindered the effect of Baptism is blotted out on being +submitted to Penance. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says on John 1:33: "'And I knew Him not': +Behold; after John had baptized, Baptism was administered; after a +murderer has baptized, it is not administered: because John gave his +own Baptism; the murderer, Christ's; for that sacrament is so sacred, +that not even a murderer's administration contaminates it." + +Reply Obj. 3: The Paulianists and Cataphrygians used not to baptize +in the name of the Trinity. Wherefore Gregory, writing to the Bishop +Quiricus, says: "Those heretics who are not baptized in the name of +the Trinity, such as the Bonosians and Cataphrygians" (who were of +the same mind as the Paulianists), "since the former believe not that +Christ is God" (holding Him to be a mere man), "while the latter," +i.e. the Cataphrygians, "are so perverse as to deem a mere man," viz. +Montanus, "to be the Holy Ghost: all these are baptized when they +come to holy Church, for the baptism which they received while in +that state of error was no Baptism at all, not being conferred in the +name of the Trinity." On the other hand, as set down in De Eccles. +Dogm. xxii: "Those heretics who have been baptized in the confession +of the name of the Trinity are to be received as already baptized +when they come to the Catholic Faith." + +Reply Obj. 4: According to the Decretal of Alexander III: "Those +about whose Baptism there is a doubt are to be baptized with these +words prefixed to the form: 'If thou art baptized, I do not rebaptize +thee; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee,' etc.: for that +does not appear to be repeated, which is not known to have been done." + +Reply Obj. 5: Both sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Eucharist, are a +representation of our Lord's death and Passion, but not in the same +way. For Baptism is a commemoration of Christ's death in so far as +man dies with Christ, that he may be born again into a new life. But +the Eucharist is a commemoration of Christ's death, in so far as the +suffering Christ Himself is offered to us as the Paschal banquet, +according to 1 Cor. 5:7, 8: "Christ our pasch is sacrificed; +therefore let us feast." And forasmuch as man is born once, whereas +he eats many times, so is Baptism given once, but the Eucharist +frequently. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 10] + +Whether the Church Observes a Suitable Rite in Baptizing? + +Objection 1: It seems that the Church observes an unsuitable rite in +baptizing. For as Chrysostom (Chromatius, in Matth. 3:15) says: "The +waters of Baptism would never avail to purge the sins of them that +believe, had they not been hallowed by the touch of our Lord's body." +Now this took place at Christ's Baptism, which is commemorated in the +Feast of the Epiphany. Therefore solemn Baptism should be celebrated +at the Feast of the Epiphany rather than on the eves of Easter and +Whitsunday. + +Obj. 2: Further, it seems that several matters should not be used in +the same sacrament. But water is used for washing in Baptism. +Therefore it is unfitting that the person baptized should be anointed +thrice with holy oil first on the breast, and then between the +shoulders, and a third time with chrism on the top of the head. + +Obj. 3: Further, "in Christ Jesus . . . there is neither male nor +female" (Gal. 3:23) . . . "neither Barbarian nor Scythian" (Col. +3:11), nor, in like manner, any other such like distinctions. Much +less, therefore can a difference of clothing have any efficacy in the +Faith of Christ. It is consequently unfitting to bestow a white +garment on those who have been baptized. + +Obj. 4: Further, Baptism can be celebrated without such like +ceremonies. Therefore it seems that those mentioned above are +superfluous; and consequently that they are unsuitably inserted by +the Church in the baptismal rite. + +_On the contrary,_ The Church is ruled by the Holy Ghost, Who does +nothing inordinate. + +_I answer that,_ In the sacrament of Baptism something is done which +is essential to the sacrament, and something which belongs to a +certain solemnity of the sacrament. Essential indeed, to the +sacrament are both the form which designates the principal cause of +the sacrament; and the minister who is the instrumental cause; and +the use of the matter, namely, washing with water, which designates +the principal sacramental effect. But all the other things which the +Church observes in the baptismal rite, belong rather to a certain +solemnity of the sacrament. + +And these, indeed, are used in conjunction with the sacrament for +three reasons. First, in order to arouse the devotion of the +faithful, and their reverence for the sacrament. For if there were +nothing done but a mere washing with water, without any solemnity, +some might easily think it to be an ordinary washing. + +Secondly, for the instruction of the faithful. Because simple and +unlettered folk need to be taught by some sensible signs, for +instance, pictures and the like. And in this way by means of the +sacramental ceremonies they are either instructed, or urged to seek +the signification of such like sensible signs. And consequently, +since, besides the principal sacramental effect, other things should +be known about Baptism, it was fitting that these also should be +represented by some outward signs. + +Thirdly, because the power of the devil is restrained, by prayers, +blessings, and the like, from hindering the sacramental effect. + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ was baptized on the Epiphany with the Baptism of +John, as stated above (Q. 39, A. 2), with which baptism, indeed, the +faithful are not baptized, rather are they baptized with Christ's +Baptism. This has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ, according +to Rom. 6:3: "We who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in +His death"; and in the Holy Ghost, according to John 3:5: "Unless a +man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost." Therefore it is that +solemn Baptism is held in the Church, both on Easter Eve, when we +commemorate our Lord's burial and resurrection; for which reason our +Lord gave His disciples the commandment concerning Baptism as related +by Matthew (28:19): and on Whitsun-eve, when the celebration of the +Feast of the Holy Ghost begins; for which reason the apostles are +said to have baptized three thousand on the very day of Pentecost +when they had received the Holy Ghost. + +Reply Obj. 2: The use of water in Baptism is part of the substance of +the sacrament; but the use of oil or chrism is part of the solemnity. +For the candidate is first of all anointed with Holy oil on the +breast and between the shoulders, as "one who wrestles for God," to +use Ambrose's expression (De Sacram. i): thus are prize-fighters wont +to besmear themselves with oil. Or, as Innocent III says in a +decretal on the Holy Unction: "The candidate is anointed on the +breast, in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, to cast off +error and ignorance, and to acknowledge the true faith, since 'the +just man liveth by faith'; while he is anointed between the +shoulders, that he may be clothed with the grace of the Holy Ghost, +lay aside indifference and sloth, and become active in good works; so +that the sacrament of faith may purify the thoughts of his heart, and +strengthen his shoulders for the burden of labor." But after Baptism, +as Rabanus says (De Sacram. iii), "he is forthwith anointed on the +head by the priest with Holy Chrism, who proceeds at once to offer up +a prayer that the neophyte may have a share in Christ's kingdom, and +be called a Christian after Christ." Or, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. +iii), his head is anointed, because "the senses of a wise man are in +his head" (Eccl 2:14): to wit, that he may "be ready to satisfy +everyone that asketh" him to give "a reason of his faith" (cf. 1 Pet. +3:15; Innocent III, Decretal on Holy Unction). + +Reply Obj. 3: This white garment is given, not as though it were +unlawful for the neophyte to use others: but as a sign of the +glorious resurrection, unto which men are born again by Baptism; and +in order to designate the purity of life, to which he will be bound +after being baptized, according to Rom. 6:4: "That we may walk in +newness of life." + +Reply Obj. 4: Although those things that belong to the solemnity of +a sacrament are not essential to it, yet are they not superfluous, +since they pertain to the sacrament's wellbeing, as stated above. +_______________________ + +ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 11] + +Whether Three Kinds of Baptism Are Fittingly Described--viz. Baptism +of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit? + +Objection 1: It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not +fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, +i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Eph. 4:5): "One +Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there +should not be three Baptisms. + +Obj. 2: Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above +(Q. 65, A. 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. +Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms. + +Obj. 3: Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several +other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three +Baptisms. + +_On the contrary,_ on Heb. 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the +gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, +of Repentance, and of Blood." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 62, A. 5), Baptism of Water has +its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by +Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although +the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the +effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without +Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's +Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. +Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of +great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them +white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the +effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without +Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his +heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to +repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of +Repentance. Of this it is written (Isa. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash +away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the +blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of +judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of +these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the +place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo +Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason +from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today +shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place +of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I +perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply +for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of +heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the +celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable." + +Reply Obj. 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of +Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and +from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of +Baptism is not destroyed. + +Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 60, A. 1), a sacrament is a kind +of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, +indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. +Consequently they are not sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 3: Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For +instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the +salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . +souls were saved in the ark [Vulg.: 'by water']," according to 1 Pet. +3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a +figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of +sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2) that "all . . . were +baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the +various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were +figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the +Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism. +_______________________ + +TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 12] + +Whether the Baptism of Blood Is the Most Excellent of These? + +Objection 1: It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most +excellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a +character; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the +Baptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the +Baptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Cor. +13:3): "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not +charity, it profiteth me nothing." But the Baptism of the Spirit +avails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are +saved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent. + +Obj. 3: Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy +from Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above (A. 11), the Baptism +of Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from +the Holy Ghost, according to Heb. 9:14: "The Blood of Christ, Who by +the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our +conscience from dead works," etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit +is more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of +Blood is not the most excellent. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the +comparison between Baptisms says: "The newly baptized confesses his +faith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of +the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has +confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy +Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made the +temple of the Holy Ghost." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 11), the shedding of blood for +Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called +baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of +Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's +Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (A. 11). These two +causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, +however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the +Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the +Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire; but in the +Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like +manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water +through a certain hidden power; in the Baptism of Repentance by +moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree +of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater +love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his +friends." + +Reply Obj. 1: A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do +not say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the +nature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect. + +Reply Obj. 2: The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism +if it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood +includes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this +it is proved to be more perfect. + +Reply Obj. 3: The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's +Passion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 67 + +OF THE MINISTERS BY WHOM THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS CONFERRED +(In Eight Articles) + +We have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacrament of +Baptism is conferred. And concerning this there are eight points of +inquiry: + +(1) Whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize? + +(2) Whether this belongs to a priest, or to a bishop only? + +(3) Whether a layman can confer the sacrament of Baptism? + +(4) Whether a woman can do this? + +(5) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize? + +(6) Whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same +person? + +(7) Whether it is essential that someone should raise the person +baptized from the sacred font? + +(8) Whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to +instruct him? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 1] + +Whether It Is Part of a Deacon's Duty to Baptize? + +Objection 1: It seems that it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize. +Because the duties of preaching and of baptizing were enjoined by our +Lord at the same time, according to Matt. 28:19: "Going . . . teach +ye all nations, baptizing them," etc. But it is part of a deacon's +duty to preach the gospel. Therefore it seems that it is also part of +a deacon's duty to baptize. + +Obj. 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) to "cleanse" +is part of the deacon's duty. But cleansing from sins is effected +specially by Baptism, according to Eph. 5:26: "Cleansing it by the +laver of water in the word of life." Therefore it seems that it +belongs to a deacon to baptize. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is told of Blessed Laurence, who was a deacon, +that he baptized many. Therefore it seems that it belongs to deacons +to baptize. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Gelasius I says (the passage is to be found +in the Decrees, dist. 93): "We order the deacons to keep within their +own province"; and further on: "Without bishop or priest they must +not dare to baptize, except in cases of extreme urgency, when the +aforesaid are a long way off." + +_I answer that,_ Just as the properties and duties of the heavenly +orders are gathered from their names, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. +vi), so can we gather, from the names of the ecclesiastical orders, +what belongs to each order. Now "deacons" are so called from being +"ministers"; because, to wit, it is not in the deacon's province to +be the chief and official celebrant in conferring a sacrament, but to +minister to others, his elders, in the sacramental dispensations. And +so it does not belong to a deacon to confer the sacrament of Baptism +officially as it were; but to assist and serve his elders in the +bestowal of this and other sacraments. Hence Isidore says (Epist. ad +Ludifred.): "It is a deacon's duty to assist and serve the priests, +in all the rites of Christ's sacraments, viz. those of Baptism, of +the Chrism, of the Paten and Chalice." + +Reply Obj. 1: It is the deacon's duty to read the Gospel in church, +and to preach it as one catechizing; hence Dionysius says (Eccl. +Hier. v) that a deacon's office involves power over the unclean among +whom he includes the catechumens. But to teach, i.e. to expound the +Gospel, is the proper office of a bishop, whose action is "to +perfect," as Dionysius teaches (Eccl. Hier. v); and "to perfect" is +the same as "to teach." Consequently, it does not follow that the +office of baptizing belongs to deacons. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii), Baptism has a power +not only of "cleansing" but also of "enlightening." Consequently, it +is outside the province of the deacon whose duty it is to cleanse +only: viz. either by driving away the unclean, or by preparing them +for the reception of a sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: Because Baptism is a necessary sacrament, deacons are +allowed to baptize in cases of urgency when their elders are not at +hand; as appears from the authority of Gelasius quoted above. And it +was thus that Blessed Laurence, being but a deacon, baptized. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 2] + +Whether to Baptize Is Part of the Priestly Office, or Proper to That +of Bishops? + +Objection 1: It seems that to baptize is not part of the priestly +office, but proper to that of bishops. Because, as stated above (A. +1, Obj. 1), the duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the +same precept (Matt. 28:19). But to teach, which is "to perfect," +belongs to the office of bishop, as Dionysius declares (Eccl. Hier. +v, vi). Therefore to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office. + +Obj. 2: Further, by Baptism a man is admitted to the body of the +Christian people: and to do this seems consistent with no other than +the princely office. Now the bishops hold the position of princes in +the Church, as the gloss observes on Luke 10:1: indeed, they even +take the place of the apostles, of whom it is written (Ps. 44:17): +"Thou shalt make them princes over all the earth." Therefore it seems +that to baptize belongs exclusively to the office of bishops. + +Obj. 3: Further, Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs +to the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, to consecrate +(_conficere_) the chrism; he it is that confers the ecclesiastical +orders, and blesses the consecrated virgins." But the sacrament of +Baptism is greater than all these. Therefore much more reason is +there why to baptize should belong exclusively to the episcopal +office. + +_On the contrary,_ Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): "It is certain +that Baptism was entrusted to priests alone." + +_I answer that,_ Priests are consecrated for the purpose of +celebrating the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above (Q. 65, +A. 3). Now that is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, according +to the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:17): "We, being many, are one bread, one +body, all that partake of one bread and one chalice." Moreover, by +Baptism a man becomes a participator in ecclesiastical unity, +wherefore also he receives the right to approach our Lord's Table. +Consequently, just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate the +Eucharist, which is the principal purpose of the priesthood, so it is +the proper office of a priest to baptize: since it seems to belong to +one and the same, to produce the whole and to dispose the part in the +whole. + +Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord enjoined on the apostles, whose place is taken +by the bishops, both duties, namely, of teaching and of baptizing, +but in different ways. Because Christ committed to them the duty of +teaching, that they might exercise it themselves as being the most +important duty of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said (Acts +6:2): "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and +serve tables." On the other hand, He entrusted the apostles with the +office of baptizing, to be exercised vicariously; wherefore the +Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:17): "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to +preach the Gospel." And the reason for this was that the merit and +wisdom of the minister have no bearing on the baptismal effect, as +they have in teaching, as may be seen from what we have stated above +(Q. 64, A. 1, ad 2; AA. 5, 9). A proof of this is found also in the +fact that our Lord Himself did not baptize, but His disciples, as +John relates (4:2). Nor does it follow from this that bishops cannot +baptize; since what a lower power can do, that can also a higher +power. Wherefore also the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:14, 16) that he had +baptized some. + +Reply Obj. 2: In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted to +lower officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher +officials; according to Ex. 18:22: "When any great matter soever +shall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the +lesser matters only." Consequently it belongs to the lower officials +of the state to decide matters concerning the lower orders; while to +the highest it belongs to set in order those matters that regard the +higher orders of the state. Now by Baptism a man attains only to the +lowest rank among the Christian people: and consequently it belongs +to the lesser officials of the Church to baptize, namely, the +priests, who hold the place of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, +as the gloss says in the passage quoted from Luke 10. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 65, A. 3), the sacrament of Baptism +holds the first place in the order of necessity; but in the order of +perfection there are other greater sacraments which are reserved to +bishops. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 3] + +Whether a Layman Can Baptize? + +Objection 1: It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as +stated above (A. 2), to baptize belongs properly to the priestly +order. But those things which belong to an order cannot be entrusted +to one that is not ordained. Therefore it seems that a layman, who +has no orders, cannot baptize. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is a greater thing to baptize, than to perform +the other sacramental rites of Baptism, such as to catechize, to +exorcize, and to bless the baptismal water. But these things cannot +be done by laymen, but only by priests. Therefore it seems that much +less can laymen baptize. + +Obj. 3: Further, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is +Penance. But a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance. +Neither, therefore, can he baptize. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Gelasius I and Isidore say that "it is often +permissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent +necessity." + +_I answer that,_ It is due to the mercy of Him "Who will have all men +to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) that in those things which are necessary +for salvation, man can easily find the remedy. Now the most necessary +among all the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto +spiritual life: since for children there is no substitute, while +adults cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both +of guilt and of its punishment. Consequently, lest man should have to +go without so necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the +matter of Baptism should be something common that is easily +obtainable by all, i.e. water; and that the minister of Baptism +should be anyone, even not in orders, lest from lack of being +baptized, man should suffer loss of his salvation. + +Reply Obj. 1: To baptize belongs to the priestly order by reason of a +certain appropriateness and solemnity; but this is not essential to +the sacrament. Consequently, if a layman were to baptize even outside +a case of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer the sacrament; +nor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized again. + +Reply Obj. 2: These sacramental rites of Baptism belong to the +solemnity of, and are not essential to, Baptism. And therefore they +neither should nor can be done by a layman, but only by a priest, +whose office it is to baptize solemnly. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 65, AA. 3, 4), Penance is not so +necessary as Baptism; since contrition can supply the defect of the +priestly absolution which does not free from the whole punishment, +nor again is it given to children. Therefore the comparison with +Baptism does not stand, because its effect cannot be supplied by +anything else. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 4] + +Whether a Woman Can Baptize? + +Objection 1: It seems that a woman cannot baptize. For we read in the +acts of the Council of Carthage (iv): "However learned and holy a +woman may be, she must not presume to teach men in the church, or to +baptize." But in no case is a woman allowed to teach in church, +according to 1 Cor. 14:35: "It is a shame for a woman to speak in the +church." Therefore it seems that neither is a woman in any +circumstances permitted to baptize. + +Obj. 2: Further, to baptize belongs to those having authority. +wherefore baptism should be conferred by priests having charge of +souls. But women are not qualified for this; according to 1 Tim. +2:12: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over man, +but to be subject to him [Vulg.: 'but to be in silence']." Therefore +a woman cannot baptize. + +Obj. 3: Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold +the place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says on John 3:4, "Can" +a man "enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born +again?" While he who baptizes seems to hold rather the position of +father. But this is unfitting for a woman. Therefore a woman cannot +baptize. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Urban II says (Decreta xxx): "In reply to the +questions asked by your beatitude, we consider that the following +answer should be given: that the baptism is valid when, in cases of +necessity, a woman baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity." + +_I answer that,_ Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to John +1:33: "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and +remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth." For it is written in +Col. 3 (cf. Gal. 3:28), that in Christ there is neither male nor +female. Consequently, just as a layman can baptize, as Christ's +minister, so can a woman. + +But since "the head of the woman is the man," and "the head of . . . +man, is Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3), a woman should not baptize if a man be +available for the purpose; just as neither should a layman in the +presence of a cleric, nor a cleric in the presence of a priest. The +last, however, can baptize in the presence of a bishop, because it is +part of the priestly office. + +Reply Obj. 1: Just as a woman is not suffered to teach in public, but +is allowed to instruct and admonish privately; so she is not +permitted to baptize publicly and solemnly, and yet she can baptize +in a case of urgency. + +Reply Obj. 2: When Baptism is celebrated solemnly and with due form, +it should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls, or by one +representing him. But this is not required in cases of urgency, when +a woman may baptize. + +Reply Obj. 3: In carnal generation male and female co-operate +according to the power of their proper nature; wherefore the female +cannot be the active, but only the passive, principle of generation. +But in spiritual generation they do not act, either of them, by their +proper power, but only instrumentally by the power of Christ. +Consequently, on the same grounds either man or woman can baptize in +a case of urgency. + +If, however, a woman were to baptize without any urgency for so +doing, there would be no need of rebaptism: as we have said in regard +to laymen (A. 3, ad 1). But the baptizer herself would sin, as also +those who took part with her therein, either by receiving Baptism +from her, or by bringing someone to her to be baptized. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 5] + +Whether One That Is Not Baptized Can Confer the Sacrament of Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that one that is not baptized cannot confer the +sacrament of Baptism. For "none gives what he has not." But a +non-baptized person has not the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore he +cannot give it. + +Obj. 2: Further, a man confers the sacrament of Baptism inasmuch as +he is a minister of the Church. But one that is not baptized, belongs +nowise to the Church, i.e. neither really nor sacramentally. +Therefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is more to confer a sacrament than to receive it. +But one that is not baptized, cannot receive the other sacraments. +Much less, therefore, can he confer any sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Isidore says: "The Roman Pontiff does not consider +it to be the man who baptizes, but that the Holy Ghost confers the +grace of Baptism, though he that baptizes be a pagan." But he who is +baptized, is not called a pagan. Therefore he who is not baptized can +confer the sacrament of Baptism. + +_I answer that,_ Augustine left this question without deciding it. +For he says (Contra Ep. Parmen. ii): "This is indeed another +question, whether even those can baptize who were never Christians; +nor should anything be rashly asserted hereupon, without the +authority of a sacred council such as suffices for so great a +matter." But afterwards it was decided by the Church that the +unbaptized, whether Jews or pagans, can confer the sacrament of +Baptism, provided they baptize in the form of the Church. Wherefore +Pope Nicolas I replies to the questions propounded by the Bulgars: +"You say that many in your country have been baptized by someone, +whether Christian or pagan you know not. If these were baptized in +the name of the Trinity, they must not be rebaptized." But if the +form of the Church be not observed, the sacrament of Baptism is not +conferred. And thus is to be explained what Gregory II [*Gregory III] +writes to Bishop Boniface: "Those whom you assert to have been +baptized by pagans," namely, with a form not recognized by the +Church, "we command you to rebaptize in the name of the Trinity." And +the reason of this is that, just as on the part of the matter, as far +as the essentials of the sacrament are concerned, any water will +suffice, so, on the part of the minister, any man is competent. +Consequently, an unbaptized person can baptize in a case of urgency. +So that two unbaptized persons may baptize one another, one baptizing +the other and being afterwards baptized by him: and each would +receive not only the sacrament but also the reality of the sacrament. +But if this were done outside a case of urgency, each would sin +grievously, both the baptizer and the baptized, and thus the +baptismal effect would be frustrated, although the sacrament itself +would not be invalidated. + +Reply Obj. 1: The man who baptizes offers but his outward +ministration; whereas Christ it is Who baptizes inwardly, Who can use +all men to whatever purpose He wills. Consequently, the unbaptized +can baptize: because, as Pope Nicolas I says, "the Baptism is not +theirs," i.e. the baptizers', "but His," i.e. Christ's. + +Reply Obj. 2: He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the +Church either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to +her in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he +intends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the +Church's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not +confine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to +the sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 3: The other sacraments are not so necessary as Baptism. +And therefore it is allowable that an unbaptized person should +baptize rather than that he should receive other sacraments. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 6] + +Whether Several Can Baptize at the Same Time? + +Objection 1: It seems that several can baptize at the same time. For +unity is contained in multitude, but not _vice versa._ Wherefore it +seems that many can do whatever one can but not _vice versa:_ thus +many draw a ship which one could draw. But one man can baptize. +Therefore several, too, can baptize one at the same time. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is more difficult for one agent to act on many +things, than for many to act at the same time on one. But one man can +baptize several at the same time. Much more, therefore, can many +baptize one at the same time. + +Obj. 3: Further, Baptism is a sacrament of the greatest necessity. +Now in certain cases it seems necessary for several to baptize one at +the same time; for instance, suppose a child to be in danger of +death, and two persons present, one of whom is dumb, and the other +without hands or arms; for then the mutilated person would have to +pronounce the words, and the dumb person would have to perform the +act of baptizing. Therefore it seems that several can baptize one at +the same time. + +_On the contrary,_ Where there is one agent there is one action. If, +therefore, several were to baptize one, it seems to follow that there +would be several baptisms: and this is contrary to Eph. 4:5: "one +Faith, one Baptism." + +_I answer that,_ The Sacrament of Baptism derives its power +principally from its form, which the Apostle calls "the word of life" +(Eph. 5:26). Consequently, if several were to baptize one at the same +time, we must consider what form they would use. For were they to +say: "We baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of +the Holy Ghost," some maintain that the sacrament of Baptism would +not be conferred, because the form of the Church would not be +observed, i.e. "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the +Son and of the Holy Ghost." But this reasoning is disproved by the +form observed in the Greek Church. For they might say: "The servant +of God, N . . ., is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son +and of the Holy Ghost," under which form the Greeks receive the +sacrament of Baptism: and yet this form differs far more from the +form that we use, than does this: "We baptize thee." + +The point to be observed, however, is this, that by this form, "We +baptize thee," the intention expressed is that several concur in +conferring one Baptism: and this seems contrary to the notion of a +minister; for a man does not baptize save as a minister of Christ, +and as standing in His place; wherefore just as there is one Christ, +so should there be one minister to represent Christ. Hence the +Apostle says pointedly (Eph. 4:5): "one Lord, one Faith, one +Baptism." Consequently, an intention which is in opposition to this +seems to annul the sacrament of Baptism. + +On the other hand, if each were to say: "I baptize thee in the name +of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," each would +signify his intention as though he were conferring Baptism +independently of the other. This might occur in the case where both +were striving to baptize someone; and then it is clear that whichever +pronounced the words first would confer the sacrament of Baptism; +while the other, however great his right to baptize, if he presume to +utter the words, would be liable to be punished as a rebaptizer. If, +however, they were to pronounce the words absolutely at the same +time, and dipped or sprinkled the man together, they should be +punished for baptizing in an improper manner, but not for +rebaptizing: because each would intend to baptize an unbaptized +person, and each, so far as he is concerned, would baptize. Nor would +they confer several sacraments: but the one Christ baptizing inwardly +would confer one sacrament by means of both together. + +Reply Obj. 1: This argument avails in those agents that act by their +own power. But men do not baptize by their own, but by Christ's +power, Who, since He is one, perfects His work by means of one +minister. + +Reply Obj. 2: In a case of necessity one could baptize several at the +same time under this form: "I baptize ye": for instance, if they were +threatened by a falling house, or by the sword or something of the +kind, so as not to allow of the delay involved by baptizing them +singly. Nor would this cause a change in the Church's form, since the +plural is nothing but the singular doubled: especially as we find the +plural expressed in Matt. 28:19: "Baptizing them," etc. Nor is there +parity between the baptizer and the baptized; since Christ, the +baptizer in chief, is one: while many are made one in Christ by +Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 66, A. 1), the integrity of Baptism +consists in the form of words and the use of the matter. +Consequently, neither he who only pronounces the words, baptizes, nor +he who dips. Wherefore if one pronounces the words and the other +dips, no form of words can be fitting. For neither could he say: "I +baptize thee": since he dips not, and therefore baptizes not. Nor +could they say: "We baptize thee": since neither baptizes. For if of +two men, one write one part of a book, and the other write the other, +it would not be a proper form of speech to say: "We wrote this book," +but the figure of synecdoche in which the whole is put for the part. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 7] + +Whether in Baptism It Is Necessary for Someone to Raise the Baptized +from the Sacred Font? + +Objection 1: It seems that in Baptism it is not necessary for someone +to raise the baptized from the sacred font. For our Baptism is +consecrated by Christ's Baptism and is conformed thereto. But Christ +when baptized was not raised by anyone from the font, but according +to Matt. 3:16, "Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the +water." Therefore it seems that neither when others are baptized +should anyone raise the baptized from the sacred font. + +Obj. 2: Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as stated above +(A. 3). But in carnal generation nothing else is required but the +active principle, i.e. the father, and the passive principle, i.e. +the mother. Since, then, in Baptism he that baptizes takes the place +of the father, while the very water of Baptism takes the place of the +mother, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxv); it +seems that there is no further need for someone to raise the baptized +from the sacred font. + +Obj. 3: Further, nothing ridiculous should be observed in the +sacraments of the Church. But it seems ridiculous that after being +baptized, adults who can stand up of themselves and leave the sacred +font, should be held up by another. Therefore there seems no need for +anyone, especially in the Baptism of adults, to raise the baptized +from the sacred font. + +_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that "the priests +taking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide." + +_I answer that,_ The spiritual regeneration, which takes place in +Baptism, is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation: +wherefore it is written (1 Pet. 2:2): "As new-born babes, endowed +with reason desire milk [Vulg.: 'desire reasonable milk'] without +guile." Now, in carnal generation the new-born child needs +nourishment and guidance: wherefore, in spiritual generation also, +someone is needed to undertake the office of nurse and tutor by +forming and instructing one who is yet a novice in the Faith, +concerning things pertaining to Christian faith and mode of life, +which the clergy have not the leisure to do through being busy with +watching over the people generally: because little children and +novices need more than ordinary care. Consequently someone is needed +to receive the baptized from the sacred font as though for the +purpose of instructing and guiding them. It is to this that Dionysius +refers (Eccl. Hier. xi) saying: "It occurred to our heavenly guides," +i.e. the Apostles, "and they decided, that infants should be taken +charge of thus: that the parents of the child should hand it over to +some instructor versed in holy things, who would thenceforth take +charge of the child, and be to it a spiritual father and a guide in +the road of salvation." + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ was baptized not that He might be regenerated, +but that He might regenerate others: wherefore after His Baptism He +needed no tutor like other children. + +Reply Obj. 2: In carnal generation nothing is essential besides a +father and a mother: yet to ease the latter in her travail, there is +need for a midwife; and for the child to be suitably brought up there +is need for a nurse and a tutor: while their place is taken in +Baptism by him who raises the child from the sacred font. +Consequently this is not essential to the sacrament, and in a case of +necessity one alone can baptize with water. + +Reply Obj. 3: It is not on account of bodily weakness that the +baptized is raised from the sacred font by the godparent, but on +account of spiritual weakness, as stated above. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 8] + +Whether He Who Raises Anyone from the Sacred Font Is Bound to +Instruct Him? + +Objection 1: It seems that he who raises anyone from the sacred font +is not bound to instruct him. For none but those who are themselves +instructed can give instruction. But even the uneducated and +ill-instructed are allowed to raise people from the sacred font. +Therefore he who raises a baptized person from the font is not bound +to instruct him. + +Obj. 2: Further, a son is instructed by his father better than by a +stranger: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii), a son receives +from his father, "being, food, and education." If, therefore, +godparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it would be +fitting for the carnal father, rather than another, to be the +godparent of his own child. And yet this seems to be forbidden, as +may be seen in the Decretals (xxx, qu. 1, Cap. Pervenit and Dictum +est). + +Obj. 3: Further, it is better for several to instruct than for one +only. If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their +godchildren, it would be better to have several godparents than only +one. Yet this is forbidden in a decree of Pope Leo, who says: "A +child should not have more than one godparent, be this a man or a +woman." + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (clxviii): +"In the first place I admonish you, both men and women, who have +raised children in Baptism, that ye stand before God as sureties for +those whom you have been seen to raise from the sacred font." + +_I answer that,_ Every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he +has undertaken to perform. Now it has been stated above (A. 7) that +godparents take upon themselves the duties of a tutor. Consequently +they are bound to watch over their godchildren when there is need for +them to do so: for instance when and where children are brought up +among unbelievers. But if they are brought up among Catholic +Christians, the godparents may well be excused from this +responsibility, since it may be presumed that the children will be +carefully instructed by their parents. If, however, they perceive in +any way that the contrary is the case, they would be bound, as far as +they are able, to see to the spiritual welfare of their godchildren. + +Reply Obj. 1: Where the danger is imminent, the godparent, as +Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vii), should be someone "versed in holy +things." But where the danger is not imminent, by reason of the +children being brought up among Catholics, anyone is admitted to this +position, because the things pertaining to the Christian rule of life +and faith are known openly by all. Nevertheless an unbaptized person +cannot be a godparent, as was decreed in the Council of Mainz, +although an unbaptized person: because the person baptizing is +essential to the sacrament, wherefore as the godparent is not, as +stated above (A. 7, ad 2). + +Reply Obj. 2: Just as spiritual generation is distinct from carnal +generation, so is spiritual education distinct from that of the body; +according to Heb. 12:9: "Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh +for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey +the Father of Spirits, and live?" Therefore the spiritual father +should be distinct from the carnal father, unless necessity demanded +otherwise. + +Reply Obj. 3: Education would be full of confusion if there were more +than one head instructor. Wherefore there should be one principal +sponsor in Baptism: but others can be allowed as assistants. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 68 + +OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM +(In Twelve Articles) + +We have now to consider those who receive Baptism; concerning which +there are twelve points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether all are bound to receive Baptism? + +(2) Whether a man can be saved without Baptism? + +(3) Whether Baptism should be deferred? + +(4) Whether sinners should be baptized? + +(5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that +have been baptized? + +(6) Whether Confession of sins is necessary? + +(7) Whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized? + +(8) Whether faith is necessary? + +(9) Whether infants should be baptized? + +(10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized against the will +of their parents? + +(11) Whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb? + +(12) Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 1] + +Whether All Are Bound to Receive Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that not all are bound to receive Baptism. For +Christ did not narrow man's road to salvation. But before Christ's +coming men could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after +Christ's coming. + +Obj. 2: Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted principally as +a remedy for original sin. Now, since a man who is baptized is +without original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his +children. Therefore it seems that the children of those who have been +baptized, should not themselves be baptized. + +Obj. 3: Further, Baptism is given in order that a man may, through +grace, be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the +womb, obtain this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to +receive Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born +again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom +of God." Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that "we believe +the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized." + +_I answer that,_ Men are bound to that without which they cannot +obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation +but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by +the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the +justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for +this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated +thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: +wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been +baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest +that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is +no salvation for men. + +Reply Obj. 1: At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could +men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is +written (Acts 4:12), "there is no other name under heaven given to +men, whereby we must be saved." But before Christ's coming, men were +incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith +circumcision was the "seal," as the Apostle calls it (Rom. 4:11): +whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in +Christ by "faith alone," as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with +the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made +profession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are +incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ +may dwell by faith in your hearts." But faith in a thing already +present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was +manifested when that thing was yet in the future: just as we use +other parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the +future. Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not +always necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the +sacrament, was always necessary. + +Reply Obj. 2: As we have stated in the I-II, Q. 81, A. 3, ad 2, those +who are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while their body +remains subject to the oldness of sin, according to Rom. 8:10: "The +body, indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because +of justification." Wherefore Augustine (Contra Julian. vi) proves +that "not everything that is in man is baptized." Now it is manifest +that in carnal generation man does not beget in respect of his soul, +but in respect of his body. Consequently the children of those who +are baptized are born with original sin; wherefore they need to be +baptized. + +Reply Obj. 3: Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed +grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not +therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to +Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now, +they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's +other members by receiving the character. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 2] + +Whether a Man Can Be Saved Without Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For +our Lord said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and +the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone +are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved +without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy +Ghost. + +Obj. 2: Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We +believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will +have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the +sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to +be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with +catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have +the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems +that none can be saved without Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 65, A. 4), the sacrament +of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without +which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none +can obtain salvation without Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some +have received the invisible sanctification without visible +sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have +the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, +without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." +Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible +sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the +sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification. + +_I answer that,_ The sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone +in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case +with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which +clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who +have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is +wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally +nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can +salvation be obtained. + +Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in +reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be +baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before +receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being +actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire +is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose +power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. +Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: +"I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace +he prayed for." + +Reply Obj. 1: As it is written (1 Kings 16:7), "man seeth those +things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who +desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is +regenerated in heart though not in body. Thus the Apostle says (Rom. +2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not +in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God." + +Reply Obj. 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all +guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given +when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason +is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of +Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. +Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else +he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be +without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, +would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment +for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" +as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15. + +Reply Obj. 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for +salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism +of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. +in Ps. 57). +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 3] + +Whether Baptism Should Be Deferred? + +Objection 1: It seems that Baptism should be deferred. For Pope Leo +says (Epist. xvi): "Two seasons," i.e. Easter and Whitsuntide, "are +fixed by the Roman Pontiff for the celebration of Baptism. Wherefore +we admonish your Beatitude not to add any other days to this custom." +Therefore it seems that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but +delayed until the aforesaid seasons. + +Obj. 2: Further, we read in the decrees of the Council of Agde (Can. +xxxiv): "If Jews whose bad faith often 'returns to the vomit,' wish +to submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, let them for eight +months enter the porch of the church with the catechumens; and if +they are found to come in good faith then at last they may deserve +the grace of Baptism." Therefore men should not be baptized at once, +and Baptism should be deferred for a certain fixed time. + +Obj. 3: Further, as we read in Isa. 27:9, "this is all the fruit, +that the sin . . . should be taken away." Now sin seems to be taken +away, or at any rate lessened, if Baptism be deferred. First, because +those who sin after Baptism, sin more grievously, according to Heb. +10:29: "How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, +who hath . . . esteemed the blood of the testament," i.e. Baptism, +"unclean, by which he was sanctified?" Secondly, because Baptism +takes away past, but not future, sins: wherefore the more it is +deferred, the more sins it takes away. Therefore it seems that +Baptism should be deferred for a long time. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 5:8): "Delay not to be +converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day." But the +perfect conversion to God is of those who are regenerated in Christ +by Baptism. Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day. + +_I answer that,_ In this matter we must make a distinction and see +whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if +they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in +them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. +Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is +available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism. + +On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for +Baptism, as stated above (A. 2). And therefore Baptism should not be +conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be +deferred until some fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church, +lest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under +false pretenses, according to 1 John 4:1: "Believe not every spirit, +but try the spirits, if they be of God." And those who approach +Baptism are put to this test, when their faith and morals are +subjected to proof for a space of time. Secondly, this is needful as +being useful for those who are baptized; for they require a certain +space of time in order to be fully instructed in the faith, and to be +drilled in those things that pertain to the Christian mode of life. +Thirdly, a certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay +whereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal festivities, +viz. of Easter and Pentecost, the result being that they receive the +sacrament with greater devotion. + +There are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. First, when +those who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly instructed in the +faith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once +(Acts 8); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts 10). +Secondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death. +Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): "Those who are threatened by +death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized +at any time." Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no +time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed +by the Church, he is saved, yet "so as by fire," as stated above (A. +2, ad 2). Nevertheless he sins if he defer being baptized beyond the +time appointed by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause +and with the permission of the authorities of the Church. But even +this sin, with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent +contrition, which takes the place of Baptism, as stated above (Q. 66, +A. 11). + +Reply Obj. 1: This decree of Pope Leo, concerning the celebration of +Baptism at two seasons, is to be understood "with the exception of +the danger of death" (which is always to be feared in children) as +stated above. + +Reply Obj. 2: This decree concerning the Jews was for a safeguard to +the Church, lest they corrupt the faith of simple people, if they be +not fully converted. Nevertheless, as the same passage reads further +on, "if within the appointed time they are threatened with danger of +sickness, they should be baptized." + +Reply Obj. 3: Baptism, by the grace which it bestows, removes not +only past sins, but hinders the commission of future sins. Now this +is the point to be considered--that men may not sin: it is a +secondary consideration that their sins be less grievous, or that +their sins be washed away, according to 1 John 2:1, 2: "My little +children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if +any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the +just; and He is the propitiation for our sins." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 4] + +Whether Sinners Should Be Baptized? + +Objection 1: It seems that sinners should be baptized. For it is +written (Zech. 13:1): "In that day there shall be a fountain open to +the House of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: for the +washing of the sinner and of the unclean woman": and this is to be +understood of the fountain of Baptism. Therefore it seems that the +sacrament of Baptism should be offered even to sinners. + +Obj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 9:12): "They that are in health +need not a physician, but they that are ill." But they that are ill +are sinners. Therefore since Baptism is the remedy of Christ the +physician of our souls, it seems that this sacrament should be +offered to sinners. + +Obj. 3: Further, no assistance should be withdrawn from sinners. But +sinners who have been baptized derive spiritual assistance from the +very character of Baptism, since it is a disposition to grace. +Therefore it seems that the sacrament of Baptism should be offered to +sinners. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Serm. clxix): "He Who created thee +without thee, will not justify thee without thee." But since a +sinner's will is ill-disposed, he does not co-operate with God. +Therefore it is useless to employ Baptism as a means of justification. + +_I answer that,_ A man may be said to be a sinner in two ways. First, +on account of the stain and the debt of punishment incurred in the +past: and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of Baptism should be +conferred, since it is instituted specially for this purpose, that by +it the uncleanness of sin may be washed away, according to Eph. 5:26: +"Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." + +Secondly, a man may be called a sinner because he wills to sin and +purposes to remain in sin: and on sinners in this sense the sacrament +of Baptism should not be conferred. First, indeed, because by Baptism +men are incorporated in Christ, according to Gal. 3:27: "As many of +you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Now so long +as a man wills to sin, he cannot be united to Christ, according to 2 +Cor. 6:14: "What participation hath justice with injustice?" +Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli) that +"no man who has the use of free-will can begin the new life, except +he repent of his former life." Secondly, because there should be +nothing useless in the works of Christ and of the Church. Now that is +useless which does not reach the end to which it is ordained; and, on +the other hand, no one having the will to sin can, at the same time, +be cleansed from sin, which is the purpose of Baptism; for this would +be to combine two contradictory things. Thirdly, because there should +be no falsehood in the sacramental signs. Now a sign is false if it +does not correspond with the thing signified. But the very fact that +a man presents himself to be cleansed by Baptism, signifies that he +prepares himself for the inward cleansing: while this cannot be the +case with one who purposes to remain in sin. Therefore it is manifest +that on such a man the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred. + +Reply Obj. 1: The words quoted are to be understood of those sinners +whose will is set on renouncing sin. + +Reply Obj. 2: The physician of souls, i.e. Christ, works in two ways. +First, inwardly, by Himself: and thus He prepares man's will so that +it wills good and hates evil. Secondly, He works through ministers, +by the outward application of the sacraments: and in this way His +work consists in perfecting what was begun outwardly. Therefore the +sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred save on those in whom +there appears some sign of their interior conversion: just as neither +is bodily medicine given to a sick man, unless he show some sign of +life. + +Reply Obj. 3: Baptism is the sacrament of faith. Now dead faith does +not suffice for salvation; nor is it the foundation, but living faith +alone, "that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6), as Augustine says (De +Fide et oper.). Neither, therefore, can the sacrament of Baptism give +salvation to a man whose will is set on sinning, and hence expels the +form of faith. Moreover, the impression of the baptismal character +cannot dispose a man for grace as long as he retains the will to sin; +for "God compels no man to be virtuous," as Damascene says (De Fide +Orth. ii). +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 5] + +Whether Works of Satisfaction Should Be Enjoined on Sinners That Have +Been Baptized? + +Objection 1: It seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined +on sinners that have been baptized. For God's justice seems to demand +that a man should be punished for every sin of his, according to +Eccles. 12:14: "All things that are done, God will bring into +judgment." But works of satisfaction are enjoined on sinners in +punishment of past sins. Therefore it seems that works of +satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized. + +Obj. 2: Further, by means of works of satisfaction sinners recently +converted are drilled into righteousness, and are made to avoid the +occasions of sin: "for satisfaction consists in extirpating the +causes of vice, and closing the doors to sin" (De Eccl. Dogm. iv). +But this is most necessary in the case of those who have been +baptized recently. Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction +should be enjoined on sinners. + +Obj. 3: Further, man owes satisfaction to God not less than to his +neighbor. But if those who were recently baptized have injured their +neighbor, they should be told to make reparation to God by works of +penance. + +_On the contrary,_ Ambrose commenting on Rom. 11:29: "The gifts and +the calling of God are without repentance," says: "The grace of God +requires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism, nor indeed any work at +all, but faith alone; and remits all, gratis." + +_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3, 4), "all we who are +baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are +buried together with Him, by Baptism unto death"; which is to say +that by Baptism man is incorporated in the very death of Christ. Now +it is manifest from what has been said above (Q. 48, AA. 2, 4; Q. 49, +A. 3) that Christ's death satisfied sufficiently for sins, "not for +ours only, but also for those of the whole world," according to 1 +John 2:2. Consequently no kind of satisfaction should be enjoined on +one who is being baptized, for any sins whatever: and this would be +to dishonor the Passion and death of Christ, as being insufficient +for the plenary satisfaction for the sins of those who were to be +baptized. + +Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De +Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), "the effect of Baptism is to make those, +who are baptized, to be incorporated in Christ as His members." +Wherefore the very pains of Christ were satisfactory for the sins of +those who were to be baptized; just as the pain of one member can be +satisfactory for the sin of another member. Hence it is written (Isa. +53:4): "Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows." + +Reply Obj. 2: Those who have been lately baptized should be drilled +into righteousness, not by penal, but by "easy works, so as to +advance to perfection by taking exercise, as infants by taking milk," +as a gloss says on Ps. 130:2: "As a child that is weaned is towards +his mother." For this reason did our Lord excuse His disciples from +fasting when they were recently converted, as we read in Matt. 9:14, +15: and the same is written 1 Pet. 2:2: "As new-born babes +desire . . . milk . . . that thereby you may grow unto salvation." + +Reply Obj. 3: To restore what has been ill taken from one's neighbor, +and to make satisfaction for wrong done to him, is to cease from sin: +for the very fact of retaining what belongs to another and of not +being reconciled to one's neighbor, is a sin. Wherefore those who are +baptized should be enjoined to make satisfaction to their neighbor, +as also to desist from sin. But they are not to be enjoined to suffer +any punishment for past sins. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 6] + +Whether Sinners Who Are Going to Be Baptized Are Bound to Confess +Their Sins? + +Objection 1: It seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are +bound to confess their sins. For it is written (Matt. 3:6) that many +"were baptized" by John "in the Jordan confessing their sins." But +Christ's Baptism is more perfect than John's. Therefore it seems that +there is yet greater reason why they who are about to receive +Christ's Baptism should confess their sins. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his +sins, shall not prosper; but he that shall confess and forsake them, +shall obtain mercy." Now for this is a man baptized, that he may +obtain mercy for his sins. Therefore those who are going to be +baptized should confess their sins. + +Obj. 3: Further, Penance is required before Baptism, according to +Acts 2:38: "Do penance and be baptized every one of you." But +confession is a part of Penance. Therefore it seems that confession +of sins should take place before Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ Confession of sins should be sorrowful: thus +Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. xiv): "All these +circumstances should be taken into account and deplored." Now, as +Ambrose says on Rom. 11:29, "the grace of God requires neither sighs +nor groans in Baptism." Therefore confession of sins should not be +required of those who are going to be baptized. + +_I answer that,_ Confession of sins is twofold. One is made inwardly +to God: and such confession of sins is required before Baptism: in +other words, man should call his sins to mind and sorrow for them; +since "he cannot begin the new life, except he repent of his former +life," as Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli). The +other is the outward confession of sins, which is made to a priest; +and such confession is not required before Baptism. First, because +this confession, since it is directed to the person of the minister, +belongs to the sacrament of Penance, which is not required before +Baptism, which is the door of all the sacraments. Secondly, because +the reason why a man makes outward confession to a priest, is that +the priest may absolve him from his sins, and bind him to works of +satisfaction, which should not be enjoined on the baptized, as stated +above (A. 5). Moreover those who are being baptized do not need to be +released from their sins by the keys of the Church, since all are +forgiven them in Baptism. Thirdly, because the very act of confession +made to a man is penal, by reason of the shame it inflicts on the one +confessing: whereas no exterior punishment is enjoined on a man who +is being baptized. + +Therefore no special confession of sins is required of those who are +being baptized; but that general confession suffices which they make +when in accordance with the Church's ritual they "renounce Satan and +all his works." And in this sense a gloss explains Matt. 3:6, saying +that in John's Baptism "those who are going to be baptized learn that +they should confess their sins and promise to amend their life." + +If, however, any persons about to be baptized, wish, out of devotion, +to confess their sins, their confession should be heard; not for the +purpose of enjoining them to do satisfaction, but in order to +instruct them in the spiritual life as a remedy against their vicious +habits. + +Reply Obj. 1: Sins were not forgiven in John's Baptism, which, +however, was the Baptism of Penance. Consequently it was fitting that +those who went to receive that Baptism, should confess their sins, so +that they should receive a penance in proportion to their sins. But +Christ's Baptism is without outward penance, as Ambrose says (on Rom. +11:29); and therefore there is no comparison. + +Reply Obj. 2: It is enough that the baptized make inward confession +to God, and also an outward general confession, for them to "prosper +and obtain mercy": and they need no special outward confession, as +stated above. + +Reply Obj. 3: Confession is a part of sacramental Penance, which is +not required before Baptism, as stated above: but the inward virtue +of Penance is required. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 7] + +Whether the Intention of Receiving the Sacrament of Baptism Is +Required on the Part of the One Baptized? + +Objection 1: It seems that the intention of receiving the sacrament +of Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized. For the +one baptized is, as it were, "patient" in the sacrament. But an +intention is required not on the part of the patient but on the part +of the agent. Therefore it seems that the intention of receiving +Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized. + +Obj. 2: Further, if what is necessary for Baptism be omitted, the +Baptism must be repeated; for instance, if the invocation of the +Trinity be omitted, as stated above (Q. 66, A. 9, ad 3). But it does +not seem that a man should be rebaptized through not having had the +intention of receiving Baptism: else, since his intention cannot be +proved, anyone might ask to be baptized again on account of his lack +of intention. Therefore it seems that no intention is required on the +part of the one baptized, in order that he receive the sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, Baptism is given as a remedy for original sin. But +original sin is contracted without the intention of the person born. +Therefore, seemingly, Baptism requires no intention on the part of +the person baptized. + +_On the contrary,_ According to the Church's ritual, those who are to +be baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus +they express their intention of receiving the sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and +begins a certain newness of life, according to Rom. 6:4: "We are +buried together with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ +is risen from the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life." +Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who +has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, +"will to repent of his former life"; so must he, of his own will, +intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the +receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one +baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of +receiving the sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: When a man is justified by Baptism, his passiveness is +not violent but voluntary: wherefore it is necessary for him to +intend to receive that which is given him. + +Reply Obj. 2: If an adult lack the intention of receiving the +sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, +the form to be used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize +thee." + +Reply Obj. 3: Baptism is a remedy not only against original, but also +against actual sins, which are caused by our will and intention. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 8] + +Whether Faith Is Required on the Part of the One Baptized? + +Objection 1: It seems that faith is required on the part of the one +baptized. For the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ. But +Christ, in giving the form of Baptism, makes faith to precede Baptism +(Mk. 16:16): "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." +Therefore it seems that without faith there can be no sacrament of +Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, nothing useless is done in the sacraments of the +Church. But according to the Church's ritual, the man who comes to be +baptized is asked concerning his faith: "Dost thou believe in God the +Father Almighty?" Therefore it seems that faith is required for +Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, the intention of receiving the sacrament is required +for Baptism. But this cannot be without right faith, since Baptism is +the sacrament of right faith: for thereby men "are incorporated in +Christ," as Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. +Merit. et Remiss. i); and this cannot be without right faith, +according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ may dwell by faith in your +hearts." Therefore it seems that a man who has not right faith cannot +receive the sacrament of Baptism. + +Obj. 4: Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in +the Second Part (II-II, Q. 10, A. 3). But those who remain in sin +should not be baptized: therefore neither should those who remain in +unbelief. + +_On the contrary,_ Gregory writing to the bishop Quiricus says: "We +have learned from the ancient tradition of the Fathers that when +heretics, baptized in the name of the Trinity, come back to Holy +Church, they are to be welcomed to her bosom, either with the +anointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or the mere +profession of faith." But such would not be the case if faith were +necessary for a man to receive Baptism. + +_I answer that,_ As appears from what has been said above (Q. 63, A. +6; Q. 66, A. 9) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz. +the character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be +necessary for Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which +is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus +right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from +Rom. 3:22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ. + +Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because +without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted. And thus +right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the +one who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which +are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by +the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but +by the power of God. + +Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to +salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot be +without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: "He that believeth +and is baptized, shall be saved." + +Reply Obj. 2: The Church's intention in baptizing men is that they +may be cleansed from sin, according to Isa. 27:9: "This is all the +fruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away." And therefore, as +far as she is concerned, she does not intend to give Baptism save to +those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of +sins. And for this reason she asks those who come to be baptized +whether they believe. If, on the contrary, anyone, without right +faith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it +unto salvation. Hence Augustine says (De Baptism. contr. Donat. iv): +"From the Church being compared to Paradise we learn that men can +receive her Baptism even outside her fold, but that elsewhere none +can receive or keep the salvation of the blessed." + +Reply Obj. 3: Even he who has not right faith on other points, can +have right faith about the sacrament of Baptism: and so he is not +hindered from having the intention of receiving that sacrament. Yet +even if he think not aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough, +for the receiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general +intention of receiving Baptism, according as Christ instituted, and +as the Church bestows it. + +Reply Obj. 4: Just as the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred +on a man who is unwilling to give up his other sins, so neither +should it be given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief. +Yet each receives the sacrament if it be conferred on him, though not +unto salvation. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 9] + +Whether Children Should Be Baptized? + +Objection 1: It seems that children should not be baptized. For the +intention to receive the sacrament is required in one who is being +baptized, as stated above (A. 7). But children cannot have such an +intention, since they have not the use of free-will. Therefore it +seems that they cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as stated above +(Q. 39, A. 5; Q. 66, A. 1, ad 1). But children have not faith, which +demands an act of the will on the part of the believer, as Augustine +says (Super Joan. xxvi). Nor can it be said that their salvation is +implied in the faith of their parents; since the latter are sometimes +unbelievers, and their unbelief would conduce rather to the damnation +of their children. Therefore it seems that children cannot be +baptized. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (1 Pet. 3:21) that "Baptism saveth" +men; "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the +examination of a good conscience towards God." But children have no +conscience, either good or bad, since they have not the use of +reason: nor can they be fittingly examined, since they understand +not. Therefore children should not be baptized. + +_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "Our heavenly +guides," i.e. the Apostles, "approved of infants being admitted to +Baptism." + +_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 5:17), "if by one man's +offense death reigned through one," namely Adam, "much more they who +receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall +reign in life through one, Jesus Christ." Now children contract +original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact +that they are under the ban of death, which "passed upon all" on +account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same +passage (Rom. 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace +through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself +said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy +Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Consequently it +became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred +damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain +salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children +should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in +things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more +easily persevere therein; according to Prov. 22:5: "A young man +according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from +it." This reason is also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). + +Reply Obj. 1: The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is +somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while +in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but +through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the +use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the +Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the +Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The +Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that +they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with +their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths +confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, +because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the +words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, +since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their +renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they +can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at +times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them +to be baptized. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep. +Pelag. i), "in the Church of our Saviour little children believe +through others, just as they contracted from others those sins which +are remitted in Baptism." Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if +their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to +the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), "little children are offered that +they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of +those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and +faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. +For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are +pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united +in communion with the Holy Ghost." And the unbelief of their own +parents, even if after Baptism these strive to infect them with the +worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says +(Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i) "when once the child has been begotten by +the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of +another's sin so long as he consent not with his will, according to" +Ezech. 18:4: "'As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son +is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.' Yet he +contracted from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this +sacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate +existence." But the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits +the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the +Church together, and communicates the goods of one member to another. + +Reply Obj. 3: Just as a child, when he is being baptized, believes +not by himself but by others, so is he examined not by himself but +through others, and these in answer confess the Church's faith in the +child's stead, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament of +faith. And the child acquires a good conscience in himself, not +indeed as to the act, but as to the habit, by sanctifying grace. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 10] + +Whether Children of Jews or Other Unbelievers Should Be Baptized +Against the Will of Their Parents? + +Objection 1: It seems that children of Jews or other unbelievers +should be baptized against the will of their parents. For it is a +matter of greater urgency to rescue a man from the danger of eternal +death than from the danger of temporal death. But one ought to rescue +a child that is threatened by the danger of temporal death, even if +its parents through malice try to prevent its being rescued. +Therefore much more reason is there for rescuing the children of +unbelievers from the danger of eternal death, even against their +parents' will. + +Obj. 2: The children of slaves are themselves slaves, and in the +power of their masters. But Jews and all other unbelievers are the +slaves of kings and rulers. Therefore without any injustice rulers +can have the children of Jews baptized, as well as those of other +slaves who are unbelievers. + +Obj. 3: Further, every man belongs more to God, from Whom he has his +soul, than to his carnal father, from whom he has his body. Therefore +it is not unjust if the children of unbelievers are taken away from +their carnal parents, and consecrated to God by Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xlv), +quoting the council of Toledo: "In regard to the Jews the holy synod +commands that henceforward none of them be forced to believe: for +such are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that +their righteousness may be without flaw." + +_I answer that,_ The children of unbelievers either have the use of +reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to +control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural +law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their +parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract +marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to +be baptized. + +If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the +natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they +cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the +children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their +parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such +children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would +be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. +Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the +children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into +unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. +Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children +of unbelievers against their parents' will. + +Reply Obj. 1: It is not right to rescue a man from death of the body +against the order of civil law: for instance, if a man be condemned +to death by the judge who has tried him, none should use force in +order to rescue him from death. Consequently, neither should anyone +infringe the order of the natural law, in virtue of which a child is +under the care of its father, in order to rescue it from the danger +of eternal death. + +Reply Obj. 2: Jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery, which does +not exclude the order of the natural and Divine law. + +Reply Obj. 3: Man is ordained unto God through his reason, by which +he can know God. Wherefore a child, before it has the use of reason, +is ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its +parents, under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according to +their ordering that things pertaining to God are to be done in +respect of the child. +_______________________ + +ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 11] + +Whether a Child Can Be Baptized While Yet in Its Mother's Womb? + +Objection 1: It seems that a child can be baptized while yet in its +mother's womb. For the gift of Christ is more efficacious unto +salvation than Adam's sin unto condemnation, as the Apostle says +(Rom. 5:15). But a child while yet in its mother's womb is under +sentence of condemnation on account of Adam's sin. For much more +reason, therefore, can it be saved through the gift of Christ, which +is bestowed by means of Baptism. Therefore a child can be baptized +while yet in its mother's womb. + +Obj. 2: Further, a child, while yet in its mother's womb, seems to be +part of its mother. Now, when the mother is baptized, whatever is in +her and part of her, is baptized. Therefore it seems that when the +mother is baptized, the child in her womb is baptized. + +Obj. 3: Further, eternal death is a greater evil than death of the +body. But of two evils the less should be chosen. If, therefore, the +child in the mother's womb cannot be baptized, it would be better for +the mother to be opened, and the child to be taken out by force and +baptized, than that the child should be eternally damned through +dying without Baptism. + +Obj. 4: Further, it happens at times that some part of the child +comes forth first, as we read in Gen. 38:27: "In the very delivery of +the infants, one put forth a hand, whereon the midwife tied a scarlet +thread, saying: This shall come forth the first. But he drawing back +his hand, the other came forth." Now sometimes in such cases there is +danger of death. Therefore it seems that that part should be +baptized, while the child is yet in its mother's womb. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): "No one can be +born a second time unless he be born first." But Baptism is a +spiritual regeneration. Therefore no one should be baptized before he +is born from the womb. + +_I answer that,_ It is essential to Baptism that some part of the +body of the person baptized be in some way washed with water, since +Baptism is a kind of washing, as stated above (Q. 66, A. 1). But an +infant's body, before being born from the womb, can nowise be washed +with water; unless perchance it be said that the baptismal water, +with which the mother's body is washed, reaches the child while yet +in its mother's womb. But this is impossible: both because the +child's soul, to the sanctification of which Baptism is ordained, is +distinct from the soul of the mother; and because the body of the +animated infant is already formed, and consequently distinct from the +body of the mother. Therefore the Baptism which the mother receives +does not overflow on to the child which is in her womb. Hence +Augustine says (Cont. Julian. vi): "If what is conceived within a +mother belonged to her body, so as to be considered a part thereof, +we should not baptize an infant whose mother, through danger of +death, was baptized while she bore it in her womb. Since, then, it," +i.e. the infant, "is baptized, it certainly did not belong to the +mother's body while it was in the womb." It follows, therefore, that +a child can nowise be baptized while in its mother's womb. + +Reply Obj. 1: Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come +forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they +cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the +sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be +subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a +kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the +case with those who were sanctified in the womb. + +Reply Obj. 2: An internal member of the mother is something of hers +by continuity and material union of the part with the whole: whereas +a child while in its mother's womb is something of hers through being +joined with, and yet distinct from her. Wherefore there is no +comparison. + +Reply Obj. 3: We should "not do evil that there may come good" (Rom. +3:8). Therefore it is wrong to kill a mother that her child may be +baptized. If, however, the mother die while the child lives yet in +her womb, she should be opened that the child may be baptized. + +Reply Obj. 4: Unless death be imminent, we should wait until the +child has entirely come forth from the womb before baptizing it. If, +however, the head, wherein the senses are rooted, appear first, it +should be baptized, in cases of danger: nor should it be baptized +again, if perfect birth should ensue. And seemingly the same should +be done in cases of danger no matter what part of the body appear +first. But as none of the exterior parts of the body belong to its +integrity in the same degree as the head, some hold that since the +matter is doubtful, whenever any other part of the body has been +baptized, the child, when perfect birth has taken place, should be +baptized with the form: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee," +etc. +_______________________ + +TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 12] + +Whether Madmen and Imbeciles Should Be Baptized? + +Objection 1: It seems that madmen and imbeciles should not be +baptized. For in order to receive Baptism, the person baptized must +have the intention, as stated above (A. 7). But since madmen and +imbeciles lack the use of reason, they can have but a disorderly +intention. Therefore they should not be baptized. + +Obj. 2: Further, man excels irrational animals in that he has reason. +But madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason, indeed in some cases +we do not expect them ever to have it, as we do in the case of +children. It seems, therefore, that just as irrational animals are +not baptized, so neither should madmen and imbeciles in those cases +be baptized. + +Obj. 3: Further, the use of reason is suspended in madmen and +imbeciles more than it is in one who sleeps. But it is not customary +to baptize people while they sleep. Therefore it should not be given +to madmen and imbeciles. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. iv) of his friend that +"he was baptized when his recovery was despaired of": and yet Baptism +was efficacious with him. Therefore Baptism should sometimes be given +to those who lack the use of reason. + +_I answer that,_ In the matter of madmen and imbeciles a distinction +is to be made. For some are so from birth, and have no lucid +intervals, and show no signs of the use of reason. And with regard to +these it seems that we should come to the same decision as with +regard to children who are baptized in the Faith of the Church, as +stated above (A. 9, ad 2). + +But there are others who have fallen from a state of sanity into a +state of insanity. And with regard to these we must be guided by +their wishes as expressed by them when sane: so that, if then they +manifested a desire to receive Baptism, it should be given to them +when in a state of madness or imbecility, even though then they +refuse. If, on the other hand, while sane they showed no desire to +receive Baptism, they must not be baptized. + +Again, there are some who, though mad or imbecile from birth, have, +nevertheless, lucid intervals, in which they can make right use of +reason. Wherefore, if then they express a desire for Baptism, they +can be baptized though they be actually in a state of madness. And in +this case the sacrament should be bestowed on them if there be fear +of danger otherwise it is better to wait until the time when they are +sane, so that they may receive the sacrament more devoutly. But if +during the interval of lucidity they manifest no desire to receive +Baptism, they should not be baptized while in a state of insanity. + +Lastly there are others who, though not altogether sane, yet can use +their reason so far as to think about their salvation, and understand +the power of the sacrament. And these are to be treated the same as +those who are sane, and who are baptized if they be willing, but not +against their will. + +Reply Obj. 1: Imbeciles who never had, and have not now, the use of +reason, are baptized, according to the Church's intention, just as +according to the Church's ritual, they believe and repent; as we have +stated above of children (A. 9, ad Obj.). But those who have had the +use of reason at some time, or have now, are baptized according to +their own intention, which they have now, or had when they were sane. + +Reply Obj. 2: Madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason +accidentally, i.e. through some impediment in a bodily organ; but not +like irrational animals through want of a rational soul. Consequently +the comparison does not hold. + +Reply Obj. 3: A person should not be baptized while asleep, except he +be threatened with the danger of death. In which case he should be +baptized, if previously he has manifested a desire to receive +Baptism, as we have stated in reference to imbeciles: thus Augustine +relates of his friend that "he was baptized while unconscious," +because he was in danger of death (Confess. iv). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 69 + +OF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM +(In Ten Articles) + +We must now consider the effects of Baptism, concerning which there +are ten points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism? + +(2) Whether man is freed from all punishment by Baptism? + +(3) Whether Baptism takes away the penalties of sin that belong to +this life? + +(4) Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism? + +(5) Of the effects of virtue which are conferred by Baptism? + +(6) Whether even children receive grace and virtues in Baptism? + +(7) Whether Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to those +who are baptized? + +(8) Whether Baptism produces an equal effect in all who are baptized? + +(9) Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism? + +(10) Whether Baptism takes effect when the insincerity ceases? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 1] + +Whether All Sins Are Taken Away by Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that not all sins are taken away by Baptism. +For Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, which corresponds to carnal +generation. But by carnal generation man contracts none but original +sin. Therefore none but original sin is taken away by Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, Penance is a sufficient cause of the remission of +actual sins. But penance is required in adults before Baptism, +according to Acts 2:38: "Do penance and be baptized every one of +you." Therefore Baptism has nothing to do with the remission of +actual sins. + +Obj. 3: Further, various diseases demand various remedies: because as +Jerome says on Mk. 9:27, 28: "What is a cure for the heel is no cure +for the eye." But original sin, which is taken away by Baptism, is +generically distinct from actual sin. Therefore not all sins are +taken away by Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 36:25): "I will pour upon +you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness." + +_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3), "all we, who are +baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death." And further on +he concludes (Rom. 6:11): "So do you also reckon that you are dead to +sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Hence it is clear +that by Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live +unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive +oldness. Consequently every sin is taken away by Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15, 16), the sin of Adam +was not so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, which is bestowed in +Baptism: "for judgment was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of +many offenses, unto justification." Wherefore Augustine says in his +book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that "in +carnal generation, original sin alone is contracted; but when we are +born again of the Spirit, not only original sin but also wilful sin +is forgiven." + +Reply Obj. 2: No sin can be forgiven save by the power of Christ's +Passion: hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:22) that "without shedding of +blood there is no remission." Consequently no movement of the human +will suffices for the remission of sin, unless there be faith in +Christ's Passion, and the purpose of participating in it, either by +receiving Baptism, or by submitting to the keys of the Church. +Therefore when an adult approaches Baptism, he does indeed receive +the forgiveness of all his sins through his purpose of being +baptized, but more perfectly through the actual reception of Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 3: This argument is true of special remedies. But Baptism +operates by the power of Christ's Passion, which is the universal +remedy for all sins; and so by Baptism all sins are loosed. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 2] + +Whether Man Is Freed by Baptism from All Debt of Punishment Due to +Sin? + +Objection 1: It seems that man is not freed by Baptism from all debt +of punishment due to sin. For the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1): "Those +things that are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are +ordained of God']." But guilt is not set in order save by punishment, +as Augustine says (Ep. cxl). Therefore Baptism does not take away the +debt of punishment due to sins already committed. + +Obj. 2: Further, the effect of a sacrament has a certain likeness to +the sacrament itself; since the sacraments of the New Law "effect +what they signify," as stated above (Q. 62, A. 1, ad 1). But the +washing of Baptism has indeed a certain likeness with the cleansing +from the stain of sin, but none, seemingly, with the remission of the +debt of punishment. Therefore the debt of punishment is not taken +away by Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, when the debt of punishment has been remitted, a man +no longer deserves to be punished, and so it would be unjust to +punish him. If, therefore, the debt of punishment be remitted by +Baptism, it would be unjust, after Baptism, to hang a thief who had +committed murder before. Consequently the severity of human +legislation would be relaxed on account of Baptism; which is +undesirable. Therefore Baptism does not remit the debt of punishment. + +_On the contrary,_ Ambrose, commenting on Rom. 11:29, "The gifts and +the calling of God ate without repentance," says: "The grace of God +in Baptism remits all, gratis." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 49, A. 3, ad 2; Q. 68, AA. 1, 4, +5) by Baptism a man is incorporated in the Passion and death of +Christ, according to Rom. 6:8: "If we be dead with Christ, we believe +that we shall live also together with Christ." Hence it is clear that +the Passion of Christ is communicated to every baptized person, so +that he is healed just as if he himself had suffered and died. Now +Christ's Passion, as stated above (Q. 68, A. 5), is a sufficient +satisfaction for all the sins of all men. Consequently he who is +baptized, is freed from the debt of all punishment due to him for his +sins, just as if he himself had offered sufficient satisfaction for +all his sins. + +Reply Obj. 1: Since the pains of Christ's Passion are communicated to +the person baptized, inasmuch as he is made a member of Christ, just +as if he himself had borne those pains, his sins are set in order by +the pains of Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 2: Water not only cleanses but also refreshes. And thus by +refreshing it signifies the remission of the debt of punishment, just +as by cleansing it signifies the washing away of guilt. + +Reply Obj. 3: In punishments inflicted by a human tribunal, we have +to consider not only what punishment a man deserves in respect of +God, but also to what extent he is indebted to men who are hurt and +scandalized by another's sin. Consequently, although a murderer is +freed by Baptism from his debt of punishment in respect of God, he +remains, nevertheless, in debt to men; and it is right that they +should be edified at his punishment, since they were scandalized at +his sin. But the sovereign may remit the penalty to such like out of +kindness. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 3] + +Whether Baptism Should Take Away the Penalties of Sin That Belong to +This Life? + +Objection 1: It seems that Baptism should take away the penalties of +sin that belong to this life. For as the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15), +the gift of Christ is farther-reaching than the sin of Adam. But +through Adam's sin, as the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12), "death entered +into this world," and, consequently, all the other penalties of the +present life. Much more, therefore, should man be freed from the +penalties of the present life, by the gift of Christ which is +received in Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, Baptism takes away the guilt of both original and +actual sin. Now it takes away the guilt of actual sin in such a way +as to free man from all debt of punishment resulting therefrom. +Therefore it also frees man from the penalties of the present life, +which are a punishment of original sin. + +Obj. 3: Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But +the cause of these penalties is original sin, which is taken away by +Baptism. Therefore such like penalties should not remain. + +_On the contrary,_ on Rom. 6:6, "that the body of sin may be +destroyed," a gloss says: "The effect of Baptism is that the old man +is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed, not as though the living +flesh of man were delivered by the destruction of that concupiscence +with which it has been bespattered from its birth; but that it may +not hurt him, when dead, though it was in him when he was born." +Therefore for the same reason neither are the other penalties taken +away by Baptism. + +_I answer that,_ Baptism has the power to take away the penalties of +the present life yet it does not take them away during the present +life, but by its power they will be taken away from the just in the +resurrection when "this mortal hath put on immortality" (1 Cor. +15:54). And this is reasonable. First, because, by Baptism, man is +incorporated in Christ, and is made His member, as stated above (A. +3; Q. 68, A. 5). Consequently it is fitting that what takes place in +the Head should take place also in the member incorporated. Now, from +the very beginning of His conception Christ was "full of grace and +truth," yet He had a passible body, which through His Passion and +death was raised up to a life of glory. Wherefore a Christian +receives grace in Baptism, as to his soul; but he retains a passible +body, so that he may suffer for Christ therein: yet at length he will +be raised up to a life of impassibility. Hence the Apostle says (Rom. +8:11): "He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken +also our [Vulg.: 'your'] mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that +dwelleth in us [Vulg.: 'you']": and further on in the same chapter +(Rom. 8:17): "Heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet +so, if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him." + +Secondly, this is suitable for our spiritual training: namely, in +order that, by fighting against concupiscence and other defects to +which he is subject, man may receive the crown of victory. Wherefore +on Rom. 6:6, "that the body of sin may be destroyed," a gloss says: +"If a man after Baptism live in the flesh, he has concupiscence to +fight against, and to conquer by God's help." In sign of which it is +written (Judges 3:1, 2): "These are the nations which the Lord left, +that by them He might instruct Israel . . . that afterwards their +children might learn to fight with their enemies, and to be trained +up to war." + +Thirdly, this was suitable, lest men might seek to be baptized for +the sake of impassibility in the present life, and not for the sake +of the glory of life eternal. Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. +15:19): "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all +men most miserable." + +Reply Obj. 1: As a gloss says on Rom. 6:6, "that we may serve sin no +longer--Like a man who, having captured a redoubtable enemy, slays +him not forthwith, but suffers him to live for a little time in shame +and suffering; so did Christ first of all fetter our punishment, but +at a future time He will destroy it." + +Reply Obj. 2: As the gloss says on the same passage (cf. ad 1), "the +punishment of sin is twofold, the punishment of hell, and temporal +punishment. Christ entirely abolished the punishment of hell, so that +those who are baptized and truly repent, should not be subject to it. +He did not, however, altogether abolish temporal punishment yet +awhile; for hunger, thirst, and death still remain. But He overthrew +its kingdom and power" in the sense that man should no longer be in +fear of them: "and at length He will altogether exterminate it at the +last day." + +Reply Obj. 3: As we stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 81, A. 1; Q. +82, A. 1, ad 2), original sin spread in this way, that at first the +person infected the nature, and afterwards the nature infected the +person. Whereas Christ in reverse order at first repairs what regards +the person, and afterwards will simultaneously repair what pertains +to the nature in all men. Consequently by Baptism He takes away from +man forthwith the guilt of original sin and the punishment of being +deprived of the heavenly vision. But the penalties of the present +life, such as death, hunger, thirst, and the like, pertain to the +nature, from the principles of which they arise, inasmuch as it is +deprived of original justice. Therefore these defects will not be +taken away until the ultimate restoration of nature through the +glorious resurrection. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 4] + +Whether Grace and Virtues Are Bestowed on Man by Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man +by Baptism. Because, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 1, ad 1), the +sacraments of the New Law "effect what they signify." But the +baptismal cleansing signifies the cleansing of the soul from guilt, +and not the fashioning of the soul with grace and virtues. Therefore +it seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, one does not need to receive what one has already +acquired. But some approach Baptism who have already grace and +virtues: thus we read (Acts 10:1, 2): "There was a certain man in +Cesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called the +Italian band, a religious man and fearing God"; who, nevertheless, +was afterwards baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not +bestowed by Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, virtue is a habit: which is defined as a "quality +not easily removed, by which one may act easily and pleasurably." But +after Baptism man retains proneness to evil which removes virtue; and +experiences difficulty in doing good, in which the act of virtue +consists. Therefore man does not acquire grace and virtue in Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Titus 3:5, 6): "He saved us by +the laver of regeneration," i.e. by Baptism, "and renovation of the +Holy Ghost, Whom He hath poured forth upon us abundantly," i.e. "unto +the remission of sins and the fulness of virtues," as a gloss +expounds. Therefore the grace of the Holy Ghost and the fulness of +virtues are given in Baptism. + +_I answer that,_ As Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De +Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) "the effect of Baptism is that the +baptized are incorporated in Christ as His members." Now the fulness +of grace and virtues flows from Christ the Head to all His members, +according to John 1:16: "Of His fulness we all have received." Hence +it is clear that man receives grace and virtues in Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 1: As the baptismal water by its cleansing signifies the +washing away of guilt, and by its refreshment the remission of +punishment, so by its natural clearness it signifies the splendor of +grace and virtues. + +Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (A. 1, ad 2; Q. 68, A. 2) man receives +the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of +desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives +Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the +entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like +him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their +desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when +baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. +Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of +refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of +virtue and good deeds in Baptism." + +Reply Obj. 3: Difficulty in doing good and proneness to evil are in +the baptized, not through their lacking the habits of the virtues, +but through concupiscence which is not taken away in Baptism. But +just as concupiscence is diminished by Baptism, so as not to enslave +us, so also are both the aforesaid defects diminished, so that man be +not overcome by them. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 5] + +Whether Certain Acts of the Virtues Are Fittingly Set Down As Effects +of Baptism, to Wit--Incorporation in Christ, Enlightenment, and +Fruitfulness? + +Objection 1: It seems that certain acts of the virtues are +unfittingly set down as effects of Baptism, to wit--"incorporation in +Christ, enlightenment, and fruitfulness." For Baptism is not given to +an adult, except he believe; according to Mk. 16:16: "He that +believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." But it is by faith that +man is incorporated in Christ, according to Eph. 3:17: "That Christ +may dwell by faith in your hearts." Therefore no one is baptized +except he be already incorporated in Christ. Therefore incorporation +with Christ is not the effect of Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, enlightenment is caused by teaching, according to +Eph. 3:8, 9: "To me the least of all the saints, is given this grace +. . . to enlighten all men," etc. But teaching by the catechism +precedes Baptism. Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, fruitfulness pertains to active generation. But a +man is regenerated spiritually by Baptism. Therefore fruitfulness is +not an effect of Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De +Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) that "the effect of Baptism is that the +baptized are incorporated in Christ." And Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii) +ascribes enlightenment to Baptism. And on Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought +me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says that "the sinner's +soul, sterilized by drought, is made fruitful by Baptism." + +_I answer that,_ By Baptism man is born again unto the spiritual +life, which is proper to the faithful of Christ, as the Apostle says +(Gal. 2:20): "And that I live now in the flesh; I live in the faith +of the Son of God." Now life is only in those members that are united +to the head, from which they derive sense and movement. And therefore +it follows of necessity that by Baptism man is incorporated in +Christ, as one of His members. Again, just as the members derive +sense and movement from the material head, so from their spiritual +Head, i.e. Christ, do His members derive spiritual sense consisting +in the knowledge of truth, and spiritual movement which results from +the instinct of grace. Hence it is written (John 1:14, 16): "We have +seen Him . . . full of grace and truth; and of His fulness we all +have received." And it follows from this that the baptized are +enlightened by Christ as to the knowledge of truth, and made fruitful +by Him with the fruitfulness of good works by the infusion of grace. + +Reply Obj. 1: Adults who already believe in Christ are incorporated +in Him mentally. But afterwards, when they are baptized, they are +incorporated in Him, corporally, as it were, i.e. by the visible +sacrament; without the desire of which they could not have been +incorporated in Him even mentally. + +Reply Obj. 2: The teacher enlightens outwardly and ministerially by +catechizing: but God enlightens the baptized inwardly, by preparing +their hearts for the reception of the doctrines of truth, according +to John 6:45: "It is written in the prophets . . . They shall all be +taught of God." + +Reply Obj. 3: The fruitfulness which I ascribed as an effect of +Baptism is that by which man brings forth good works; not that by +which he begets others in Christ, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:15): +"In Christ Jesus by the Gospel I have begotten you." +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 6] + +Whether Children Receive Grace and Virtue in Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that children do not receive grace and virtues +in Baptism. For grace and virtues are not possessed without faith and +charity. But faith, as Augustine says (Ep. xcviii), "depends on the +will of the believer": and in like manner charity depends on the will +of the lover. Now children have not the use of the will, and +consequently they have neither faith nor charity. Therefore children +do not receive grace and virtues in Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, on John 14:12, "Greater than these shall he do," +Augustine says that in order for the ungodly to be made righteous +"Christ worketh in him, but not without him." But a child, through +not having the use of free-will, does not co-operate with Christ unto +its justification: indeed at times it does its best to resist. +Therefore it is not justified by grace and virtues. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Rom. 4:5): "To him that worketh not, +yet believing in Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is +reputed to justice according to the purpose of the grace of God." But +a child believeth not "in Him that justifieth the ungodly." Therefore +a child receives neither sanctifying grace nor virtues. + +Obj. 4: Further, what is done with a carnal intention does not seem +to have a spiritual effect. But sometimes children are taken to +Baptism with a carnal intention, to wit, that their bodies may be +healed. Therefore they do not receive the spiritual effect consisting +in grace and virtue. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion lii): "When little +children are baptized, they die to that sin which they contracted in +birth: so that to them also may be applied the words: 'We are buried +together with Him by Baptism unto death'": (and he continues thus) +"'that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, +so we also may walk in newness of life.'" Now newness of life is +through grace and virtues. Therefore children receive grace and +virtues in Baptism. + +_I answer that,_ Some of the early writers held that children do not +receive grace and virtues in Baptism, but that they receive the +imprint of the character of Christ, by the power of which they +receive grace and virtue when they arrive at the perfect age. But +this is evidently false, for two reasons. First, because children, +like adults, are made members of Christ in Baptism; hence they must, +of necessity, receive an influx of grace and virtues from the Head. +Secondly, because, if this were true, children that die after +Baptism, would not come to eternal life; since according to Rom. +6:23, "the grace of God is life everlasting." And consequently +Baptism would not have profited them unto salvation. + +Now the source of their error was that they did not recognize the +distinction between habit and act. And so, seeing children to be +incapable of acts of virtue, they thought that they had no virtues at +all after Baptism. But this inability of children to act is not due +to the absence of habits, but to an impediment on the part of the +body: thus also when a man is asleep, though he may have the habits +of virtue, yet is he hindered from virtuous acts through being asleep. + +Reply Obj. 1: Faith and charity depend on man's will, yet so that the +habits of these and other virtues require the power of the will which +is in children; whereas acts of virtue require an act of the will, +which is not in children. In this sense Augustine says in the book on +Infant Baptism (Ep. xcviii): "The little child is made a believer, +not as yet by that faith which depends on the will of the believer, +but by the sacrament of faith itself," which causes the habit of +faith. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says in his book on Charity (Ep. Joan. ad +Parth. iii), "no man is born of water and the Holy Ghost unwillingly +which is to be understood not of little children but of adults." In +like manner we are to understand as applying to adults, that man +"without himself is not justified by Christ." Moreover, if little +children who are about to be baptized resist as much as they can, +"this is not imputed to them, since so little do they know what they +do, that they seem not to do it at all": as Augustine says in a book +on the Presence of God, addressed to Dardanus (Ep. clxxxvii). + +Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Serm. clxxvi): "Mother Church lends +other feet to the little children that they may come; another heart +that they may believe; another tongue that they may confess." So that +children believe, not by their own act, but by the faith of the +Church, which is applied to them: by the power of which faith, grace +and virtues are bestowed on them. + +Reply Obj. 4: The carnal intention of those who take children to be +baptized does not hurt the latter, as neither does one's sin hurt +another, unless he consent. Hence Augustine says in his letter to +Boniface (Ep. xcviii): "Be not disturbed because some bring children +to be baptized, not in the hope that they may be born again to +eternal life by the spiritual grace, but because they think it to be +a remedy whereby they may preserve or recover health. For they are +not deprived of regeneration, through not being brought for this +intention." +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 7] + +Whether the Effect of Baptism Is to Open the Gates of the Heavenly +Kingdom? + +Objection 1: It seems that it is not the effect of Baptism, to open +the gates of the heavenly kingdom. For what is already opened needs +no opening. But the gates of the heavenly kingdom were opened by +Christ's Passion: hence it is written (Apoc. 4:1): "After these +things I looked and behold (a great) door was opened in heaven." +Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the +heavenly kingdom. + +Obj. 2: Further, Baptism has had its effects ever since it was +instituted. But some were baptized with Christ's Baptism, before His +Passion, according to John 3:22, 26: and if they had died then, the +gates of the heavenly kingdom would not have been opened to them, +since none entered therein before Christ, according to Mic. 2:13: "He +went up [Vulg.: 'shall go up'] that shall open the way before them." +Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the +heavenly kingdom. + +Obj. 3: Further, the baptized are still subject to death and the +other penalties of the present life, as stated above (A. 3). But +entrance to the heavenly kingdom is opened to none that are subject +to punishment: as is clear in regard to those who are in purgatory. +Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the +heavenly kingdom. + +_On the contrary,_ on Luke 3:21, "Heaven was opened," the gloss of +Bede says: "We see here the power of Baptism; from which when a man +comes forth, the gates of the heavenly kingdom are opened unto him." + +_I answer that,_ To open the gates of the heavenly kingdom is to +remove the obstacle that prevents one from entering therein. Now this +obstacle is guilt and the debt of punishment. But it has been shown +above (AA. 1, 2) that all guilt and also all debt of punishment are +taken away by Baptism. It follows, therefore, that the effect of +Baptism is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom. + +Reply Obj. 1: Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to the +baptized in so far as it incorporates them in the Passion of Christ, +by applying its power to man. + +Reply Obj. 2: When Christ's Passion was not as yet consummated +actually but only in the faith of believers, Baptism proportionately +caused the gates to be opened, not in fact but in hope. For the +baptized who died then looked forward, with a sure hope, to enter the +heavenly kingdom. + +Reply Obj. 3: The baptized are subject to death and the penalties of +the present life, not by reason of a personal debt of punishment but +by reason of the state of their nature. And therefore this is no bar +to their entrance to the heavenly kingdom, when death severs the soul +from the body; since they have paid, as it were, the debt of nature. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 8] + +Whether Baptism Has an Equal Effect in All? + +Objection 1: It seems that Baptism has not an equal effect in all. +For the effect of Baptism is to remove guilt. But in some it takes +away more sins than in others; for in children it takes away only +original sins, whereas in adults it takes away actual sins, in some +many, in others few. Therefore Baptism has not an equal effect in all. + +Obj. 2: Further, grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism. +But some, after Baptism, seem to have more grace and more perfect +virtue than others who have been baptized. Therefore Baptism has not +an equal effect in all. + +Obj. 3: Further, nature is perfected by grace, as matter by form. But +a form is received into matter according to its capacity. Therefore, +since some of the baptized, even children, have greater capacity for +natural gifts than others have, it seems that some receive greater +grace than others. + +Obj. 4: Further, in Baptism some receive not only spiritual, but also +bodily health; thus Constantine was cleansed in Baptism from leprosy. +But all the infirm do not receive bodily health in Baptism. Therefore +it has not an equal effect in all. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 4:5): "One Faith, one +Baptism." But a uniform cause has a uniform effect. Therefore Baptism +has an equal effect in all. + +_I answer that,_ The effect of Baptism is twofold, the essential +effect, and the accidental. The essential effect of Baptism is that +for which Baptism was instituted, namely, the begetting of men unto +spiritual life. Therefore, since all children are equally disposed to +Baptism, because they are baptized not in their own faith, but in +that of the Church, they all receive an equal effect in Baptism. +Whereas adults, who approach Baptism in their own faith, are not +equally disposed to Baptism; for some approach thereto with greater, +some with less, devotion. And therefore some receive a greater, some +a smaller share of the grace of newness; just as from the same fire, +he receives more heat who approaches nearest to it, although the +fire, as far as it is concerned, sends forth its heat equally to all. + +But the accidental effect of Baptism, is that to which Baptism is not +ordained, but which the Divine power produces miraculously in +Baptism: thus on Rom. 6:6, "that we may serve sin no longer," a gloss +says: "this is not bestowed in Baptism, save by an ineffable miracle +of the Creator, so that the law of sin, which is in our members, be +absolutely destroyed." And such like effects are not equally received +by all the baptized, even if they approach with equal devotion: but +they are bestowed according to the ordering of Divine providence. + +Reply Obj. 1: The least baptismal grace suffices to blot out all +sins. Wherefore that in some more sins are loosed than in others is +not due to the greater efficacy of Baptism, but to the condition of +the recipient: for in each one it looses whatever it finds. + +Reply Obj. 2: That greater or lesser grace appears in the baptized, +may occur in two ways. First, because one receives greater grace in +Baptism than another, on account of his greater devotion, as stated +above. Secondly, because, though they receive equal grace, they do +not make an equal use of it, but one applies himself more to advance +therein, while another by his negligence baffles grace. + +Reply Obj. 3: The various degrees of capacity in men arise, not from +a variety in the mind which is renewed by Baptism (since all men, +being of one species, are of one form), but from the diversity of +bodies. But it is otherwise with the angels, who differ in species. +And therefore gratuitous gifts are bestowed on the angels according +to their diverse capacity for natural gifts, but not on men. + +Reply Obj. 4: Bodily health is not the essential effect of Baptism, +but a miraculous work of Divine providence. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 9] + +Whether Insincerity Hinders the Effect of Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that insincerity does not hinder the effect of +Baptism. For the Apostle says (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have +been baptized in Christ Jesus, have put on Christ." But all that +receive the Baptism of Christ, are baptized in Christ. Therefore they +all put on Christ: and this is to receive the effect of Baptism. +Consequently insincerity does not hinder the effect of Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Divine power which can change man's will to that +which is better, works in Baptism. But the effect of the efficient +cause cannot be hindered by that which can be removed by that cause. +Therefore insincerity cannot hinder the effect of Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, the effect of Baptism is grace, to which sin is in +opposition. But many other sins are more grievous than insincerity, +which are not said to hinder the effect of Baptism. Therefore neither +does insincerity. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 1:5): "The Holy Spirit of +discipline will flee from the deceitful." But the effect of Baptism +is from the Holy Ghost. Therefore insincerity hinders the effect of +Baptism. + +_I answer that,_ As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), "God does not +compel man to be righteous." Consequently in order that a man be +justified by Baptism, his will must needs embrace both Baptism and +the baptismal effect. Now, a man is said to be insincere by reason of +his will being in contradiction with either Baptism or its effect. +For, according to Augustine (De Bapt. cont. Donat. vii), a man is +said to be insincere, in four ways: first, because he does not +believe, whereas Baptism is the sacrament of Faith; secondly, through +scorning the sacrament itself; thirdly, through observing a rite +which differs from that prescribed by the Church in conferring the +sacrament; fourthly, through approaching the sacrament without +devotion. Wherefore it is manifest that insincerity hinders the +effect of Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 1: "To be baptized in Christ," may be taken in two ways. +First, "in Christ," i.e. "in conformity with Christ." And thus +whoever is baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him by Faith +and Charity, puts on Christ by grace. Secondly, a man is said to be +baptized in Christ, in so far as he receives Christ's sacrament. And +thus all put on Christ, through being configured to Him by the +character, but not through being conformed to Him by grace. + +Reply Obj. 2: When God changes man's will from evil to good, man does +not approach with insincerity. But God does not always do this. Nor +is this the purpose of the sacrament, that an insincere man be made +sincere; but that he who comes in sincerity, be justified. + +Reply Obj. 3: A man is said to be insincere who makes a show of +willing what he wills not. Now whoever approaches Baptism, by that +very fact makes a show of having right faith in Christ, of veneration +for this sacrament, and of wishing to conform to the Church, and to +renounce sin. Consequently, to whatever sin a man wishes to cleave, +if he approach Baptism, he approaches insincerely, which is the same +as to approach without devotion. But this must be understood of +mortal sin, which is in opposition to grace: but not of venial sin. +Consequently, here insincerity includes, in a way, every sin. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 10] + +Whether Baptism Produces Its Effect When the Insincerity Ceases? + +Objection 1: It seems that Baptism does not produce its effect, when +the insincerity ceases. For a dead work, which is void of charity, +can never come to life. But he who approaches Baptism insincerely, +receives the sacrament without charity. Therefore it can never come +to life so as to bestow grace. + +Obj. 2: Further, insincerity seems to be stronger than Baptism, +because it hinders its effect. But the stronger is not removed by the +weaker. Therefore the sin of insincerity cannot be taken away by +Baptism which has been hindered by insincerity. And thus Baptism will +not receive its full effect, which is the remission of all sins. + +Obj. 3: Further, it may happen that a man approach Baptism +insincerely, and afterwards commit a number of sins. And yet these +sins will not be taken away by Baptism; because Baptism washes away +past, not future, sins. Such a Baptism, therefore, will never have +its effect, which is the remission of all sins. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Bapt. cont. Donat. i): "Then +does Baptism begin to have its salutary effect, when truthful +confession takes the place of that insincerity which hindered sins +from being washed away, so long as the heart persisted in malice and +sacrilege." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 66, A. 9), Baptism is a +spiritual regeneration. Now when a thing is generated, it receives +together with the form, the form's effect, unless there be an +obstacle; and when this is removed, the form of the thing generated +produces its effect: thus at the same time as a weighty body is +generated, it has a downward movement, unless something prevent this; +and when the obstacle is removed, it begins forthwith to move +downwards. In like manner when a man is baptized, he receives the +character, which is like a form; and he receives in consequence its +proper effect, which is grace whereby all his sins are remitted. But +this effect is sometimes hindered by insincerity. Wherefore, when +this obstacle is removed by Penance, Baptism forthwith produces its +effect. + +Reply Obj. 1: The sacrament of Baptism is the work of God, not of +man. Consequently, it is not dead in the man, who being insincere, is +baptized without charity. + +Reply Obj. 2: Insincerity is not removed by Baptism but by Penance: +and when it is removed, Baptism takes away all guilt, and all debt of +punishment due to sins, whether committed before Baptism, or even +co-existent with Baptism. Hence Augustine says (De Bapt. cont. Donat. +i): "Yesterday is blotted out, and whatever remains over and above, +even the very last hour and moment preceding Baptism, the very moment +of Baptism. But from that moment forward he is bound by his +obligations." And so both Baptism and Penance concur in producing the +effect of Baptism, but Baptism as the direct efficient cause, Penance +as the indirect cause, i.e. as removing the obstacle. + +Reply Obj. 3: The effect of Baptism is to take away not future, but +present and past sins. And consequently, when the insincerity passes +away, subsequent sins are indeed remitted, but by Penance, not by +Baptism. Wherefore they are not remitted, like the sins which +preceded Baptism, as to the whole debt of punishment. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 70 + +OF CIRCUMCISION +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider things that are preparatory to Baptism: and +(1) that which preceded Baptism, viz. Circumcision, (2) those which +accompany Baptism, viz. Catechism and Exorcism. + +Concerning the first there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of, +Baptism? + +(2) Its institution; + +(3) Its rite; + +(4) Its effect. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 70, Art. 1] + +Whether Circumcision Was a Preparation For, and a Figure of Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that circumcision was not a preparation for, +and a figure of Baptism. For every figure has some likeness to that +which it foreshadows. But circumcision has no likeness to Baptism. +Therefore it seems that it was not a preparation for, and a figure of +Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of old, says (1 +Cor. 10:2), that "all were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea": +but not that they were baptized in circumcision. Therefore the +protecting pillar of a cloud, and the crossing of the Red Sea, rather +than circumcision, were a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, it was stated above (Q. 38, AA. 1, 3) that the +baptism of John was a preparation for Christ's. Consequently, if +circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Christ's Baptism, +it seems that John's baptism was superfluous: which is unseemly. +Therefore circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of +Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Col. 2:11, 12): "You are +circumcised with circumcision, not made by hand in despoiling the +body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him +in Baptism." + +_I answer that,_ Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith; in so far, +to wit, as in Baptism man makes a profession of faith, and by Baptism +is aggregated to the congregation of the faithful. Now our faith is +the same as that of the Fathers of old, according to the Apostle (2 +Cor. 4:13): "Having the same spirit of faith . . . we . . . believe." +But circumcision was a protestation of faith; wherefore by +circumcision also men of old were aggregated to the body of the +faithful. Consequently, it is manifest that circumcision was a +preparation for Baptism and a figure thereof, forasmuch as "all +things happened" to the Fathers of old "in figure" (1 Cor. 10:11); +just as their faith regarded things to come. + +Reply Obj. 1: Circumcision was like Baptism as to the spiritual +effect of the latter. For just as circumcision removed a carnal +pellicule, so Baptism despoils man of carnal behavior. + +Reply Obj. 2: The protecting pillar of cloud and the crossing of the +Red Sea were indeed figures of our Baptism, whereby we are born again +of water, signified by the Red Sea; and of the Holy Ghost, signified +by the pillar of cloud: yet man did not make, by means of these, a +profession of faith, as by circumcision; so that these two things +were figures but not sacraments. But circumcision was a sacrament, +and a preparation for Baptism; although less clearly figurative of +Baptism, as to externals, than the aforesaid. And for this reason the +Apostle mentions them rather than circumcision. + +Reply Obj. 3: John's baptism was a preparation for Christ's as to the +act done: but circumcision, as to the profession of faith, which is +required in Baptism, as stated above. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 70, Art. 2] + +Whether Circumcision Was Instituted in a Fitting Manner? + +Objection 1: It seems that circumcision was instituted in an +unfitting manner. For as stated above (A. 1) a profession of faith +was made in circumcision. But none could ever be delivered from the +first man's sin, except by faith in Christ's Passion, according to +Rom. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through +faith in His blood." Therefore circumcision should have been +instituted forthwith after the first man's sin, and not at the time +of Abraham. + +Obj. 2: Further, in circumcision man made profession of keeping the +Old Law, just as in Baptism he makes profession of keeping the New +Law; wherefore the Apostle says (Gal. 5:3): "I testify . . . to every +man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law." +But the observance of the Law was not promulgated at the time of +Abraham, but rather at the time of Moses. Therefore it was unfitting +for circumcision to be instituted at the time of Abraham. + +Obj. 3: Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation for, +Baptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to Matt. +28:19: "Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them." Therefore +circumcision should have been instituted as binding, not the Jews +only, but also all nations. + +Obj. 4: Further, carnal circumcision should correspond to spiritual +circumcision, as the shadow to the reality. But spiritual +circumcision which is of Christ, regards indifferently both sexes, +since "in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female," as is +written Col. 3 [*Gal. 3:28]. Therefore the institution of +circumcision which concerns only males, was unfitting. + +_On the contrary,_ We read (Gen. 17) that circumcision was instituted +by God, Whose "works are perfect" (Deut. 32:4). + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) circumcision was a +preparation for Baptism, inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in +Christ, which we also profess in Baptism. Now among the Fathers of +old, Abraham was the first to receive the promise of the future birth +of Christ, when it was said to him: "In thy seed shall all the +nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:18). Moreover, he was the +first to cut himself off from the society of unbelievers, in +accordance with the commandment of the Lord, Who said to him (Gen. +13:1): "Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred." Therefore +circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person of Abraham. + +Reply Obj. 1: Immediately after the sin of our first parent, on +account of the knowledge possessed by Adam, who was fully instructed +about Divine things, both faith and natural reason flourished in man +to such an extent, that there was no need for any signs of faith and +salvation to be prescribed to him, but each one was wont to make +protestation of his faith, by outward signs of his profession, +according as he thought best. But about the time of Abraham faith was +on the wane, many being given over to idolatry. Moreover, by the +growth of carnal concupiscence natural reason was clouded even in +regard to sins against nature. And therefore it was fitting that +then, and not before, circumcision should be instituted, as a +profession of faith and a remedy against carnal concupiscence. + +Reply Obj. 2: The observance of the Law was not to be promulgated +until the people were already gathered together: because the law is +ordained to the public good, as we have stated in the Second Part +(I-II, Q. 90, A. 2). Now it behooved the body of the faithful to be +gathered together by a sensible sign, which is necessary in order +that men be united together in any religion, as Augustine says +(Contra Faust. xix). Consequently, it was necessary for circumcision +to be instituted before the giving of the Law. Those Fathers, +however, who lived before the Law, taught their families concerning +Divine things by way of paternal admonition. Hence the Lord said of +Abraham (Gen. 18:19): "I know that he will command his children, and +his household after him to keep the way of the Lord." + +Reply Obj. 3: Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, +to which God calls all men, according to 1 Tim. 2:4: "Who will have +all men to be saved." Wherefore Baptism is offered to all nations. On +the other hand circumcision did not contain the perfection of +salvation, but signified it as to be achieved by Christ, Who was to +be born of the Jewish nation. For this reason circumcision was given +to that nation alone. + +Reply Obj. 4: The institution of circumcision is as a sign of +Abraham's faith, who believed that himself would be the father of +Christ Who was promised to him: and for this reason it was suitable +that it should be for males only. Again, original sin, against which +circumcision was specially ordained, is contracted from the father, +not from the mother, as was stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 81, +A. 5). But Baptism contains the power of Christ, Who is the universal +cause of salvation for all, and is "The Remission of all sins" +(Post-Communion, Tuesday in Whitweek). +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 70, Art. 3] + +Whether the Rite of Circumcision Was Fitting? + +Objection 1: It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting. +For circumcision, as stated above (AA. 1, 2), was a profession of +faith. But faith is in the apprehensive power, whose operations +appear mostly in the head. Therefore the sign of circumcision should +have been conferred on the head rather than on the virile member. + +Obj. 2: Further, in the sacraments we make use of such things as are +in more frequent use; for instance, water, which is used for washing, +and bread, which we use for nourishment. But, in cutting, we use an +iron knife more commonly than a stone knife. Therefore circumcision +should not have been performed with a stone knife. + +Obj. 3: Further, just as Baptism was instituted as a remedy against +original sin, so also was circumcision, as Bede says (Hom. in +Circum.). But now Baptism is not put off until the eighth day, lest +children should be in danger of loss on account of original sin, if +they should die before being baptized. On the other hand, sometimes +Baptism is put off until after the eighth day. Therefore the eighth +day should not have been fixed for circumcision, but this day should +have been anticipated, just as sometimes it was deferred. + +_On the contrary,_ The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a +gloss on Rom. 4:11: "And he received the sign of circumcision." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), circumcision was +established, as a sign of faith, by God "of" Whose "wisdom there is +no number" (Ps. 146:5). Now to determine suitable signs is a work of +wisdom. Consequently, it must be allowed that the rite of +circumcision was fitting. + +Reply Obj. 1: It was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the +virile member. First, because it was a sign of that faith whereby +Abraham believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly, +because it was to be a remedy against original sin, which is +contracted through the act of generation. Thirdly, because it was +ordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence, which thrives +principally in those members, by reason of the abundance of venereal +pleasure. + +Reply Obj. 2: A stone knife was not essential to circumcision. +Wherefore we do not find that an instrument of this description is +required by any divine precept; nor did the Jews, as a rule, make use +of such a knife for circumcision; indeed, neither do they now. +Nevertheless, certain well-known circumcisions are related as having +been performed with a stone knife, thus (Ex. 4:25) we read that +"Sephora took a very sharp stone and circumcised the foreskin of her +son," and (Joshua 5:2): "Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise +the second time the children of Israel." Which signified that +spiritual circumcision would be done by Christ, of Whom it is written +(1 Cor. 10:4): "Now the rock was Christ." + +Reply Obj. 3: The eighth day was fixed for circumcision: first, +because of the mystery; since, Christ, by taking away from the elect, +not only guilt but also all penalties, will perfect the spiritual +circumcision, in the eighth age (which is the age of those that rise +again), as it were, on the eighth day. Secondly, on account of the +tenderness of the infant before the eighth day. Wherefore even in +regard to other animals it is prescribed (Lev. 22:27): "When a +bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, they shall be seven +days under the udder of their dam: but the eighth day and +thenceforth, they may be offered to the Lord." + +Moreover, the eighth day was necessary for the fulfilment of the +precept; so that, to wit, those who delayed beyond the eighth day, +sinned, even though it were the sabbath, according to John 7:23: +"(If) a man receives circumcision on the sabbath-day, that the Law of +Moses may not be broken." But it was not necessary for the validity +of the sacrament: because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day, +they could be circumcised afterwards. + +Some also say that in imminent danger of death, it was allowable to +anticipate the eighth day. But this cannot be proved either from the +authority of Scripture or from the custom of the Jews. Wherefore it +is better to say with Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) that the +eighth day was never anticipated for any motive, however urgent. +Hence on Prov. 4:3: "I was . . . an only son in the sight of my +mother," a gloss says, that Bersabee's other baby boy did not count +because through dying before the eighth day it received no name; and +consequently neither was it circumcised. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 70, Art. 4] + +Whether Circumcision Bestowed Sanctifying Grace? + +Objection 1: It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying +grace. For the Apostle says (Gal. 2:21): "If justice be by the Law, +then Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But circumcision was +an obligation imposed by the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: "I +testify . . . to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor +to do the whole law." Therefore, if justice be by circumcision, +"Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But this cannot be +allowed. Therefore circumcision did not confer grace whereby the +sinner is made righteous. + +Obj. 2: Further, before the institution of circumcision faith alone +sufficed for justification; hence Gregory says (Moral. iv): "Faith +alone did of old in behalf of infants that for which the water of +Baptism avails with us." But faith has lost nothing of its strength +through the commandment of circumcision. Therefore faith alone +justified little ones, and not circumcision. + +Obj. 3: Further, we read (Joshua 5:5, 6) that "the people that were +born in the desert, during the forty years . . . were uncircumcised." +If, therefore, original sin was taken away by circumcision, it seems +that all who died in the desert, both little children and adults, +were lost. And the same argument avails in regard to those who died +before the eighth day, which was that of circumcision, which day +could not be anticipated, as stated above (A. 3, ad 3). + +Obj. 4: Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly +kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly kingdom +was closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from +sin by circumcision. + +Obj. 5: Further, original sin is not remitted without actual sin +being remitted also: because "it is wicked to hope for half +forgiveness from God," as Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. +ix). But we read nowhere of circumcision as remitting actual sin. +Therefore neither did it remit original sin. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to +Julian (De Nup. et Concup. ii): "From the time that circumcision was +instituted among God's people, as 'a seal of the justice of the +faith,' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing +them from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the +time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of man." + +_I answer that,_ All are agreed in saying that original sin was +remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, +and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this +opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Rom. 4:11. But this is +impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to +Rom. 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc. + +Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to +that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its +positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace +bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts +of the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was +unnecessary. But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by +circumcision children received the power of obtaining glory at the +allotted time, which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, +because, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally +precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in +the order of the material cause: since a form does not remove a +privation save by informing the subject. + +Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, +also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy +of eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not +suffice for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes, nor +again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my +opinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1; Q. 2, A. 4). But if one consider +the matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because the +least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every +mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the +Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity +loves "thousands of gold and silver" (Ps. 118:72). + +We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to +all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism +grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power +Baptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion already +consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was +a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was +circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an +adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone +else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Rom. +4:11), that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the +justice of the faith": because, to wit, justice was of faith +signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates +instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision +does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates +man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does +circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, +than of the hope thereof. + +Reply Obj. 1: This argument would prove if justice were of +circumcision otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 2: Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith +in Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after +its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive +of this faith; because as yet believers had not begun to be united +together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is +probable, however, that parents who were believers offered up some +prayers to God for their children, especially if these were in any +danger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a "seal of faith"; just +as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves. + +Reply Obj. 3: There was an excuse for the people in the desert +failing to fulfil the precept of circumcision, both because they knew +not when the camp was removed, and because, as Damascene says (De +Fide Orth. iv) they needed no distinctive sign while they dwelt apart +from other nations. Nevertheless, as Augustine says (QQ. in Josue +vi), those were guilty of disobedience who failed to obey through +contempt. + +It seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert, +for it is written (Ps. 104:37): "There was not among their tribes one +that was feeble": and that those alone died in the desert, who had +been circumcised in Egypt. If, however, some of the uncircumcised did +die there, the same applies to them as to those who died before the +institution of circumcision. And this applies also to those children +who, at the time of the Law, died before the eighth day. + +Reply Obj. 4: Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard +to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained +the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle +was removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before Christ's +Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were +circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance +to the kingdom. + +Reply Obj. 5: When adults were circumcised, they received remission +not only of original, but also of actual sin: yet not so as to be +delivered from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which grace +is conferred more copiously. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 71 + +OF THE PREPARATIONS THAT ACCOMPANY BAPTISM +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider the preparations that accompany Baptism: +concerning which there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether catechism should precede Baptism? + +(2) Whether exorcism should precede Baptism? + +(3) Whether what is done in catechizing and exorcizing, effects +anything, or is a mere sign? + +(4) Whether those who are to be baptized should be catechized or +exorcized by priests? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 71, Art. 1] + +Whether Catechism Should Precede Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that catechism should not precede Baptism. For +by Baptism men are regenerated unto the spiritual life. But man +begins to live before being taught. Therefore man should not be +catechized, i.e. taught, before being baptized. + +Obj. 2: Further, Baptism is given not only to adults, but also to +children, who are not capable of being taught, since they have not +the use of reason. Therefore it is absurd to catechize them. + +Obj. 3: Further, a man, when catechized, confesses his faith. Now a +child cannot confess its faith by itself, nor can anyone else in its +stead; both because no one can bind another to do anything; and +because one cannot know whether the child, having come to the right +age, will give its assent to faith. Therefore catechism should not +precede Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "Before +Baptism man should be prepared by catechism, in order that the +catechumen may receive the rudiments of faith." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 70, A. 1), Baptism is the +Sacrament of Faith: since it is a profession of the Christian faith. +Now in order that a man receive the faith, he must be instructed +therein, according to Rom. 10:14: "How shall they believe Him, of +Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a +preacher?" And therefore it is fitting that catechism should precede +Baptism. Hence when our Lord bade His disciples to baptize, He made +teaching to precede Baptism, saying: "Go ye . . . and teach all +nations, baptizing them," etc. + +Reply Obj. 1: The life of grace unto which a man is regenerated, +presupposes the life of the rational nature, in which man is capable +of receiving instruction. + +Reply Obj. 2: Just as Mother Church, as stated above (Q. 69, A. 6, ad +3), lends children another's feet that they may come, and another's +heart that they may believe, so, too, she lends them another's ears, +that they may hear, and another's mind, that through others they may +be taught. And therefore, as they are to be baptized, on the same +grounds they are to be instructed. + +Reply Obj. 3: He who answers in the child's stead: "I do believe," +does not foretell that the child will believe when it comes to the +right age, else he would say: "He will believe"; but in the child's +stead he professes the Church's faith which is communicated to that +child, the sacrament of which faith is bestowed on it, and to which +faith he is bound by another. For there is nothing unfitting in a +person being bound by another in things necessary for salvation. In +like manner the sponsor, in answering for the child, promises to use +his endeavors that the child may believe. This, however, would not be +sufficient in the case of adults having the use of reason. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 71, Art. 2] + +Whether Exorcism Should Precede Baptism? + +Objection 1: It seems that exorcism should not precede Baptism. For +exorcism is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed. +But not all are such like. Therefore exorcism should not precede +Baptism. + +Obj. 2: Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil has +power over him, according to John 8:34: "Whosoever committeth sin is +the servant of sin." But sin is taken away by Baptism. Therefore men +should not be exorcized before Baptism. + +Obj. 3: Further, Holy water was introduced in order to ward off the +power of the demons. Therefore exorcism was not needed as a further +remedy. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Celestine says (Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae): +"Whether children or young people approach the sacrament of +regeneration, they should not come to the fount of life before the +unclean spirit has been expelled from them by the exorcisms and +breathings of the clerics." + +_I answer that,_ Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes +the obstacles to his work; hence it is written (Jer. 4:3): "Break up +anew your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns." Now the devil is +the enemy of man's salvation, which man acquires by Baptism; and he +has a certain power over man from the very fact that the latter is +subject to original, or even actual, sin. Consequently it is fitting +that before Baptism the demons should be cast out by exorcisms, lest +they impede man's salvation. Which expulsion is signified by the +(priest) breathing (upon the person to be baptized); while the +blessing, with the imposition of hands, bars the way against the +return of him who was cast out. Then the salt which is put in the +mouth, and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle, signify +the receiving of doctrine, as to the ears; consent thereto as to the +nose; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the anointing with +oil signifies man's ability to fight against the demons. + +Reply Obj. 1: The energumens are so-called from "laboring inwardly" +under the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that +approach Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are +not baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least on +account of the guilt of original sin. + +Reply Obj. 2: The power of the devil in so far as he hinders man from +obtaining glory, is expelled from man by the baptismal ablution; but +in so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament, his power +is cast out by the exorcisms. + +Reply Obj. 3: Holy water is used against the assaults of demons from +without. But exorcisms are directed against those assaults of the +demons which are from within. Hence those who are exorcized are +called energumens, as it were "laboring inwardly." + +Or we may say that just as Penance is given as a further remedy +against sin, because Baptism is not repeated; so Holy Water is given +as a further remedy against the assaults of demons, because the +baptismal exorcisms are not given a second time. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 71, Art. 3] + +Whether What Is Done in the Exorcism Effects Anything, or Is a Mere +Sign? + +Objection 1: It seems that what is done in the exorcism does not +effect anything, but is a mere sign. For if a child die after the +exorcisms, before being baptized, it is not saved. But the effects of +what is done in the sacraments are ordained to the salvation of man; +hence it is written (Mk. 16:16): "He that believeth and is baptized +shall be saved." Therefore what is done in the exorcism effects +nothing, but is a mere sign. + +Obj. 2: Further, nothing is required for a sacrament of the New Law, +but that it should be a sign and a cause, as stated above (Q. 62, A. +1). If, therefore, the things done in the exorcism effect anything, +it seems that each of them is a sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, just as the exorcism is ordained to Baptism, so if +anything be effected in the exorcism, it is ordained to the effect of +Baptism. But disposition must needs precede the perfect form: because +form is not received save into matter already disposed. It would +follow, therefore, that none could obtain the effect of Baptism +unless he were previously exorcized; which is clearly false. +Therefore what is done in the exorcisms has no effect. + +Obj. 4: Further, just as some things are done in the exorcism before +Baptism, so are some things done after Baptism; for instance, the +priest anoints the baptized on the top of the head. But what is done +after Baptism seems to have no effect; for, if it had, the effect of +Baptism would be imperfect. Therefore neither have those things an +effect, which are done in exorcism before Baptism. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Symbolo I): "Little children +are breathed upon and exorcized, in order to expel from them the +devil's hostile power, which deceived man." But the Church does +nothing in vain. Therefore the effect of these breathings is that the +power of the devils is expelled. + +_I answer that,_ Some say that the things done in the exorcism have +no effect, but are mere signs. But this is clearly false; since in +exorcizing, the Church uses words of command to cast out the devil's +power, for instance, when she says: "Therefore, accursed devil, go +out from him," etc. + +Therefore we must say that they have some effect, but, other than +that of Baptism. For Baptism gives man grace unto the full remission +of sins. But those things that are done in the exorcism remove the +twofold impediment against the reception of saving grace. Of these, +one is the outward impediment, so far as the demons strive to hinder +man's salvation. And this impediment is removed by the breathings, +whereby the demon's power is cast out, as appears from the passage +quoted from Augustine, i.e. as to the devil not placing obstacles +against the reception of the sacrament. Nevertheless, the demon's +power over man remains as to the stain of sin, and the debt of +punishment, until sin be washed away by Baptism. And in this sense +Cyprian says (Epist. lxxvi): "Know that the devil's evil power +remains until the pouring of the saving water: but in Baptism he +loses it all." + +The other impediment is within, forasmuch as, from having contracted +original sin, man's sense is closed to the perception of the +mysteries of salvation. Hence Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i) +that "by means of the typifying spittle and the touch of the priest, +the Divine wisdom and power brings salvation to the catechumen, that +his nostrils being opened he may perceive the odor of the knowledge +of God, that his ears be opened to hear the commandments of God, that +his senses be opened in his inmost heart to respond." + +Reply Obj. 1: What is done in the exorcism does not take away the sin +for which man is punished after death; but only the impediments +against his receiving the remission of sin through the sacrament. +Wherefore exorcism avails a man nothing after death if he has not +been baptized. + +Praepositivus, however, says that children who die after being +exorcized but before being baptized are subjected to lesser darkness. +But this does not seem to be true: because that darkness consists in +privation of the vision of God, which cannot be greater or lesser. + +Reply Obj. 2: It is essential to a sacrament to produce its principal +effect, which is grace that remits sin, or supplies some defect in +man. But those things that are done in the exorcism do not effect +this; they merely remove these impediments. Consequently, they are +not sacraments but sacramentals. + +Reply Obj. 3: The disposition that suffices for receiving the +baptismal grace is the faith and intention, either of the one +baptized, if it be an adult, or of the Church, if it be a child. But +these things that are done in the exorcism, are directed to the +removal of the impediments. And therefore one may receive the effect +of Baptism without them. + +Yet they are not to be omitted save in a case of necessity. And then, +if the danger pass, they should be supplied, that uniformity in +Baptism may be observed. Nor are they supplied to no purpose after +Baptism: because, just as the effect of Baptism may be hindered +before it is received, so can it be hindered after it has been +received. + +Reply Obj. 4: Of those things that are done after Baptism in respect +of the person baptized, something is done which is not a mere sign, +but produces an effect, for instance, the anointing on the top of the +head, the effect of which is the preservation of baptismal grace. And +there is something which has no effect, but is a mere sign, for +instance, the baptized are given a white garment to signify the +newness of life. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 71, Art. 4] + +Whether It Belongs to a Priest to Catechize and Exorcize the Person +to Be Baptized? + +Objection 1: It seems that it does not belong to a priest to +catechize and exorcize the person to be baptized. For it belongs to +the office of ministers to operate on the unclean, as Dionysius says +(Eccl. Hier. v). But catechumens who are instructed by catechism, and +"energumens" who are cleansed by exorcism, are counted among the +unclean, as Dionysius says in the same place. Therefore to catechize +and to exorcize do not belong to the office of the priests, but +rather to that of the ministers. + +Obj. 2: Further, catechumens are instructed in the Faith by the Holy +Scripture which is read in the church by ministers: for just as the +Old Testament is recited by the Readers, so the New Testament is read +by the Deacons and Subdeacons. And thus it belongs to the ministers +to catechize. In like manner it belongs, seemingly, to the ministers +to exorcize. For Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.): "The exorcist +should know the exorcisms by heart, and impose his hands on the +energumens and catechumens during the exorcism." Therefore it belongs +not to the priestly office to catechize and exorcize. + +Obj. 3: Further, "to catechize" is the same as "to teach," and this +is the same as "to perfect." Now this belongs to the office of a +bishop, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). Therefore it does not +belong to the priestly office. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Nicolas I says: "The catechizing of those who +are to be baptized can be undertaken by the priests attached to each +church." And Gregory says (Hom. xxix super Ezech.): "When priests +place their hands on believers for the grace of exorcism, what else +do they but cast out the devils?" + +_I answer that,_ The minister compared to the priest, is as a +secondary and instrumental agent to the principal agent: as is +implied in the very word "minister." Now the secondary agent does +nothing without the principal agent in operating. And the more mighty +the operation, so much the mightier instruments does the principal +agent require. But the operation of the priest in conferring the +sacrament itself is mightier than in those things that are +preparatory to the sacrament. And so the highest ministers who are +called deacons co-operate with the priest in bestowing the sacraments +themselves: for Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that "it belongs +to the deacons to assist the priests in all things that are done in +Christ's sacraments, in Baptism, to wit, in the Chrism, in the Paten +and Chalice"; while the inferior ministers assist the priest in those +things which are preparatory to the sacraments: the readers, for +instance, in catechizing; the exorcists in exorcizing. + +Reply Obj. 1: The minister's operation in regard to the unclean is +ministerial and, as it were, instrumental, but the priest's is +principal. + +Reply Obj. 2: To readers and exorcists belongs the duty of +catechizing and exorcizing, not, indeed, principally, but as +ministers of the priest in these things. + +Reply Obj. 3: Instruction is manifold. One leads to the embracing of +the Faith; and is ascribed by Dionysius to bishops (Eccl. Hier. ii) +and can be undertaken by any preacher, or even by any believer. +Another is that by which a man is taught the rudiments of faith, and +how to comport himself in receiving the sacraments: this belongs +secondarily to the ministers, primarily to the priests. A third is +instruction in the mode of Christian life: and this belongs to the +sponsors. A fourth is the instruction in the profound mysteries of +faith, and on the perfection of Christian life: this belongs to +bishops _ex officio,_ in virtue of their office. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 72 + +OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION +(In Twelve Articles) + +We have now to consider the Sacrament of Confirmation. Concerning +this there are twelve points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Confirmation is a sacrament? + +(2) Its matter; + +(3) Whether it is essential to the sacrament that the chrism should +have been previously consecrated by a bishop? + +(4) Its form; + +(5) Whether it imprints a character? + +(6) Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes the character +of Baptism? + +(7) Whether it bestows grace? + +(8) Who is competent to receive this sacrament? + +(9) In what part of the body? + +(10) Whether someone is required to stand for the person to be +confirmed? + +(11) Whether this sacrament is given by bishops only? + +(12) Of its rite. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 1] + +Whether Confirmation Is a Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that Confirmation is not a sacrament. For +sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine institution, as +stated above (Q. 64, A. 2). But we read nowhere of Confirmation being +instituted by Christ. Therefore it is not a sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were foreshadowed in +the Old Law; thus the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2-4), that "all in +Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the +same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink." But +Confirmation was not foreshadowed in the old Testament. Therefore it +is not a sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's salvation. +But man can be saved without Confirmation: since children that are +baptized, who die before being confirmed, are saved. Therefore +Confirmation is not a sacrament. + +Obj. 4: Further, by all the sacraments of the Church, man is +conformed to Christ, Who is the Author of the sacraments. But man +cannot be conformed to Christ by Confirmation, since we read nowhere +of Christ being confirmed. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Melchiades wrote to the bishops of Spain: +"Concerning the point on which you sought to be informed, i.e. +whether the imposition of the bishop's hand were a greater sacrament +than Baptism, know that each is a great sacrament." + +_I answer that,_ The sacraments of the New Law are ordained unto +special effects of grace: and therefore where there is a special +effect of grace, there we find a special sacrament ordained for the +purpose. But since sensible and material things bear a likeness to +things spiritual and intelligible, from what occurs in the life of +the body, we can perceive that which is special to the spiritual +life. Now it is evident that in the life of the body a certain +special perfection consists in man's attaining to the perfect age, +and being able to perform the perfect actions of a man: hence the +Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:11): "When I became a man, I put away the +things of a child." And thence it is that besides the movement of +generation whereby man receives life of the body, there is the +movement of growth, whereby man is brought to the perfect age. So +therefore does man receive spiritual life in Baptism, which is a +spiritual regeneration: while in Confirmation man arrives at the +perfect age, as it were, of the spiritual life. Hence Pope Melchiades +says: "The Holy Ghost, Who comes down on the waters of Baptism +bearing salvation in His flight, bestows at the font, the fulness of +innocence; but in Confirmation He confers an increase of grace. In +Baptism we are born again unto life; after Baptism we are +strengthened." And therefore it is evident that Confirmation is a +special sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: Concerning the institution of this sacrament there are +three opinions. Some (Alexander of Hales, Summa Theol. P. IV, Q. IX; +St. Bonaventure, Sent. iv, D, 7) have maintained that this sacrament +was instituted neither by Christ, nor by the apostles; but later in +the course of time by one of the councils. Others (Pierre de +Tarentaise, Sent. iv, D, 7) held that it was instituted by the +apostles. But this cannot be admitted; since the institution of a new +sacrament belongs to the power of excellence, which belongs to Christ +alone. + +And therefore we must say that Christ instituted this sacrament not +by bestowing, but by promising it, according to John 16:7: "If I go +not, the Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send Him +to you." And this was because in this sacrament the fulness of the +Holy Ghost is bestowed, which was not to be given before Christ's +Resurrection and Ascension; according to John 7:39: "As yet the +Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." + +Reply Obj. 2: Confirmation is the sacrament of the fulness of grace: +wherefore there could be nothing corresponding to it in the Old Law, +since "the Law brought nothing to perfection" (Heb. 7:19). + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 65, A. 4), all the sacraments are +in some way necessary for salvation: but some, so that there is no +salvation without them; some as conducing to the perfection of +salvation; and thus it is that Confirmation is necessary for +salvation: although salvation is possible without it, provided it be +not omitted out of contempt. + +Reply Obj. 4: Those who receive Confirmation, which is the sacrament +of the fulness of grace, are conformed to Christ, inasmuch as from +the very first instant of His conception He was "full of grace and +truth" (John 1:14). This fulness was made known at His Baptism, when +"the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape . . . upon Him" (Luke +3:22). Hence (Luke 4:1) it is written that "Jesus being full of the +Holy Ghost, returned from the Jordan." Nor was it fitting to Christ's +dignity, that He, Who is the Author of the sacraments, should receive +the fulness of grace from a sacrament. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 2] + +Whether Chrism Is a Fitting Matter for This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that chrism is not a fitting matter for this +sacrament. For this sacrament, as stated above (A. 1, ad 1), was +instituted by Christ when He promised His disciples the Holy Ghost. +But He sent them the Holy Ghost without their being anointed with +chrism. Moreover, the apostles themselves bestowed this sacrament +without chrism, by the mere imposition of hands: for it is written +(Acts 8:17) that the apostles "laid their hands upon" those who were +baptized, "and they received the Holy Ghost." Therefore chrism is not +the matter of this sacrament: since the matter is essential to the +sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, Confirmation perfects, in a way, the sacrament of +Baptism, as stated above (Q. 65, AA. 3, 4): and so it ought to be +conformed to it as perfection to the thing perfected. But the matter, +in Baptism, is a simple element, viz. water. Therefore chrism, which +is made of oil and balm, is not a fitting matter for this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the +purpose of anointing. But any oil will do for anointing: for +instance, oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not +only olive oil should be used for this sacrament. + +Obj. 4: Further, it has been stated above (Q. 66, A. 3) that water is +used as the matter of Baptism, because it is easily procured +everywhere. But olive oil is not to be procured everywhere; and much +less is balm. Therefore chrism, which is made of these, is not a +fitting matter for this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Registr. iv): "Let no priest dare to +sign the baptized infants on the brow with the sacred chrism." +Therefore chrism is the matter of this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ Chrism is the fitting matter of this sacrament. For, +as stated above (A. 1), in this sacrament the fulness of the Holy +Ghost is given for the spiritual strength which belongs to the +perfect age. Now when man comes to perfect age he begins at once to +have intercourse with others; whereas until then he lives an +individual life, as it were, confined to himself. Now the grace of +the Holy Ghost is signified by oil; hence Christ is said to be +"anointed with the oil of gladness" (Ps. 44:8), by reason of His +being gifted with the fulness of the Holy Ghost. Consequently oil is +a suitable matter of this sacrament. And balm is mixed with the oil, +by reason of its fragrant odor, which spreads about: hence the +Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:15): "We are the good odor of Christ," etc. +And though many other things be fragrant, yet preference is given to +balm, because it has a special odor of its own, and because it +confers incorruptibility: hence it is written (Ecclus. 24:21): "My +odor is as the purest balm." + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ, by the power which He exercises in the +sacraments, bestowed on the apostles the reality of this sacrament, +i.e. the fulness of the Holy Ghost, without the sacrament itself, +because they had received "the first fruits of the Spirit" (Rom. +8:23). Nevertheless, something of keeping with the matter of this +sacrament was displayed to the apostles in a sensible manner when +they received the Holy Ghost. For that the Holy Ghost came down upon +them in a sensible manner under the form of fire, refers to the same +signification as oil: except in so far as fire has an active power, +while oil has a passive power, as being the matter and incentive of +fire. And this was quite fitting: for it was through the apostles +that the grace of the Holy Ghost was to flow forth to others. Again, +the Holy Ghost came down on the apostles in the shape of a tongue. +Which refers to the same signification as balm: except in so far as +the tongue communicates with others by speech, but balm, by its odor. +because, to wit, the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, as +teachers of the Faith; but the rest of the believers, as doing that +which gives edification to the faithful. + +In like manner, too, when the apostles imposed their hands, and when +they preached, the fulness of the Holy Ghost came down under visible +signs on the faithful, just as, at the beginning, He came down on the +apostles: hence Peter said (Acts 11:15): "When I had begun to speak, +the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning." +Consequently there was no need for sacramental sensible matter, where +God sent sensible signs miraculously. + +However, the apostles commonly made use of chrism in bestowing the +sacrament, when such like visible signs were lacking. For Dionysius +says (Eccl. Hier. iv): "There is a certain perfecting operation which +our guides," i.e. the apostles, "call the sacrifice of Chrism." + +Reply Obj. 2: Baptism is bestowed that spiritual life may be received +simply; wherefore simple matter is fitting to it. But this sacrament +is given that we may receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost, Whose +operations are manifold, according to Wis. 7:22, "In her is the" Holy +"Spirit . . . one, manifold"; and 1 Cor. 12:4, "There are diversities +of graces, but the same Spirit." Consequently a compound matter is +appropriate to this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: These properties of oil, by reason of which it +symbolizes the Holy Ghost, are to be found in olive oil rather than +in any other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an +evergreen, signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of the +Holy Ghost. + +Moreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use, +wherever it is to be had. And whatever other liquid is so called, +derives its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter +commonly used, unless it be to supply the want of olive oil. +Therefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain +other sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 4: Baptism is the sacrament of absolute necessity; and so +its matter should be at hand everywhere. But it is enough that the +matter of this sacrament, which is not of such great necessity, be +easily sent to all parts of the world. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 3] + +Whether It Is Essential to This Sacrament That the Chrism Which Is +Its Matter Be Previously Consecrated by a Bishop? + +Objection 1: It seems that it is not essential to this sacrament, +that the chrism, which is its matter, be previously consecrated by a +bishop. For Baptism which bestows full remission of sins is not less +efficacious than this sacrament. But, though the baptismal water +receives a kind of blessing before being used for Baptism; yet this +is not essential to the sacrament: since in a case of necessity it +can be dispensed with. Therefore neither is it essential to this +sacrament that the chrism should be previously consecrated by a +bishop. + +Obj. 2: Further, the same should not be consecrated twice. But the +sacramental matter is sanctified, in the very conferring of the +sacrament, by the form of words wherein the sacrament is bestowed; +hence Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word is added to +the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Therefore the chrism +should not be consecrated before this sacrament is given. + +Obj. 3: Further, every consecration employed in the sacraments is +ordained to the bestowal of grace. But the sensible matter composed +of oil and balm is not receptive of grace. Therefore it should not be +consecrated. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Innocent I says (Ep. ad Decent.): "Priests, +when baptizing, may anoint the baptized with chrism, previously +consecrated by a bishop: but they must not sign the brow with the +same oil; this belongs to the bishop alone, when he gives the +Paraclete." Now this is done in this sacrament. Therefore it is +necessary for this sacrament that its matter be previously +consecrated by a bishop. + +_I answer that,_ The entire sanctification of the sacraments is +derived from Christ, as stated above (Q. 64, A. 3). But it must be +observed that Christ did use certain sacraments having a corporeal +matter, viz. Baptism, and also the Eucharist. And consequently, from +Christ's very act in using them, the matter of these sacraments +received a certain aptitude to the perfection of the sacrament. Hence +Chrysostom (Chromatius, In Matth. 3:15) says that "the waters of +Baptism could never wash away the sins of believers, had they not +been sanctified by contact with our Lord's body." And again, our Lord +Himself "taking bread . . . blessed . . . and in like manner the +chalice" (Matt. 26:26, 27; Luke 22:19, 20). For this reason there is +no need for the matter of these sacraments to be blessed previously, +since Christ's blessing is enough. And if any blessing be used, it +belongs to the solemnity of the sacrament, not to its essence. But +Christ did not make use of visible anointings, so as not to slight +the invisible unction whereby He was "anointed above" His "fellows" +(Ps. 44:8). And hence both chrism, and the holy oil, and the oil of +the sick are blessed before being put to sacramental use. This +suffices for the reply to the First Objection. + +Reply Obj. 2: Each consecration of the chrism has not the same +object. For just as an instrument derives instrumental power in two +ways, viz. when it receives the form of an instrument, and when it is +moved by the principal agent; so too the sacramental matter needs a +twofold sanctification, by one of which it becomes fit matter for the +sacrament, while by the other it is applied to the production of the +effect. + +Reply Obj. 3: Corporeal matter is receptive of grace, not so as to be +the subject of grace, but only as the instrument of grace, as +explained above (Q. 62, A. 3). And this sacramental matter is +consecrated, either by Christ, or by a bishop, who, in the Church, +impersonates Christ. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 4] + +Whether the Proper Form of This Sacrament Is: "I Sign Thee with the +Sign of the Cross," Etc.? + +Objection 1: It seems that the proper form of this sacrament is not: +"I sign thee with the sign of the cross, I confirm thee with the +chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of +the Holy Ghost. Amen." For the use of the sacraments is derived from +Christ and the apostles. But neither did Christ institute this form, +nor do we read of the apostles making use of it. Therefore it is not +the proper form of this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, just as the sacrament is the same everywhere, so +should the form be the same: because everything has unity, just as it +has being, from its form. But this form is not used by all: for some +say: "I confirm thee with the chrism of sanctification." Therefore +the above is not the proper form of this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament should be conformed to Baptism, as +the perfect to the thing perfected, as stated above (A. 2, Obj. 2). +But in the form of Baptism no mention is made of signing the +character; nor again of the cross of Christ, though in Baptism man +dies with Christ, as the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3-8); nor of the effect +which is salvation, though Baptism is necessary for salvation. Again, +in the baptismal form, only one action is included; and the person of +the baptizer is expressed in the words: "I baptize thee, whereas the +contrary is to be observed in the above form." Therefore this is not +the proper form of this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Is the authority of the Church, who always uses +this form. + +_I answer that,_ The above form is appropriate to this sacrament. For +just as the form of a natural thing gives it its species, so a +sacramental form should contain whatever belongs to the species of +the sacrament. Now as is evident from what has been already said (AA. +1, 2), in this sacrament the Holy Ghost is given for strength in the +spiritual combat. Wherefore in this sacrament three things are +necessary; and they are contained in the above form. The first of +these is the cause conferring fulness of spiritual strength which +cause is the Blessed Trinity: and this is expressed in the words, "In +the name of the Father," etc. The second is the spiritual strength +itself bestowed on man unto salvation by the sacrament of visible +matter; and this is referred to in the words, "I confirm thee with +the chrism of salvation." The third is the sign which is given to the +combatant, as in a bodily combat: thus are soldiers marked with the +sign of their leaders. And to this refer the words, "I sign thee with +the sign of the cross," in which sign, to wit, our King triumphed +(cf. Col. 2:15). + +Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 2, ad 1), sometimes the effect of +this sacrament, i.e. the fulness of the Holy Ghost, was given through +the ministry of the apostles, under certain visible signs, wrought +miraculously by God, Who can bestow the sacramental effect, +independently of the sacrament. In these cases there was no need for +either the matter or the form of this sacrament. On the other hand, +sometimes they bestowed this sacrament as ministers of the +sacraments. And then, they used both matter and form according to +Christ's command. For the apostles, in conferring the sacraments, +observed many things which are not handed down in those Scriptures +that are in general use. Hence Dionysius says at the end of his +treatise on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (chap. vii): "It is not +allowed to explain in writing the prayers which are used in the +sacraments, and to publish their mystical meaning, or the power +which, coming from God, gives them their efficacy; we learn these +things by holy tradition without any display,"* i.e. secretly. [*The +passage quoted in the text of the Summa differs slightly from the +above, which is translated directly from the works of Dionysius.] +Hence the Apostle, speaking of the celebration of the Eucharist, +writes (1 Cor. 11:34): "The rest I will set in order, when I come." + +Reply Obj. 2: Holiness is the cause of salvation. Therefore it comes +to the same whether we say "chrism of salvation" or "of +sanctification." + +Reply Obj. 3: Baptism is the regeneration unto the spiritual life, +whereby man lives in himself. And therefore in the baptismal form +that action alone is expressed which refers to the man to be +sanctified. But this sacrament is ordained not only to the +sanctification of man in himself, but also to strengthen him in his +outward combat. Consequently not only is mention made of interior +sanctification, in the words, "I confirm thee with the chrism of +salvation": but furthermore man is signed outwardly, as it were with +the standard of the cross, unto the outward spiritual combat; and +this is signified by the words, "I sign thee with the sign of the +cross." + +But in the very word "baptize," which signifies "to cleanse," we can +understand both the matter, which is the cleansing water, and the +effect, which is salvation. Whereas these are not understood by the +word "confirm"; and consequently they had to be expressed. + +Again, it has been said above (Q. 66, A. 5, ad 1) that the pronoun +"I" is not necessary to the Baptismal form, because it is included in +the first person of the verb. It is, however, included in order to +express the intention. But this does not seem so necessary in +Confirmation, which is conferred only by a minister of excellence, as +we shall state later on (A. 11). +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 5] + +Whether the Sacrament of Confirmation Imprints a Character? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacrament of Confirmation does not +imprint a character. For a character means a distinctive sign. But a +man is not distinguished from unbelievers by the sacrament of +Confirmation, for this is the effect of Baptism; nor from the rest of +the faithful, because this sacrament is ordained to the spiritual +combat, which is enjoined to all the faithful. Therefore a character +is not imprinted in this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, it was stated above (Q. 63, A. 2) that a character +is a spiritual power. Now a power must be either active or passive. +But the active power in the sacraments is conferred by the sacrament +of order: while the passive or receptive power is conferred by the +sacrament of Baptism. Therefore no character is imprinted by the +sacrament of Confirmation. + +Obj. 3: Further, in circumcision, which is a character of the body, +no spiritual character is imprinted. But in this sacrament a +character is imprinted on the body, when the sign of the cross is +signed with chrism on man's brow. Therefore a spiritual character is +not imprinted by this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ A character is imprinted in every sacrament that +is not repeated. But this sacrament is not repeated: for Gregory II +says (Ep. iv ad Bonifac.): "As to the man who was confirmed a second +time by a bishop, such a repetition must be forbidden." Therefore a +character is imprinted in Confirmation. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 63, A. 2), a character is a +spiritual power ordained to certain sacred actions. Now it has been +said above (A. 1; Q. 65, A. 1) that, just as Baptism is a spiritual +regeneration unto Christian life, so also is Confirmation a certain +spiritual growth bringing man to perfect spiritual age. But it is +evident, from a comparison with the life of the body, that the action +which is proper to man immediately after birth, is different from the +action which is proper to him when he has come to perfect age. And +therefore by the sacrament of Confirmation man is given a spiritual +power in respect of sacred actions other than those in respect of +which he receives power in Baptism. For in Baptism he receives power +to do those things which pertain to his own salvation, forasmuch as +he lives to himself: whereas in Confirmation he receives power to do +those things which pertain to the spiritual combat with the enemies +of the Faith. This is evident from the example of the apostles, who, +before they received the fulness of the Holy Ghost, were in the +"upper room . . . persevering . . . in prayer" (Acts 1:13, 14); +whereas afterwards they went out and feared not to confess their +faith in public, even in the face of the enemies of the Christian +Faith. And therefore it is evident that a character is imprinted in +the sacrament of Confirmation. + +Reply Obj. 1: All have to wage the spiritual combat with our +invisible enemies. But to fight against visible foes, viz. against +the persecutors of the Faith, by confessing Christ's name, belongs to +the confirmed, who have already come spiritually to the age of +virility, according to 1 John 2:14: "I write unto you, young men, +because you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you +have overcome the wicked one." And therefore the character of +Confirmation is a distinctive sign, not between unbelievers and +believers, but between those who are grown up spiritually and those +of whom it is written: "As new-born babes" (1 Pet. 2:2). + +Reply Obj. 2: All the sacraments are protestations of faith. +Therefore just as he who is baptized receives the power of testifying +to his faith by receiving the other sacraments; so he who is +confirmed receives the power of publicly confessing his faith by +words, as it were _ex officio._ + +Reply Obj. 3: The sacraments of the Old Law are called "justice of +the flesh" (Heb. 9:10) because, to wit, they wrought nothing +inwardly. Consequently in circumcision a character was imprinted in +the body only, but not in the soul. But in Confirmation, since it is +a sacrament of the New Law, a spiritual character is imprinted at the +same time, together with the bodily character. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 6] + +Whether the Character of Confirmation Presupposes of Necessity, the +Baptismal Character? + +Objection 1: It seems that the character of Confirmation does not +presuppose, of necessity, the baptismal character. For the sacrament +of Confirmation is ordained to the public confession of the Faith of +Christ. But many, even before Baptism, have publicly confessed the +Faith of Christ by shedding their blood for the Faith. Therefore the +character of Confirmation does not presuppose the baptismal character. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is not related of the apostles that they were +baptized; especially, since it is written (John 4:2) that Christ +"Himself did not baptize, but His disciples." Yet afterwards they +were confirmed by the coming of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, in like +manner, others can be confirmed before being baptized. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Acts 10:44-48) that "while Peter was +yet speaking . . . the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the +word . . . and [Vulg.: 'for'] they heard them speaking with tongues": +and afterwards "he commanded them to be baptized." Therefore others +with equal reason can be confirmed before being baptized. + +_On the contrary,_ Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "Lastly the +Paraclete is given to the baptized by the imposition of the high +priest's hands, in order that the baptized may be strengthened by the +Holy Ghost so as to publish his faith." + +_I answer that,_ The character of Confirmation, of necessity supposes +the baptismal character: so that, in effect, if one who is not +baptized were to be confirmed, he would receive nothing, but would +have to be confirmed again after receiving Baptism. The reason of +this is that, Confirmation is to Baptism as growth to birth, as is +evident from what has been said above (A. 1; Q. 65, A. 1). Now it is +clear that no one can be brought to perfect age unless he be first +born: and in like manner, unless a man be first baptized, he cannot +receive the sacrament of Confirmation. + +Reply Obj. 1: The Divine power is not confined to the sacraments. +Hence man can receive spiritual strength to confess the Faith of +Christ publicly, without receiving the sacrament of Confirmation: +just as he can also receive remission of sins without Baptism. Yet, +just as none receive the effect of Baptism without the desire of +Baptism; so none receive the effect of Confirmation, without the +desire of Confirmation. And man can have this even before receiving +Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words, +"'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (John 13:10), +we gather that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized, +either with John's Baptism, as some think; or with Christ's, which is +more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to +have servants by whom to baptize others." + +Reply Obj. 3: Those who heard the preaching of Peter received the +effect of Confirmation miraculously: but not the sacrament of +Confirmation. Now it has been stated (ad 1) that the effect of +Confirmation can be bestowed on man before Baptism, whereas the +sacrament cannot. For just as the effect of Confirmation, which is +spiritual strength, presupposes the effect of Baptism, which is +justification, so the sacrament of Confirmation presupposes the +sacrament of Baptism. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 7] + +Whether Sanctifying Grace Is Bestowed in This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this +sacrament. For sanctifying grace is ordained against sin. But this +sacrament, as stated above (A. 6) is given only to the baptized, who +are cleansed from sin. Therefore sanctifying grace is not bestowed in +this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, sinners especially need sanctifying grace, by which +alone can they be justified. If, therefore, sanctifying grace is +bestowed in this sacrament, it seems that it should be given to those +who are in sin. And yet this is not true. + +Obj. 3: Further, there can only be one species of sanctifying grace, +since it is ordained to one effect. But two forms of the same species +cannot be in the same subject. Since, therefore, man receives +sanctifying grace in Baptism, it seems that sanctifying grace is not +bestowed in Confirmation, which is given to none but the baptized. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.): "The +Holy Ghost bestows at the font the fulness of innocence; but in +Confirmation He confers an increase of grace." + +_I answer that,_ In this sacrament, as stated above (AA. 1, 4), the +Holy Ghost is given to the baptized for strength: just as He was +given to the apostles on the day of Pentecost, as we read in Acts 2; +and just as He was given to the baptized by the imposition of the +apostles' hands, as related in Acts 8:17. Now it has been proved in +the First Part (Q. 43, A. 3) that the Holy Ghost is not sent or given +except with sanctifying grace. Consequently it is evident that +sanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: Sanctifying grace does indeed take away sin; but it has +other effects also, because it suffices to carry man through every +step as far as eternal life. Hence to Paul was it said (2 Cor. 12:9): +"My grace is sufficient for thee": and he says of himself (1 Cor. +15:10): "By the grace of God I am what I am." Therefore sanctifying +grace is given not only for the remission of sin, but also for growth +and stability in righteousness. And thus is it bestowed in this +sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: Further, as appears from its very name, this sacrament +is given in order "to confirm" what it finds already there. And +consequently it should not be given to those who are not in a state +of grace. For this reason, just as it is not given to the unbaptized, +so neither should it be given to the adult sinners, except they be +restored by Penance. Wherefore was it decreed in the Council of +Orleans (Can. iii) that "men should come to Confirmation fasting; and +should be admonished to confess their sins first, so that being +cleansed they may be able to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." And +then this sacrament perfects the effects of Penance, as of Baptism: +because by the grace which he has received in this sacrament, the +penitent will obtain fuller remission of his sin. And if any adult +approach, being in a state of sin of which he is not conscious or for +which he is not perfectly contrite, he will receive the remission of +his sins through the grace bestowed in this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 62, A. 2), the sacramental grace +adds to the sanctifying grace taken in its wide sense, something that +produces a special effect, and to which the sacrament is ordained. +If, then, we consider, in its wide sense, the grace bestowed in this +sacrament, it does not differ from that bestowed in Baptism, but +increases what was already there. On the other hand, if we consider +it as to that which is added over and above, then one differs in +species from the other. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 8] + +Whether This Sacrament Should Be Given to All? + +Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to all. +For this sacrament is given in order to confer a certain excellence, +as stated above (A. 11, ad 2). But all are not suited for that which +belongs to excellence. Therefore this sacrament should not be given +to all. + +Obj. 2: Further, by this sacrament man advances spiritually to +perfect age. But perfect age is inconsistent with childhood. +Therefore at least it should not be given to children. + +Obj. 3: Further, as Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.) +"after Baptism we are strengthened for the combat." But women are +incompetent to combat, by reason of the frailty of their sex. +Therefore neither should women receive this sacrament. + +Obj. 4: Further, Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.): +"Although the benefit of Regeneration suffices for those who are on +the point of death, yet the graces of Confirmation are necessary for +those who are to conquer. Confirmation arms and strengthens those to +whom the struggles and combats of this world are reserved. And he who +comes to die, having kept unsullied the innocence he acquired in +Baptism, is confirmed by death; for after death he can sin no more." +Therefore this sacrament should not be given to those who are on the +point of death: and so it should not be given to all. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Acts 2:2) that the Holy Ghost in +coming, "filled the whole house," whereby the Church is signified; +and afterwards it is added that "they were all filled with the Holy +Ghost." But this sacrament is given that we may receive that fulness. +Therefore it should be given to all who belong to the Church. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), man is spiritually advanced +by this sacrament to perfect age. Now the intention of nature is that +everyone born corporally, should come to perfect age: yet this is +sometimes hindered by reason of the corruptibility of the body, which +is forestalled by death. But much more is it God's intention to bring +all things to perfection, since nature shares in this intention +inasmuch as it reflects Him: hence it is written (Deut. 32:4): "The +works of God are perfect." Now the soul, to which spiritual birth and +perfect spiritual age belong, is immortal; and just as it can in old +age attain to spiritual birth, so can it attain to perfect +(spiritual) age in youth or childhood; because the various ages of +the body do not affect the soul. Therefore this sacrament should be +given to all. + +Reply Obj. 1: This sacrament is given in order to confer a certain +excellence, not indeed, like the sacrament of order, of one man over +another, but of man in regard to himself: thus the same man, when +arrived at maturity, excels himself as he was when a boy. + +Reply Obj. 2: As stated above, the age of the body does not affect +the soul. Consequently even in childhood man can attain to the +perfection of spiritual age, of which it is written (Wis. 4:8): +"Venerable old age is not that of long time, nor counted by the +number of years." And hence it is that many children, by reason of +the strength of the Holy Ghost which they had received, fought +bravely for Christ even to the shedding of their blood. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i De Machab.), "in earthly +contests fitness of age, physique and rank are required; and +consequently slaves, women, old men, and boys are debarred from +taking part therein. But in the heavenly combats, the Stadium is open +equally to all, to every age, and to either sex." Again, he says +(Hom. de Militia Spirit.): "In God's eyes even women fight, for many +a woman has waged the spiritual warfare with the courage of a man. +For some have rivaled men in the courage with which they have +suffered martyrdom; and some indeed have shown themselves stronger +than men." Therefore this sacrament should be given to women. + +Reply Obj. 4: As we have already observed, the soul, to which +spiritual age belongs, is immortal. Wherefore this sacrament should +be given to those on the point of death, that they may be seen to be +perfect at the resurrection, according to Eph. 4:13: "Until we all +meet into the unity of faith . . . unto the measure of the age of the +fulness of Christ." And hence Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. +ii), "It would be altogether hazardous, if anyone happened to go +forth from this life without being confirmed": not that such a one +would be lost, except perhaps through contempt; but that this would +be detrimental to his perfection. And therefore even children dying +after Confirmation obtain greater glory, just as here below they +receive more grace. The passage quoted is to be taken in the sense +that, with regard to the dangers of the present combat, those who are +on the point of death do not need this sacrament. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 9] + +Whether This Sacrament Should Be Given to Man on the Forehead? + +Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to man +on the forehead. For this sacrament perfects Baptism, as stated above +(Q. 65, AA. 3, 4). But the sacrament of Baptism is given to man over +his whole body. Therefore this sacrament should not be given on the +forehead only. + +Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, as +stated above (AA. 1, 2, 4). But spiritual strength is situated +principally in the heart. Therefore this sacrament should be given +over the heart rather than on the forehead. + +Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is given to man that he may freely +confess the faith of Christ. But "with the mouth, confession is made +unto salvation," according to Rom. 10:10. Therefore this sacrament +should be given about the mouth rather than on the forehead. + +_On the contrary,_ Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "The baptized +is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head, but by +the bishop on the forehead." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 4), in this sacrament man +receives the Holy Ghost for strength in the spiritual combat, that he +may bravely confess the Faith of Christ even in face of the enemies +of that Faith. Wherefore he is fittingly signed with the sign of the +cross on the forehead, with chrism, for two reasons. First, because +he is signed with the sign of the cross, as a soldier with the sign +of his leader, which should be evident and manifest. Now, the +forehead, which is hardly ever covered, is the most conspicuous part +of the human body. Wherefore the confirmed is anointed with chrism on +the forehead, that he may show publicly that he is a Christian: thus +too the apostles after receiving the Holy Ghost showed themselves in +public, whereas before they remained hidden in the upper room. + +Secondly, because man is hindered from freely confessing Christ's +name, by two things--by fear and by shame. Now both these things +betray themselves principally on the forehead on account of the +proximity of the imagination, and because the (vital) spirits mount +directly from the heart to the forehead: hence "those who are +ashamed, blush, and those who are afraid, pale" (Ethic. iv). And +therefore man is signed with chrism, that neither fear nor shame may +hinder him from confessing the name of Christ. + +Reply Obj. 1: By baptism we are regenerated unto spiritual life, +which belongs to the whole man. But in Confirmation we are +strengthened for the combat; the sign of which should be borne on the +forehead, as in a conspicuous place. + +Reply Obj. 2: The principle of fortitude is in the heart, but its +sign appears on the forehead: wherefore it is written (Ezech. 3:8): +"Behold I have made . . . thy forehead harder than their foreheads." +Hence the sacrament of the Eucharist, whereby man is confirmed in +himself, belongs to the heart, according to Ps. 103:15: "That bread +may strengthen man's heart." But the sacrament of Confirmation is +required as a sign of fortitude against others; and for this reason +it is given on the forehead. + +Reply Obj. 3: This sacrament is given that we may confess freely: but +not that we may confess simply, for this is also the effect of +Baptism. And therefore it should not be given on the mouth, but on +the forehead, where appear the signs of those passions which hinder +free confession. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 10] + +Whether He Who Is Confirmed Needs One to Stand* for Him? +[*Literally, "to hold him"] + +Objection 1: It seems that he who is confirmed needs no one to stand +for him. For this sacrament is given not only to children but also to +adults. But adults can stand for themselves. Therefore it is absurd +that someone else should stand for them. + +Obj. 2: Further, he that belongs already to the Church, has free +access to the prince of the Church, i.e. the bishop. But this +sacrament, as stated above (A. 6), is given only to one that is +baptized, who is already a member of the Church. Therefore it seems +that he should not be brought by another to the bishop in order to +receive this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, +which has more vigor in men than in women, according to Prov. 31:10: +"Who shall find a valiant woman?" Therefore at least a woman should +not stand for a man in confirmation. + +_On the contrary,_ Are the following words of Pope Innocent, which +are to be found in the Decretals (XXX, Q. 4): "If anyone raise the +children of another's marriage from the sacred font, or stand for +them in Confirmation," etc. Therefore, just as someone is required as +sponsor of one who is baptized, so is someone required to stand for +him who is to be confirmed. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 4, 9), this sacrament is +given to man for strength in the spiritual combat. Now, just as one +newly born requires someone to teach him things pertaining to +ordinary conduct, according to Heb. 12:9: "We have had fathers of our +flesh, for instructors, and we obeyed [Vulg.: 'reverenced']" them; so +they who are chosen for the fight need instructors by whom they are +informed of things concerning the conduct of the battle, and hence in +earthly wars, generals and captains are appointed to the command of +the others. For this reason he also who receives this sacrament, has +someone to stand for him, who, as it were, has to instruct him +concerning the fight. + +Likewise, since this sacrament bestows on man the perfection of +spiritual age, as stated above (AA. 2, 5), therefore he who +approaches this sacrament is upheld by another, as being spiritually +a weakling and a child. + +Reply Obj. 1: Although he who is confirmed, be adult in body, +nevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult. + +Reply Obj. 2: Though he who is baptized is made a member of the +Church, nevertheless he is not yet enrolled as a Christian soldier. +And therefore he is brought to the bishop, as to the commander of the +army, by one who is already enrolled as a Christian soldier. For one +who is not yet confirmed should not stand for another in Confirmation. + +Reply Obj. 3: According to Col. 3 *(Gal. 3:28), "in Christ Jesus +there is neither male nor female." Consequently it matters not +whether a man or a woman stand for one who is to be confirmed. +_______________________ + +ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 11] + +Whether Only a Bishop Can Confer This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that not only a bishop can confer this +sacrament. For Gregory (Regist. iv), writing to Bishop Januarius, +says: "We hear that some were scandalized because we forbade priests +to anoint with chrism those who have been baptized. Yet in doing this +we followed the ancient custom of our Church: but if this trouble +some so very much we permit priests, where no bishop is to be had, to +anoint the baptized on the forehead with chrism." But that which is +essential to the sacraments should not be changed for the purpose of +avoiding scandal. Therefore it seems that it is not essential to this +sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop. + +Obj. 2: Further, the sacrament of Baptism seems to be more +efficacious than the sacrament of Confirmation: since it bestows full +remission of sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, whereas +this sacrament does not. But a simple priest, in virtue of his +office, can give the sacrament of Baptism: and in a case of necessity +anyone, even without orders, can baptize. Therefore it is not +essential to this sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop. + +Obj. 3: Further, the top of the head, where according to medical men +the reason is situated (i.e. the "particular reason," which is called +the "cogitative faculty"), is more noble than the forehead, which is +the site of the imagination. But a simple priest can anoint the +baptized with chrism on the top of the head. Therefore much more can +he anoint them with chrism on the forehead, which belongs to this +sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Eusebius (Ep. iii ad Ep. Tusc.) says: "The +sacrament of the imposition of the hand should be held in great +veneration, and can be given by none but the high priests. Nor is it +related or known to have been conferred in apostolic times by others +than the apostles themselves; nor can it ever be either licitly or +validly performed by others than those who stand in their place. And +if anyone presume to do otherwise, it must be considered null and +void; nor will such a thing ever be counted among the sacraments of +the Church." Therefore it is essential to this sacrament, which is +called "the sacrament of the imposition of the hand," that it be +given by a bishop. + +_I answer that,_ In every work the final completion is reserved to +the supreme act or power; thus the preparation of the matter belongs +to the lower craftsmen, the higher gives the form, but the highest of +all is he to whom pertains the use, which is the end of things made +by art; thus also the letter which is written by the clerk, is signed +by his employer. Now the faithful of Christ are a Divine work, +according to 1 Cor. 3:9: "You are God's building"; and they are also +"an epistle," as it were, "written with the Spirit of God," according +to 2 Cor. 3:2, 3. And this sacrament of Confirmation is, as it were, +the final completion of the sacrament of Baptism; in the sense that +by Baptism man is built up into a spiritual dwelling, and is written +like a spiritual letter; whereas by the sacrament of Confirmation, +like a house already built, he is consecrated as a temple of the Holy +Ghost, and as a letter already written, is signed with the sign of +the cross. Therefore the conferring of this sacrament is reserved to +bishops, who possess supreme power in the Church: just as in the +primitive Church, the fulness of the Holy Ghost was given by the +apostles, in whose place the bishops stand (Acts 8). Hence Pope Urban +I says: "All the faithful should, after Baptism, receive the Holy +Ghost by the imposition of the bishop's hand, that they may become +perfect Christians." + +Reply Obj. 1: The Pope has the plenitude of power in the Church, in +virtue of which he can commit to certain lower orders things that +belong to the higher orders: thus he allows priests to confer minor +orders, which belong to the episcopal power. And in virtue of this +fulness of power the Pope, Blessed Gregory, allowed simple priests to +confer this sacrament, so long as the scandal was ended. + +Reply Obj. 2: The sacrament of Baptism is more efficacious than this +sacrament as to the removal of evil, since it is a spiritual birth, +that consists in change from non-being to being. But this sacrament +is more efficacious for progress in good; since it is a spiritual +growth from imperfect being to perfect being. And hence this +sacrament is committed to a more worthy minister. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i), "the baptized +is signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head, but by +the bishop on the forehead; that the former unction may symbolize the +descent of the Holy Ghost on him, in order to consecrate a dwelling +to God: and that the second also may teach us that the sevenfold +grace of the same Holy Ghost descends on man with all fulness of +sanctity, knowledge and virtue." Hence this unction is reserved to +bishops, not on account of its being applied to a more worthy part of +the body, but by reason of its having a more powerful effect. +_______________________ + +TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 12] + +Whether the Rite of This Sacrament Is Appropriate? + +Objection 1: It seems that the rite of this sacrament is not +appropriate. For the sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity +than this, as stated above (A. 2, ad 4; Q. 65, AA. 3, 4). But certain +seasons are fixed for Baptism, viz. Easter and Pentecost. Therefore +some fixed time of the year should be chosen for this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, just as this sacrament requires devotion both in the +giver and in the receiver, so also does the sacrament of Baptism. But +in the sacrament of Baptism it is not necessary that it should be +received or given fasting. Therefore it seems unfitting for the +Council of Orleans to declare that "those who come to Confirmation +should be fasting"; and the Council of Meaux, "that bishops should +not give the Holy Ghost with imposition of the hand except they be +fasting." + +Obj. 3: Further, chrism is a sign of the fulness of the Holy Ghost, +as stated above (A. 2). But the fulness of the Holy Ghost was given +to Christ's faithful on the day of Pentecost, as related in Acts 2:1. +Therefore the chrism should be mixed and blessed on the day of +Pentecost rather than on Maundy Thursday. + +_On the contrary,_ Is the use of the Church, who is governed by the +Holy Ghost. + +_I answer that,_ Our Lord promised His faithful (Matt. 18:20) saying: +"Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am +I in the midst of them." And therefore we must hold firmly that the +Church's ordinations are directed by the wisdom of Christ. And for +this reason we must look upon it as certain that the rite observed by +the Church, in this and the other sacraments, is appropriate. + +Reply Obj. 1: As Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Epis. Hispan.), "these +two sacraments," viz. Baptism and Confirmation, "are so closely +connected that they can nowise be separated save by death +intervening, nor can one be duly celebrated without the other." +Consequently the same seasons are fixed for the solemn celebration of +Baptism and of this sacrament. But since this sacrament is given only +by bishops, who are not always present where priests are baptizing, +it was necessary, as regards the common use, to defer the sacrament +of Confirmation to other seasons also. + +Reply Obj. 2: The sick and those in danger of death are exempt from +this prohibition, as we read in the decree of the Council of Meaux. +And therefore, on account of the multitude of the faithful, and on +account of imminent dangers, it is allowed for this sacrament, which +can be given by none but a bishop, to be given or received even by +those who are not fasting: since one bishop, especially in a large +diocese, would not suffice to confirm all, if he were confined to +certain times. But where it can be done conveniently, it is more +becoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting. + +Reply Obj. 3: According to the acts of the Council of Pope Martin, +"it was lawful at all times to prepare the chrism." But since solemn +Baptism, for which chrism has to be used, is celebrated on Easter +Eve, it was rightly decreed, that chrism should be consecrated by the +bishop two days beforehand, that it may be sent to the various parts +of the diocese. Moreover, this day is sufficiently appropriate to the +blessing of sacramental matter, since thereon was the Eucharist +instituted, to which, in a certain way, all the other sacraments are +ordained, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 3). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 73 + +OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider the sacrament of the Eucharist; and first of +all we treat of the sacrament itself; secondly, of its matter; +thirdly, of its form; fourthly, of its effects; fifthly, of the +recipients of this sacrament; sixthly, of the minister; seventhly, of +the rite. + +Under the first heading there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament? + +(2) Whether it is one or several sacraments? + +(3) Whether it is necessary for salvation? + +(4) Its names; + +(5) Its institution; + +(6) Its figures. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 1] + +Whether the Eucharist Is a Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament. For two +sacraments ought not to be ordained for the same end, because every +sacrament is efficacious in producing its effect. Therefore, since +both Confirmation and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection, as +Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv), it seems that the Eucharist is not a +sacrament, since Confirmation is one, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 1; +Q. 72, A. 1). + +Obj. 2: Further, in every sacrament of the New Law, that which comes +visibly under our senses causes the invisible effect of the +sacrament, just as cleansing with water causes the baptismal +character and spiritual cleansing, as stated above (Q. 63, A. 6; Q. +66, AA. 1, 3, 7). But the species of bread and wine, which are the +objects of our senses in this sacrament, neither produce Christ's +true body, which is both reality and sacrament, nor His mystical +body, which is the reality only in the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems +that the Eucharist is not a sacrament of the New Law. + +Obj. 3: Further, sacraments of the New Law, as having matter, are +perfected by the use of the matter, as Baptism is by ablution, and +Confirmation by signing with chrism. If, then, the Eucharist be a +sacrament, it would be perfected by the use of the matter, and not by +its consecration. But this is manifestly false, because the words +spoken in the consecration of the matter are the form of this +sacrament, as will be shown later on (Q. 78, A. 1). Therefore the +Eucharist is not a sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro +vivis et defunctis"]: "May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving +of punishment." + +_I answer that,_ The Church's sacraments are ordained for helping man +in the spiritual life. But the spiritual life is analogous to the +corporeal, since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual. +Now it is clear that just as generation is required for corporeal +life, since thereby man receives life; and growth, whereby man is +brought to maturity: so likewise food is required for the +preservation of life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life +there had to be Baptism, which is spiritual generation; and +Confirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the +sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual food. + +Reply Obj. 1: Perfection is twofold. The first lies within man +himself; and he attains it by growth: such perfection belongs to +Confirmation. The other is the perfection which comes to man from the +addition of food, or clothing, or something of the kind; and such is +the perfection befitting the Eucharist, which is the spiritual +refreshment. + +Reply Obj. 2: The water of Baptism does not cause any spiritual +effect by reason of the water, but by reason of the power of the Holy +Ghost, which power is in the water. Hence on John 5:4, "An angel of +the Lord at certain times," etc., Chrysostom observes: "The water +does not act simply as such upon the baptized, but when it receives +the grace of the Holy Ghost, then it looses all sins." But the true +body of Christ bears the same relation to the species of the bread +and wine, as the power of the Holy Ghost does to the water of +Baptism: hence the species of the bread and wine produce no effect +except from the virtue of Christ's true body. + +Reply Obj. 3: A sacrament is so termed because it contains something +sacred. Now a thing can be styled sacred from two causes; either +absolutely, or in relation to something else. The difference between +the Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that +whereas the Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely, +namely, Christ's own body; the baptismal water contains something +which is sacred in relation to something else, namely, the +sanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and such like. +Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is completed in the very +consecration of the matter, whereas the other sacraments are +completed in the application of the matter for the sanctifying of the +individual. And from this follows another difference. For, in the +sacrament of the Eucharist, what is both reality and sacrament is in +the matter itself, but what is reality only, namely, the grace +bestowed, is in the recipient; whereas in Baptism both are in the +recipient, namely, the character, which is both reality and +sacrament, and the grace of pardon of sins, which is reality only. +And the same holds good of the other sacraments. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 2] + +Whether the Eucharist Is One Sacrament or Several? + +Objection 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not one sacrament but +several, because it is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion "pro vivis +et defunctis"]: "May the sacraments which we have received purify us, +O Lord": and this is said on account of our receiving the Eucharist. +Consequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without +the species being multiplied: thus it is impossible for one man to be +many animals. But, as stated above (Q. 60, A. 1), sign is the genus +of sacrament. Since, then, there are more signs than one, to wit, +bread and wine, it seems to follow that here must be more sacraments +than one. + +Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is perfected in the consecration of +the matter, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). But in this sacrament there +is a double consecration of the matter. Therefore, it is a twofold +sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:17): "For we, being +many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread": from +which it is clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church's +unity. But a sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it +is the sacrament. Therefore the Eucharist is one sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ As stated in _Metaph._ v, a thing is said to be one, +not only from being indivisible, or continuous, but also when it is +complete; thus we speak of one house, and one man. A thing is one in +perfection, when it is complete through the presence of all that is +needed for its end; as a man is complete by having all the members +required for the operation of his soul, and a house by having all the +parts needful for dwelling therein. And so this sacrament is said to +be one. Because it is ordained for spiritual refreshment, which is +conformed to corporeal refreshment. Now there are two things required +for corporeal refreshment, namely, food, which is dry sustenance, and +drink, which is wet sustenance. Consequently, two things concur for +the integrity of this sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual +drink, according to John: "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is +drink indeed." Therefore, this sacrament is materially many, but +formally and perfectively one. + +Reply Obj. 1: The same Collect at first employs the plural: "May the +sacraments which we have received purify us"; and afterwards the +singular number: "May this sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of +punishment": so as to show that this sacrament is in a measure +several, yet simply one. + +Reply Obj. 2: The bread and wine are materially several signs, yet +formally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is +prepared therefrom. + +Reply Obj. 3: From the double consecration of the matter no more can +be gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as stated +above. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 3] + +Whether the Eucharist Is Necessary for Salvation? + +Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. +For our Lord said (John 6:54): "Except you eat the flesh of the Son +of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you." But +Christ's flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. +Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of +spiritual life. + +Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But +bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this +sacrament, for spiritual health. + +Obj. 3: Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, +without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For +the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:26): "For as often as you shall eat this +bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, +until He come." Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, +so also is this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): +"Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are +deprived of the body and blood of Christ." + +_I answer that,_ Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, +namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was +stated above (A. 1, Obj. 2) that the reality of the sacrament is the +unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; +for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as +in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which +denotes the Church, according to 1 Pet. 3:20, 21. And it has been +said above (Q. 68, A. 2), that before receiving a sacrament, the +reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of +receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this +sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving +it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as +stated above (Q. 68, A. 2). Yet there is a difference in two +respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the +spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist +is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end +of all the sacraments, as was observed above (Q. 63, A. 6): for by +the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for +receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception +of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the +receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by +partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed +in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a +man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of +children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the +Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church's faith, so +they desire the Eucharist through the Church's intention, and, as a +result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by +any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in +no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: +consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without +receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not +necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is. + +Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says, explaining John 6:54, "This food and +this drink," namely, of His flesh and blood: "He would have us +understand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the +Church in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and +glorified, His holy and believing ones." Hence, as he says in his +Epistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 1 Cor. 10:17): "No one should +entertain the slightest doubt, that then every one of the faithful +becomes a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism +he is made a member of Christ's body; nor is he deprived of his share +in that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the +unity of Christ's body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that +chalice." + +Reply Obj. 2: The difference between corporeal and spiritual food +lies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the +person nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting +life except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into +itself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he +heard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him: "Nor shalt thou +change Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be +changed into Me." But one can be changed into Christ, and be +incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this +sacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold. + +Reply Obj. 3: Baptism is the sacrament of Christ's death and Passion, +according as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion; +but the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ's Passion according as a +man is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered. Hence, as +Baptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of +the spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of +Charity, which is "the bond of perfection" (Col. 3:14). +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 4] + +Whether This Sacrament Is Suitably Called by Various Names? + +Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament is not suitably called by +various names. For names should correspond with things. But this +sacrament is one, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore, it ought not to +be called by various names. + +Obj. 2: Further, a species is not properly denominated by what is +common to the whole genus. But the Eucharist is a sacrament of the +New Law; and it is common to all the sacraments for grace to be +conferred by them, which the name "Eucharist" denotes, for it is the +same thing as "good grace." Furthermore, all the sacraments bring us +help on our journey through this present life, which is the notion +conveyed by "Viaticum." Again something sacred is done in all the +sacraments, which belongs to the notion of "Sacrifice"; and the +faithful intercommunicate through all the sacraments, which this +Greek word _Synaxis_ and the Latin _Communio_ express. Therefore, +these names are not suitably adapted to this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, a host [*From Latin _hostia,_ a victim] seems to be +the same as a sacrifice. Therefore, as it is not properly called a +sacrifice, so neither is it properly termed a "Host." + +_On the contrary,_ is the use of these expressions by the faithful. + +_I answer that,_ This sacrament has a threefold significance. One +with regard to the past, inasmuch as it is commemorative of our +Lord's Passion, which was a true sacrifice, as stated above (Q. 48, +A. 3), and in this respect it is called a "Sacrifice." + +With regard to the present it has another meaning, namely, that of +Ecclesiastical unity, in which men are aggregated through this +Sacrament; and in this respect it is called "Communion" or _Synaxis_. +For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "it is called Communion +because we communicate with Christ through it, both because we +partake of His flesh and Godhead, and because we communicate with and +are united to one another through it." + +With regard to the future it has a third meaning, inasmuch as this +sacrament foreshadows the Divine fruition, which shall come to pass +in heaven; and according to this it is called "Viaticum," because it +supplies the way of winning thither. And in this respect it is also +called the "Eucharist," that is, "good grace," because "the grace of +God is life everlasting" (Rom. 6:23); or because it really contains +Christ, Who is "full of grace." + +In Greek, moreover, it is called _Metalepsis_, i.e. "Assumption," +because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv), "we thereby assume the +Godhead of the Son." + +Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being +called by several names, according to its various properties or +effects. + +Reply Obj. 2: What is common to all the sacraments is attributed +antonomastically to this one on account of its excellence. + +Reply Obj. 3: This sacrament is called a "Sacrifice" inasmuch as it +represents the Passion of Christ; but it is termed a "Host" inasmuch +as it contains Christ, Who is "a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') . . . of +sweetness" (Eph. 5:2). +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 5] + +Whether the Institution of This Sacrament Was Appropriate? + +Objection 1: It seems that the institution of this sacrament was not +appropriate, because as the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii): "We are +nourished by the things from whence we spring." But by Baptism, which +is spiritual regeneration, we receive our spiritual being, as +Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii). Therefore we are also nourished by +Baptism. Consequently there was no need to institute this sacrament +as spiritual nourishment. + +Obj. 2: Further, men are united with Christ through this sacrament as +the members with the head. But Christ is the Head of all men, even of +those who have existed from the beginning of the world, as stated +above (Q. 8, AA. 3, 6). Therefore the institution of this sacrament +should not have been postponed till the Lord's supper. + +Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's +Passion, according to Matt. 26 (Luke 22:19): "Do this for a +commemoration of Me." But a commemoration is of things past. +Therefore, this sacrament should not have been instituted before +Christ's Passion. + +Obj. 4: Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the Eucharist, +which ought to be given only to the baptized. But Baptism was +instituted by Christ after His Passion and Resurrection, as is +evident from Matt. 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably +instituted before Christ's Passion. + +_On the contrary,_ This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom +it is said (Mk. 7:37) that "He did all things well." + +_I answer that,_ This sacrament was appropriately instituted at the +supper, when Christ conversed with His disciples for the last time. +First of all, because of what is contained in the sacrament: for +Christ is Himself contained in the Eucharist sacramentally. +Consequently, when Christ was going to leave His disciples in His +proper species, He left Himself with them under the sacramental +species; as the Emperor's image is set up to be reverenced in his +absence. Hence Eusebius says: "Since He was going to withdraw His +assumed body from their eyes, and bear it away to the stars, it was +needful that on the day of the supper He should consecrate the +sacrament of His body and blood for our sakes, in order that what was +once offered up for our ransom should be fittingly worshiped in a +mystery." + +Secondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be +any salvation, according to Rom. 3:25: "Whom God hath proposed to be +a propitiation, through faith in His blood." It was necessary +accordingly that there should be at all times among men something to +show forth our Lord's Passion; the chief sacrament of which in the +old Law was the Paschal Lamb. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7): +"Christ our Pasch is sacrificed." But its successor under the New +Testament is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is a remembrance +of the Passion now past, just as the other was figurative of the +Passion to come. And so it was fitting that when the hour of the +Passion was come, Christ should institute a new Sacrament after +celebrating the old, as Pope Leo I says (Serm. lviii). + +Thirdly, because last words, chiefly such as are spoken by departing +friends, are committed most deeply to memory; since then especially +affection for friends is more enkindled, and the things which affect +us most are impressed the deepest in the soul. Consequently, since, +as Pope Alexander I says, "among sacrifices there can be none greater +than the body and blood of Christ, nor any more powerful oblation"; +our Lord instituted this sacrament at His last parting with His +disciples, in order that it might be held in the greater veneration. +And this is what Augustine says (Respons. ad Januar. i): "In order to +commend more earnestly the death of this mystery, our Saviour willed +this last act to be fixed in the hearts and memories of the disciples +whom He was about to quit for the Passion." + +Reply Obj. 1: We are nourished from the same things of which we are +made, but they do not come to us in the same way; for those out of +which we are made come to us through generation, while the same, as +nourishing us, come to us through being eaten. Hence, as we are +new-born in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat +Christ. + +Reply Obj. 2: The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our Lord's +Passion, as containing Christ crucified; consequently it could not be +instituted before the Incarnation; but then there was room for only +such sacraments as were prefigurative of the Lord's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 3: This sacrament was instituted during the supper, so as +in the future to be a memorial of our Lord's Passion as accomplished. +Hence He said expressively: "As often as ye shall do these things" +[*Cf. Canon of the Mass], speaking of the future. + +Reply Obj. 4: The institution responds to the order of intention. But +the sacrament of the Eucharist, although after Baptism in the +receiving, is yet previous to it in intention; and therefore it +behooved to be instituted first. Or else it can be said that Baptism +was already instituted in Christ's Baptism; hence some were already +baptized with Christ's Baptism, as we read in John 3:22. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 6] + +Whether the Paschal Lamb Was the Chief Figure of This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure +of this sacrament, because (Ps. 109:4) Christ is called "a priest +according to the order of Melchisedech," since Melchisedech bore the +figure of Christ's sacrifice, in offering bread and wine. But the +expression of likeness causes one thing to be named from another. +Therefore, it seems that Melchisedech's offering was the _principal_ +figure of this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of Baptism, +according to 1 Cor. 10:2: "All . . . were baptized in the cloud and +in the sea." But the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was previous to +the passage of the Red Sea, and the Manna came after it, just as the +Eucharist follows Baptism. Therefore the Manna is a more expressive +figure of this sacrament than the Paschal Lamb. + +Obj. 3: Further, the principal power of this sacrament is that it +brings us into the kingdom of heaven, being a kind of "viaticum." But +this was chiefly prefigured in the sacrament of expiation when the +"high-priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies with blood," +as the Apostle proves in Heb. 9. Consequently, it seems that that +sacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was +the Paschal Lamb. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7, 8): "Christ our +Pasch is sacrificed; therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened +bread of sincerity and truth." + +_I answer that,_ We can consider three things in this sacrament: +namely, that which is sacrament only, and this is the bread and wine; +that which is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ's true body; +and lastly that which is reality only, namely, the effect of this +sacrament. Consequently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the +chief figure of this sacrament was the oblation of Melchisedech, who +offered up bread and wine. In relation to Christ crucified, Who is +contained in this sacrament, its figures were all the sacrifices of +the Old Testament, especially the sacrifice of expiation, which was +the most solemn of all. While with regard to its effect, the chief +figure was the Manna, "having in it the sweetness of every taste" +(Wis. 16:20), just as the grace of this sacrament refreshes the soul +in all respects. + +The Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways. +First of all, because it was eaten with unleavened loaves, according +to Ex. 12:8: "They shall eat flesh . . . and unleavened bread." As to +the second because it was immolated by the entire multitude of the +children of Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a +figure of the Passion of Christ, Who is called the Lamb on account of +His innocence. As to the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal +Lamb the children of Israel were preserved from the destroying Angel, +and brought from the Egyptian captivity; and in this respect the +Paschal Lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament, because it +represents it in every respect. + +From this the answer to the Objections is manifest. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 74 + +OF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT +(In Eight Articles) + +We have now to consider the matter of this sacrament: and first of all +as to its species; secondly, the change of the bread and wine into the +body of Christ; thirdly, the manner in which Christ's body exists in +this sacrament; fourthly, the accidents of bread and wine which +continue in this sacrament. + +Under the first heading there are eight points for inquiry: + +(1) Whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament? + +(2) Whether a determinate quantity of the same is required for the +matter of this sacrament? + +(3) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread? + +(4) Whether it is unleavened or fermented bread? + +(5) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape? + +(6) Whether water should be mixed with it? + +(7) Whether water is of necessity for this sacrament? + +(8) Of the quantity of the water added. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 1] + +Whether the Matter of This Sacrament Is Bread and Wine? + +Objection 1: It seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread +and wine. Because this sacrament ought to represent Christ's Passion +more fully than did the sacraments of the Old Law. But the flesh of +animals, which was the matter of the sacraments under the Old Law, +shows forth Christ's Passion more fully than bread and wine. +Therefore the matter of this sacrament ought rather to be the flesh +of animals than bread and wine. + +Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in every place. +But in many lands bread is not to be found, and in many places wine +is not to be found. Therefore bread and wine are not a suitable +matter for this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. But to +some weak persons wine is hurtful. Therefore it seems that wine ought +not to be the matter of this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth. i): "In +oblations of the sacraments only bread and wine mixed with water are +to be offered." + +_I answer that,_ Some have fallen into various errors about the +matter of this sacrament. Some, known as the Artotyrytae, as +Augustine says (De Haeres. xxviii), "offer bread and cheese in this +sacrament, contending that oblations were celebrated by men in the +first ages, from fruits of the earth and sheep." Others, called +Cataphrygae and Pepuziani, "are reputed to have made their +Eucharistic bread with infants' blood drawn from tiny punctures over +the entire body, and mixed with flour." Others, styled Aquarii, under +guise of sobriety, offer nothing but water in this sacrament. + +Now all these and similar errors are excluded by the fact that Christ +instituted this sacrament under the species of bread and wine, as is +evident from Matt. 26. Consequently, bread and wine are the proper +matter of this sacrament. And the reasonableness of this is seen +first, in the use of this sacrament, which is eating: for, as water +is used in the sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of spiritual +cleansing, since bodily cleansing is commonly done with water; so +bread and wine, wherewith men are commonly fed, are employed in this +sacrament for the use of spiritual eating. + +Secondly, in relation to Christ's Passion, in which the blood was +separated from the body. And therefore in this sacrament, which is +the memorial of our Lord's Passion, the bread is received apart as +the sacrament of the body, and the wine as the sacrament of the blood. + +Thirdly, as to the effect, considered in each of the partakers. For, +as Ambrose (Mag. Sent. iv, D, xi) says on 1 Cor. 11:20, this +sacrament "avails for the defense of soul and body"; and therefore +"Christ's body is offered" under the species of bread "for the health +of the body, and the blood" under the species of wine "for the health +of the soul," according to Lev. 17:14: "The life of the animal +[Vulg.: 'of all flesh'] is in the blood." + +Fourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, which is +made up of many believers, just "as bread is composed of many grains, +and wine flows from many grapes," as the gloss observes on 1 Cor. +10:17: "We being many are . . . one body," etc. + +Reply Obj. 1: Although the flesh of slaughtered animals represents +the Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable for the +common use of this sacrament, and for denoting the unity of the +Church. + +Reply Obj. 2: Although wheat and wine are not produced in every +country, yet they can easily be conveyed to every land, that is, as +much as is needful for the use of this sacrament: at the same time +one is not to be consecrated when the other is lacking, because it +would not be a complete sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick much +harm: yet if there be fear of harm, it is not necessary for all who +take Christ's body to partake also of His blood, as will be stated +later (Q. 80, A. 12). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 2] + +Whether a Determinate Quantity of Bread and Wine Is Required for the +Matter of This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine +is required for the matter of this sacrament. Because the effects of +grace are no less set in order than those of nature. But, "there is a +limit set by nature upon all existing things, and a reckoning of size +and development" (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament, +which is called "Eucharist," that is, "a good grace," a determinate +quantity of the bread and wine is required. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the Church +regarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of His +sacraments, according to 2 Cor. 10:8: "Of our power which the Lord +hath given us unto edification, and not for your destruction." But it +would lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to +consecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine +in the cellar. Therefore he cannot do this. + +Obj. 3: Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the entire +sea-water is not sanctified by the form of baptism, but only the +water wherewith the body of the baptized is cleansed. Therefore, +neither in this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be +consecrated. + +_On the contrary,_ Much is opposed to little, and great to small. But +there is no quantity, however small, of the bread and wine which +cannot be consecrated. Therefore, neither is there any quantity, +however great, which cannot be consecrated. + +_I answer that,_ Some have maintained that the priest could not +consecrate an immense quantity of bread and wine, for instance, all +the bread in the market or all the wine in a cask. But this does not +appear to be true, because in all things containing matter, the +reason for the determination of the matter is drawn from its +disposition to an end, just as the matter of a saw is iron, so as to +adapt it for cutting. But the end of this sacrament is the use of the +faithful. Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this sacrament +must be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful. But +this cannot be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful +who are actually present; otherwise the parish priest having few +parishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It remains, then, for +the matter of this sacrament to be determined in reference to the +number of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is +not a determinate one. Hence it cannot be said that the quantity of +the matter of this sacrament is restricted. + +Reply Obj. 1: The matter of every natural object has its determinate +quantity by comparison with its determinate form. But the number of +the faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is not a +determinate one. Consequently there is no comparison. + +Reply Obj. 2: The power of the Church's ministers is ordained for two +purposes: first for the proper effect, and secondly for the end of +the effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if +the priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for an evil +purpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison +through it, he commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on +account of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in the use of the +matter: and therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what is +used. But this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the +matter. Consequently there is no parallel. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 3] + +Whether Wheaten Bread Is Required for the Matter of This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the +matter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our +Lord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the +Passion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because Christ +used it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in John +6. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species. +But some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which +in some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament. +Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is +hardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except +in the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not +seem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament. + +Obj. 4: Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another species. +But some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and which +no longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that such +bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He +compares Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (John 12:24): "Unless +the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth +alone." Therefore bread from corn, i.e. wheaten bread, is the matter +of this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), for the use of the +sacraments such matter is adopted as is commonly made use of among +men. Now among other breads wheaten bread is more commonly used by +men; since other breads seem to be employed when this fails. And +consequently Christ is believed to have instituted this sacrament +under this species of bread. Moreover this bread strengthens man, and +so it denotes more suitably the effect of this sacrament. +Consequently, the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread. + +Reply Obj. 1: Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the Old +Law; both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as +Augustine says (Q. 83): "The flour within the barley, wrapped up as +it is within a most tenacious fibre, denotes either the Law itself, +which was given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments; +or else it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled +of carnal desires, which clung to their hearts like fibre." But this +sacrament belongs to Christ's "sweet yoke," and to the truth already +manifested, and to a spiritual people. Consequently barley bread +would not be a suitable matter for this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: A begetter begets a thing like to itself in species, +yet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either to the +matter, or to weakness within the generative power. And therefore, if +there be any cereals which can be grown from the seed of the wheat +(as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the bread made +from such grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and this does +not obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize, which is +of all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the +resemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species +rather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the +dog and the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the +same species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be +generated from wheat grain, bread cannot be made such as to be the +proper matter of this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because +that little is as it were absorbed by the greater. Consequently, +then, if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much +greater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to be +the proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable, +for instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters +the species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the +proper matter of this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 4: Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that +the species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is +destroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed; +hence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But +sometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but +merely disposition towards corruption, which a slight change in the +savor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made: +but he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And +because starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not seem as if the +body of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although +some hold the contrary. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 4] + +Whether This Sacrament Ought to Be Made of Unleavened Bread? + +Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of +unleavened bread. Because in this sacrament we ought to imitate +Christ's institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this +sacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in Ex. 12, the +Jews, according to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day +of the Passover which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the +moon; and Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He +celebrated "before the festival day of the Pasch" (John 13:1, 4). +Therefore we ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with +fermented bread. + +Obj. 2: Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in the +time of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of the +Law, as is clear from Ex. 12. Therefore we ought not to use +unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace. + +Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 1; Q. 73, A. 3), the +Eucharist is the sacrament of charity just as Baptism is the +sacrament of faith. But the fervor of charity is signified by +fermented bread, as is declared by the gloss on Matt. 13:33: "The +kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven," etc. Therefore this sacrament +ought to be made of leavened bread. + +Obj. 4: Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of bread, +which do not vary the species. But in the matter for the sacrament of +Baptism no difference is observed regarding the variation of the +accidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold water. +Therefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether +the bread be unleavened or leavened. + +_On the contrary,_ According to the Decretals (Extra, De Celebr. +Miss.), a priest is punished "for presuming to celebrate, using +fermented bread and a wooden cup." + +_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered touching the matter of +this sacrament, namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It +is necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament +is not valid, as stated above (A. 3). It is not, however, necessary +for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it +can be celebrated in either. + +But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church +in the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are +various customs of the Churches: for, Gregory says: "The Roman Church +offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of +sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word +of the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the +flour." Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread +in the Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented +bread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting the +rite of his Church. Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with +unleavened bread is more reasonable. First, on account of Christ's +institution: for He instituted this sacrament "on the first day of +the Azymes" (Matt. 26:17; Mk. 14:12; Luke 22:7), on which day there +ought to be nothing fermented in the houses of the Jews, as is stated +in Ex. 12:15, 19. Secondly, because bread is properly the sacrament +of Christ's body, which was conceived without corruption, rather than +of His Godhead, as will be seen later (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 1). Thirdly, +because this is more in keeping with the sincerity of the faithful, +which is required in the use of this sacrament, according to 1 Cor. +5:7: "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast . . . +with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." + +However, this custom of the Greeks is not unreasonable both on +account of its signification, to which Gregory refers, and in +detestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes, who mixed up legal +observances with the Gospel. + +Reply Obj. 1: As we read in Ex. 12, the paschal solemnity began on +the evening of the fourteenth day of the moon. So, then, after +immolating the Paschal Lamb, Christ instituted this sacrament: hence +this day is said by John to precede the day of the Pasch, while the +other three Evangelists call it "the first day of the Azymes," when +fermented bread was not found in the houses of the Jews, as stated +above. Fuller mention was made of this in the treatise on our Lord's +Passion (Q. 46, A. 9, ad 1). + +Reply Obj. 2: Those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread +do not intend to follow the ceremonial of the Law, but to conform to +Christ's institution; so they are not Judaizing; otherwise those +celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because the Jews +offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits. + +Reply Obj. 3: Leaven denotes charity on account of one single effect, +because it makes the bread more savory and larger; but it also +signifies corruption from its very nature. + +Reply Obj. 4: Since whatever is fermented partakes of corruption, +this sacrament may not be made from corrupt bread, as stated above +(A. 3, ad 4); consequently, there is a wider difference between +unleavened and leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal +water: because there might be such corruption of fermented bread that +it could not be validly used for the sacrament. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 5] + +Whether Wine of the Grape Is the Proper Matter of This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that wine of the grape is not the proper matter +of this sacrament. Because, as water is the matter of Baptism, so is +wine the matter of this sacrament. But Baptism can be conferred with +any kind of water. Therefore this sacrament can be celebrated in any +kind of wine, such as of pomegranates, or of mulberries; since vines +do not grow in some countries. + +Obj. 2: Further, vinegar is a kind of wine drawn from the grape, as +Isidore says (Etym. xx). But this sacrament cannot be celebrated with +vinegar. Therefore, it seems that wine from the grape is not the +proper matter of this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, just as the clarified wine is drawn from grapes, so +also are the juice of unripe grapes and must. But it does not appear +that this sacrament may be made from such, according to what we read +in the Sixth Council (Trull., Can. 28): "We have learned that in some +churches the priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation; and +so they dispense both together to the people. Consequently we give +order that no priest shall do this in future." And Pope Julius I +rebukes some priests "who offer wine pressed from the grape in the +sacrament of the Lord's chalice." Consequently, it seems that wine +from the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of +wheat, so also He compared Himself to the vine, saying (John 15:1): +"I am the true vine." But only bread from wheat is the matter of this +sacrament, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore, only wine from the +grape is the proper matter of this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ This sacrament can only be performed with wine from +the grape. First of all on account of Christ's institution, since He +instituted this sacrament in wine from the grape, as is evident from +His own words, in instituting this sacrament (Matt. 26:29): "I will +not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine." Secondly, +because, as stated above (A. 3), that is adopted as the matter of the +sacraments which is properly and universally considered as such. Now +that is properly called wine, which is drawn from the grape, whereas +other liquors are called wine from resemblance to the wine of the +grape. Thirdly, because the wine from the grape is more in keeping +with the effect of this sacrament, which is spiritual; because it is +written (Ps. 103:15): "That wine may cheer the heart of man." + +Reply Obj. 1: Such liquors are called wine, not properly but only +from their resemblance thereto. But genuine wine can be conveyed to +such countries wherein the grape-vine does not flourish, in a +quantity sufficient for this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: Wine becomes vinegar by corruption; hence there is no +returning from vinegar to wine, as is said in _Metaph._ viii. And +consequently, just as this sacrament may not be made from bread which +is utterly corrupt, so neither can it be made from vinegar. It can, +however, be made from wine which is turning sour, just as from bread +turning corrupt, although he who does so sins, as stated above (A. 3). + +Reply Obj. 3: The juice of unripe grapes is at the stage of +incomplete generation, and therefore it has not yet the species of +wine: on which account it may not be used for this sacrament. Must, +however, has already the species of wine, for its sweetness [*"Aut +dulcis musti Vulcano decoquit humorem"; Virgil, Georg. i, 295] +indicates fermentation which is "the result of its natural heat" +(Meteor. iv); consequently this sacrament can be made from must. +Nevertheless entire grapes ought not to be mixed with this sacrament, +because then there would be something else besides wine. It is +furthermore forbidden to offer must in the chalice, as soon as it has +been squeezed from the grape, since this is unbecoming owing to the +impurity of the must. But in case of necessity it may be done: for it +is said by the same Pope Julius, in the passage quoted in the +argument: "If necessary, let the grape be pressed into the chalice." +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 6] + +Whether Water Should Be Mixed with the Wine? + +Objection 1: It seems that water ought not to be mixed with the wine, +since Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed by that of Melchisedech, +who (Gen. 14:18) is related to have offered up bread and wine only. +Consequently it seems that water should not be added in this +sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, the various sacraments have their respective +matters. But water is the matter of Baptism. Therefore it should not +be employed as the matter of this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament. But +nothing is added to the bread. Therefore neither should anything be +added to the wine. + +_On the contrary,_ Pope Alexander I writes (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): +"In the sacramental oblations which in mass are offered to the Lord, +only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice." + +_I answer that,_ Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is +offered in this sacrament. First of all on account of its +institution: for it is believed with probability that our Lord +instituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to +the custom of that country: hence it is written (Prov. 9:5): "Drink +the wine which I have mixed for you." Secondly, because it harmonizes +with the representation of our Lord's Passion: hence Pope Alexander I +says (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): "In the Lord's chalice neither wine only +nor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read +that both flowed from His side in the Passion." Thirdly, because this +is adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as Pope +Julius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): "We see that the people +are signified by the water, but Christ's blood by the wine. Therefore +when water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people is made +one with Christ." Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth +effect of this sacrament, which is the entering into everlasting +life: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): "The water flows into the +chalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life." + +Reply Obj. 1: As Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), just as Christ's +sacrifice is denoted by the offering of Melchisedech, so likewise it +is signified by the water which flowed from the rock in the desert, +according to 1 Cor. 10:4: "But they drank of the spiritual rock which +came after them." + +Reply Obj. 2: In Baptism water is used for the purpose of ablution: +but in this sacrament it is used by way of refreshment, according to +Ps. 22:3: "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment." + +Reply Obj. 3: Bread is made of water and flour; and therefore, since +water is mixed with the wine, neither is without water. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 7] + +Whether the Mixing with Water Is Essential to This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the mixing with water is essential to this +sacrament. Because Cyprian says to Cecilius (Ep. lxiii): "Thus the +Lord's chalice is not water only and wine only, but both must be +mixed together: in the same way as neither the Lord's body be of +flour only, except both," i.e. the flour and the water "be united as +one." But the admixture of water with the flour is necessary for this +sacrament. Consequently, for the like reason, so is the mixing of +water with the wine. + +Obj. 2: Further, at our Lord's Passion, of which this is the +memorial, water as well as blood flowed from His side. But wine, +which is the sacrament of the blood, is necessary for this sacrament. +For the same reason, therefore, so is water. + +Obj. 3: Further, if water were not essential to this sacrament, it +would not matter in the least what kind of water was used; and so +water distilled from roses, or any other kind might be employed; +which is contrary to the usage of the Church. Consequently water is +essential to this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Cyprian says (Ep. lxiii): "If any of our +predecessors, out of ignorance or simplicity, has not kept this +usage," i.e. of mixing water with the wine, "one may pardon his +simplicity"; which would not be the case if water were essential to +the sacrament, as the wine or the bread. Therefore the mingling of +water with the wine is not essential to the sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ Judgment concerning a sign is to be drawn from the +thing signified. Now the adding of water to the wine is for the +purpose of signifying the sharing of this sacrament by the faithful, +in this respect that by the mixing of the water with the wine is +signified the union of the people with Christ, as stated (A. 6). +Moreover, the flowing of water from the side of Christ hanging on the +cross refers to the same, because by the water is denoted the +cleansing from sins, which was the effect of Christ's Passion. Now it +was observed above (Q. 73, A. 1, ad 3), that this sacrament is +completed in the consecration of the matter: while the usage of the +faithful is not essential to the sacrament, but only a consequence +thereof. Consequently, then, the adding of water is not essential to +the sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: Cyprian's expression is to be taken in the same sense +in which we say that a thing cannot be, which cannot be suitably. And +so the comparison refers to what ought to be done, not to what is +essential to be done; since water is of the essence of bread, but not +of the essence of wine. + +Reply Obj. 2: The shedding of the blood belonged directly to Christ's +Passion: for it is natural for blood to flow from a wounded human +body. But the flowing of the water was not necessary for the Passion; +but merely to show its effect, which is to wash away sins, and to +refresh us from the heat of concupiscence. And therefore the water is +not offered apart from the wine in this sacrament, as the wine is +offered apart from the bread; but the water is offered mixed with the +wine to show that the wine belongs of itself to this sacrament, as of +its very essence; but the water as something added to the wine. + +Reply Obj. 3: Since the mixing of water with the wine is not +necessary for the sacrament, it does not matter, as to the essence +of the sacrament, what kind of water is added to the wine, whether +natural water, or artificial, as rose-water, although, as to the +propriety of the sacrament, he would sin who mixes any other than +natural and true water, because true water flowed from the side of +Christ hanging on the cross, and not phlegm, as some have said, in +order to show that Christ's body was truly composed of the four +elements; as by the flowing blood, it was shown to be composed of +the four humors, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decree. +But because the mixing of water with flour is essential to this +sacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose-water, or +any other liquor besides true water, be mixed with the flour, the +sacrament would not be valid, because it would not be true bread. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 8] + +Whether Water Should Be Added in Great Quantity? + +Objection 1: It seems that water ought to be added in great quantity, +because as blood flowed sensibly from Christ's side, so did water: +hence it is written (John 19:35): "He that saw it, hath given +testimony." But water could not be sensibly present in this sacrament +except it were used in great quantity. Consequently it seems that +water ought to be added in great quantity. + +Obj. 2: Further, a little water mixed with much wine is corrupted. +But what is corrupted no longer exists. Therefore, it is the same +thing to add a little water in this sacrament as to add none. But it +is not lawful to add none. Therefore, neither is it lawful to add a +little. + +Obj. 3: Further, if it sufficed to add a little, then as a +consequence it would suffice to throw one drop of water into an +entire cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it does not suffice +for a small quantity to be added. + +_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. +Miss.): "The pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of adding +water in greater quantity than the wine, in the sacrifice, where +according to the reasonable custom of the entire Church more wine +than water ought to be employed." + +_I answer that,_ There is a threefold opinion regarding the water +added to the wine, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decretal. +For some say that the water remains by itself when the wine is +changed into blood: but such an opinion cannot stand, because in the +sacrament of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else +save the body and the blood of Christ. Because, as Ambrose says in De +Officiis (De Mysteriis ix): "Before the blessing it is another +species that is named, after the blessing the Body is signified; +otherwise it would not be adored with adoration of latria." And +therefore others have said that as the wine is changed into blood, so +the water is changed into the water which flowed from Christ's side. +But this cannot be maintained reasonably, because according to this +the water would be consecrated apart from the wine, as the wine is +from the bread. + +And therefore as he (Innocent III, Decretals, Extra, De Celeb. Miss.) +says, the more probable opinion is that which holds that the water is +changed into wine, and the wine into blood. Now, this could not be +done unless so little water was used that it would be changed into +wine. Consequently, it is always safer to add little water, +especially if the wine be weak, because the sacrament could not be +celebrated if there were such addition of water as to destroy the +species of the wine. Hence Pope Julius I reprehends some who "keep +throughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the time of +sacrifice wash a part of it with water, and so make the offering." + +Reply Obj. 1: For the signification of this sacrament it suffices for +the water to be appreciable by sense when it is mixed with the wine: +but it is not necessary for it to be sensible after the mingling. + +Reply Obj. 2: If no water were added, the signification would be +utterly excluded: but when the water is changed into wine, it is +signified that the people is incorporated with Christ. + +Reply Obj. 3: If water were added to a cask, it would not suffice for +the signification of this sacrament, but the water must be added to +the wine at the actual celebration of the sacrament. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 75 + +OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST +(In Eight Articles) + +We have to consider the change of the bread and wine into the body +and blood of Christ; under which head there are eight points of +inquiry: + +(1) Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament +after the consecration?* + +(2) Whether it is annihilated? + +(3) Whether it is changed into the body and blood of Christ? + +(4) Whether the accidents remain after the change? + +(5) Whether the substantial form remains there? + +(6) Whether this change is instantaneous? + +(7) Whether it is more miraculous than any other change? + +(8) By what words it may be suitably expressed? + +[*The titles of the Articles here given were taken by St. Thomas +from his Commentary on the Sentences (Sent. iv, D, 90). However, in +writing the Articles he introduced a new point of inquiry, that of +the First Article; and substituted another division of the matter +under discussion, as may be seen by referring to the titles of the +various Articles. Most editions have ignored St. Thomas's original +division, and give the one to which he subsequently adhered.] +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 1] + +Whether the Body of Christ Be in This Sacrament in Very Truth, or +Merely As in a Figure or Sign? + +Objection 1: It seems that the body of Christ is not in this +sacrament in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is +written (John 6:54) that when our Lord had uttered these words: +"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood," +etc., "Many of His disciples on hearing it said: 'this is a hard +saying'": to whom He rejoined: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the +flesh profiteth nothing": as if He were to say, according to +Augustine's exposition on Ps. 4 [*On Ps. 98:9]: "Give a spiritual +meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body which you +see, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are to spill. +It is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will +quicken you; but the flesh profiteth nothing." + +Obj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 28:20): "Behold I am with you +all days even to the consummation of the world." Now in explaining +this, Augustine makes this observation (Tract. xxx in Joan.): "The +Lord is on high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of +the Lord is here with us; for the body, in which He rose again, must +be in one place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere." +Therefore, the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, +but only as in a sign. + +Obj. 3: Further, no body can be in several places at the one time. +For this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason +it could be everywhere. But Christ's is a true body, and it is in +heaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the +sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign. + +Obj. 4: Further, the Church's sacraments are ordained for the profit +of the faithful. But according to Gregory in a certain Homily (xxviii +in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked "for demanding Christ's bodily +presence." Moreover the apostles were prevented from receiving the +Holy Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as +Augustine says on John 16:7: "Except I go, the Paraclete will not +come to you" (Tract. xciv in Joan.). Therefore Christ is not in the +sacrament of the altar according to His bodily presence. + +_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. viii): "There is no room for +doubt regarding the truth of Christ's body and blood; for now by our +Lord's own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and +His blood is truly drink." And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): "As the +Lord Jesus Christ is God's true Son so is it Christ's true flesh +which we take, and His true blood which we drink." + +_I answer that,_ The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this +sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by +faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Luke 22:19: +"This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril says: +"Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words +with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not." + +Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, +the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true +sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 10:1: "For the law +having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the +things." And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New +Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it +should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification +or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which +contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is +perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is +participated. + +Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our +salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the +special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the +Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a +reward, saying (Matt. 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the +eagles be gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does +not deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in +this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (John +6:57) he says: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, +abideth in Me, and I in him." Hence this sacrament is the sign of +supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar +union of Christ with us. + +Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His +humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to John 14:1: "You +believe in God, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things +unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this +sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner. + +Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended +that Christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a +sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to +Christ's words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of +this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to +acknowledge the truth of the faith. + +Reply Obj. 1: From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken +occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine's words. For when +Augustine says: "You are not to eat this body which you see," he +means not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but that it was not +to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the +words: "It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense +it will quicken you," he intends not that the body of Christ is in +this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but +"spiritually," that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. +Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: "the flesh profiteth +nothing," he says: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they +understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal +in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by +the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the +flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the +Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us." + +Reply Obj. 2: That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to +be understood of Christ's body as it is beheld in its proper species; +according as our Lord Himself says (Matt. 26:11): "But Me you have +not always." Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this +sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed. + +Reply Obj. 3: Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way +as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with +the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. +Hence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars, not as in +different places, but "sacramentally": and thereby we do not +understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a +sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a +fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 4: This argument holds good of Christ's bodily presence, +as He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its +visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, +after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence Augustine +(Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: "If thou hast understood" Christ's +words spiritually concerning His flesh, "they are spirit and life to +thee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also spirit and +life, but not to thee." +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 2] + +Whether in This Sacrament the Substance of the Bread and Wine Remains +After the Consecration? + +Objection 1: It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does +remain in this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene +says (De Fide Orth. iv): "Since it is customary for men to eat bread +and drink wine, God has wedded his Godhead to them, and made them His +body and blood": and further on: "The bread of communication is not +simple bread, but is united to the Godhead." But wedding together +belongs to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are +at the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and the blood of +Christ. + +Obj. 2: Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments. +But in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains, like +the substance of water in Baptism, and the substance of chrism in +Confirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine remains +also in this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament, +inasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity, as "one bread is made +from many grains and wine from many grapes," as Augustine says in his +book on the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But this belongs to the +substance of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread +and wine remains in this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "Although the figure +of the bread and wine be seen, still, after the Consecration, they +are to be believed to be nothing else than the body end blood of +Christ." + +_I answer that,_ Some have held that the substance of the bread and +wine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this +opinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the +truth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that +Christ's true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not +there before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place, +where it was not previously, except by change of place, or by the +conversion of another thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to +be in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because it +is generated there. Now it is evident that Christ's body does not +begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion. First of all, +because it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven: for what +is moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the +former one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through +all intermediary spaces, which cannot be said here. Thirdly, because +it is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to +be terminated in different places at the one time, whereas the body +of Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in +several places. And consequently it remains that Christ's body cannot +begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance +of bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no +longer remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that, +saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot +remain after the consecration. + +Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this +sacrament, in which it is said: "This is My body," which would not be +true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the +substance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should one say +in that case: "Here is My body." + +Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this +sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored +with adoration of latria. + +Fourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according +to which it is not lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily +food, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host +after another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical. + +Reply Obj. 1: God "wedded His Godhead," i.e. His Divine power, to the +bread and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but in +order that He may make from them His body and blood. + +Reply Obj. 2: Christ is not really present in the other sacraments, +as in this; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the +other sacraments, but not in this. + +Reply Obj. 3: The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be +said later (A. 5), suffice for its signification; because the nature +of the substance is known by its accidents. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 3] + +Whether the Substance of the Bread or Wine Is Annihilated After the +Consecration of This Sacrament, or Dissolved into Their Original +Matter? + +Objection 1: It seems that the substance of the bread is annihilated +after the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into its +original matter. For whatever is corporeal must be somewhere. But the +substance of bread, which is something corporeal, does not remain, in +this sacrament, as stated above (A. 2); nor can we assign any place +where it may be. Consequently it is nothing after the consecration. +Therefore, it is either annihilated, or dissolved into its original +matter. + +Obj. 2: Further, what is the term _wherefrom_ in every change exists +no longer, except in the potentiality of matter; e.g. when air is +changed into fire, the form of the air remains only in the +potentiality of matter; and in like fashion when what is white +becomes black. But in this sacrament the substance of the bread or of +the wine is the term _wherefrom,_ while the body or the blood of +Christ is the term "whereunto": for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De +Myster. ix): "Before the blessing it is called another species, after +the blessing the body of Christ is signified." Therefore, when the +consecration takes place, the substance of the bread or wine no +longer remains, unless perchance dissolved into its (original) matter. + +Obj. 3: Further, one of two contradictories must be true. But this +proposition is false: "After the consecration the substance of the +bread or wine is something." Consequently, this is true: "The +substance of the bread or wine is nothing." + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Q. 83): "God is not the cause of +tending to nothing." But this sacrament is wrought by Divine power. +Therefore, in this sacrament the substance of the bread or wine is +not annihilated. + +_I answer that,_ Because the substance of the bread and wine does not +remain in this sacrament, some, deeming that it is impossible for the +substance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ's flesh and +blood, have maintained that by the consecration, the substance of the +bread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that +it is annihilated. + +Now the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is +the four elements. For dissolution cannot be made into primary +matter, so that a subject can exist without a form, since matter +cannot exist without a form. But since after the consecration nothing +remains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood +of Christ, it will be necessary to say that the elements into which +the substance of the bread and wine is dissolved, depart from thence +by local motion, which would be perceived by the senses. In like +manner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last +instant of the consecration; but in the last instant of the +consecration there is already present there the substance of the body +or blood of Christ, just as the form is already present in the last +instant of generation. Hence no instant can be assigned in which the +original matter can be there. For it cannot be said that the +substance of the bread or wine is dissolved gradually into the +original matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if +this began to be done in the last instant of its consecration, then +at the one time under part of the host there would be the body of +Christ together with the substance of bread, which is contrary to +what has been said above (A. 2). But if this begin to come to pass +before the consecration, there will then be a time in which under one +part of the host there will be neither the substance of bread nor the +body of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem indeed to have taken +this into careful consideration, wherefore they formulated their +proposition with an alternative viz. that (the substance) may be +annihilated. But even this cannot stand, because no way can be +assigned whereby Christ's true body can begin to be in this +sacrament, except by the change of the substance of bread into it, +which change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of +the substance of the bread, or dissolution into the original matter. +Likewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or +annihilation, since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the +form: "This is My body." Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion +is false. + +Reply Obj. 1: The substance of the bread or wine, after the +consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor +elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is +changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire +is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it +is annihilated. + +Reply Obj. 2: The form, which is the term _wherefrom,_ is not +changed into another form; but one form succeeds another in the +subject; and therefore the first form remains only in the +potentiality of matter. But here the substance of the bread is +changed into the body of Christ, as stated above. Hence the +conclusion does not follow. + +Reply Obj. 3: Although after the consecration this proposition is +false: "The substance of the bread is something," still that into +which the substance of the bread is changed, is something, and +consequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 4] + +Whether Bread Can Be Converted into the Body of Christ? + +Objection 1: It seems that bread cannot be converted into the body of +Christ. For conversion is a kind of change. But in every change there +must be some subject, which from being previously in potentiality is +now in act. because as is said in _Phys._ iii: "motion is the act of +a thing existing in potentiality." But no subject can be assigned for +the substance of the bread and of the body of Christ, because it is +of the very nature of substance for it "not to be in a subject," as +it is said in _Praedic._ iii. Therefore it is not possible for the +whole substance of the bread to be converted into the body of Christ. + +Obj. 2: Further, the form of the thing into which another is +converted, begins anew to inhere in the matter of the thing converted +into it: as when air is changed into fire not already existing, the +form of fire begins anew to be in the matter of the air; and in like +manner when food is converted into non-pre-existing man, the form of +the man begins to be anew in the matter of the food. Therefore, if +bread be changed into the body of Christ, the form of Christ's body +must necessarily begin to be in the matter of the bread, which is +false. Consequently, the bread is not changed into the substance of +Christ's body. + +Obj. 3: Further, when two things are diverse, one never becomes the +other, as whiteness never becomes blackness, as is stated in _Phys._ + i. But since two contrary forms are of themselves diverse, as being +the principles of formal difference, so two signate matters are of +themselves diverse, as being the principles of material distinction. +Consequently, it is not possible for this matter of bread to become +this matter whereby Christ's body is individuated, and so it is not +possible for this substance of bread to be changed into the substance +of Christ's body. + +_On the contrary,_ Eusebius Emesenus says: "To thee it ought neither +to be a novelty nor an impossibility that earthly and mortal things +be changed into the substance of Christ." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), since Christ's true body is +in this sacrament, and since it does not begin to be there by local +motion, nor is it contained therein as in a place, as is evident from +what was stated above (A. 1, ad 2), it must be said then that it +begins to be there by conversion of the substance of bread into +itself. + +Yet this change is not like natural changes, but is entirely +supernatural, and effected by God's power alone. Hence Ambrose says +[(De Sacram. iv): "See how Christ's word changes nature's laws, as He +wills: a man is not wont to be born save of man and woman: see +therefore that against the established law and order a man is born of +a Virgin": and] [*The passage in the brackets is not in the Leonine +edition] (De Myster. iv): "It is clear that a Virgin begot beyond the +order of nature: and what we make is the body from the Virgin. Why, +then, do you look for nature's order in Christ's body, since the Lord +Jesus was Himself brought forth of a Virgin beyond nature?" +Chrysostom likewise (Hom. xlvii), commenting on John 6:64: "The words +which I have spoken to you," namely, of this sacrament, "are spirit +and life," says: i.e. "spiritual, having nothing carnal, nor natural +consequence; but they are rent from all such necessity which exists +upon earth, and from the laws here established." + +For it is evident that every agent acts according as it is in act. +But every created agent is limited in its act, as being of a +determinate genus and species: and consequently the action of every +created agent bears upon some determinate act. Now the determination +of every thing in actual existence comes from its form. Consequently, +no natural or created agent can act except by changing the form in +something; and on this account every change made according to +nature's laws is a formal change. But God is infinite act, as stated +in the First Part (Q. 7, A. 1; Q. 26, A. 2); hence His action extends +to the whole nature of being. Therefore He can work not only formal +conversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other in the same +subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole +substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of +another. And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the +whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of +Christ's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole +substance of Christ's blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a +substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, +with a name of its own, it can be called "transubstantiation." + +Reply Obj. 1: This objection holds good in respect of formal change, +because it belongs to a form to be in matter or in a subject; but it +does not hold good in respect of the change of the entire substance. +Hence, since this substantial change implies a certain order of +substances, one of which is changed into the other, it is in both +substances as in a subject, just as order and number. + +Reply Obj. 2: This argument also is true of formal conversion or +change, because, as stated above (ad 1), a form must be in some +matter or subject. But this is not so in a change of the entire +substance; for in this case no subject is possible. + +Reply Obj. 3: Form cannot be changed into form, nor matter into +matter by the power of any finite agent. Such a change, however, can +be made by the power of an infinite agent, which has control over all +being, because the nature of being is common to both forms and to +both matters; and whatever there is of being in the one, the author +of being can change into whatever there is of being in the other, +withdrawing that whereby it was distinguished from the other. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 5] + +Whether the Accidents of the Bread and Wine Remain in This Sacrament +After the Change? + +Objection 1: It seems that the accidents of the bread and wine do not +remain in this sacrament. For when that which comes first is removed, +that which follows is also taken away. But substance is naturally +before accident, as is proved in _Metaph._ vii. Since, then, after +consecration, the substance of the bread does not remain in this +sacrament, it seems that its accidents cannot remain. + +Obj. 2: Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament +of truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then, +that human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the +substance of the bread does not. Consequently this is unbecoming to +this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still +it is not contrary to reason, but above it, as was said in the +beginning of this work (I, Q. 1, A. 6, ad 2; A. 8). But our reason +has its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be +contrary to the senses, as it is when sense judges that to be bread +which faith believes to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore +it is not befitting this sacrament for the accidents of bread to +remain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to +remain. + +Obj. 4: Further, what remains after the change has taken place seems +to be the subject of change. If therefore the accidents of the bread +remain after the change has been effected, it seems that the +accidents are the subject of the change. But this is impossible; for +"an accident cannot have an accident" (Metaph. iii). Therefore the +accidents of the bread and wine ought not to remain in this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of +Prosper (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): "Under the species +which we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e. +flesh and blood." + +_I answer that,_ It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the +bread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably +done by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary, +but horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And +therefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken +of under the species of those things which are the more commonly used +by men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might +be derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own +species. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood +invisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith. + +Reply Obj. 1: As is said in the book _De Causis,_ an effect depends +more on the first cause than on the second. And therefore by God's +power, which is the first cause of all things, it is possible for +that which follows to remain, while that which is first is taken away. + +Reply Obj. 2: There is no deception in this sacrament; for the +accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But +the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in _De +Anima_ iii, is preserved by faith from deception. + +And this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not +contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not +reach. + +Reply Obj. 4: This change has not properly a subject, as was stated +above (A. 4, ad 1); nevertheless the accidents which remain have some +resemblance of a subject. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 6] + +Whether the Substantial Form of the Bread Remains in This Sacrament +After the Consecration? + +Objection 1: It seems that the substantial form of the bread remains +in this sacrament after the consecration. For it has been said (A. 5) +that the accidents remain after the consecration. But since bread is +an artificial thing, its form is an accident. Therefore it remains +after the consecration. + +Obj. 2: Further, the form of Christ's body is His soul: for it is +said in _De Anima_ ii, that the soul "is the act of a physical body +which has life in potentiality". But it cannot be said that the +substantial form of the bread is changed into the soul. Therefore it +appears that it remains after the consecration. + +Obj. 3: Further, the proper operation of a things follows its +substantial form. But what remains in this sacrament, nourishes, and +performs every operation which bread would do were it present. +Therefore the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament +after the consecration. + +_On the contrary,_ The substantial form of bread is of the substance +of bread. But the substance of the bread is changed into the body of +Christ, as stated above (AA. 2, 3, 4). Therefore the substantial form +of the bread does not remain. + +_I answer that,_ Some have contended that after the consecration not +only do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial +form. But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial +form of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would be +changed into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it +would follow that it would be changed, not into the whole body of +Christ, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the +sacrament, wherein it is said: "This is My body." + +Secondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to +remain, it would remain either in matter, or separated from matter. +The first cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the +bread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is +against what was said above (A. 2). Nor could it remain in any other +matter, because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. But +if it were to remain separate from matter, it would then be an +actually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms +separated from matter are such. + +Thirdly, it would be unbefitting this sacrament: because the +accidents of the bread remain in this sacrament, in order that the +body of Christ may be seen under them, and not under its proper +species, as stated above (A. 5). + +And therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread +does not remain. + +Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing to prevent art from making a thing +whose form is not an accident, but a substantial form; as frogs and +serpents can be produced by art: for art produces such forms not by +its own power, but by the power of natural energies. And in this way +it produces the substantial forms of bread, by the power of fire +baking the matter made up of flour and water. + +Reply Obj. 2: The soul is the form of the body, giving it the whole +order of perfect being, i.e. being, corporeal being, and animated +being, and so on. Therefore the form of the bread is changed into the +form of Christ's body, according as the latter gives corporeal being, +but not according as it bestows animated being. + +Reply Obj. 3: Some of the operations of bread follow it by reason of +the accidents, such as to affect the senses, and such operations are +found in the species of the bread after the consecration on account +of the accidents which remain. But some other operations follow the +bread either by reason of the matter, such as that it is changed into +something else, or else by reason of the substantial form, such as an +operation consequent upon its species, for instance, that it +"strengthens man's heart" (Ps. 103:15); and such operations are found +in this sacrament, not on account of the form or matter remaining, +but because they are bestowed miraculously upon the accidents +themselves, as will be said later (Q. 77, A. 3, ad 2, 3; AA. 5, 6). +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 7] + +Whether This Change Is Wrought Instantaneously? + +Objection 1: It seems that this change is not wrought +instantaneously, but successively. For in this change there is first +the substance of bread, and afterwards the substance of Christ's +body. Neither, then, is in the same instant, but in two instants. But +there is a mid-time between every two instants. Therefore this change +must take place according to the succession of time, which is between +the last instant in which the bread is there, and the first instant +in which the body of Christ is present. + +Obj. 2: Further, in every change something is _in becoming_ and +something is _in being._ But these two things do not exist at the one +time for, what is _in becoming,_ is not yet, whereas what is _in +being,_ already is. Consequently, there is a before and an after in +such change: and so necessarily the change cannot be instantaneous, +but successive. + +Obj. 3: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv) that this sacrament "is +made by the words of Christ." But Christ's words are pronounced +successively. Therefore the change takes place successively. + +_On the contrary,_ This change is effected by a power which is +infinite, to which it belongs to operate in an instant. + +_I answer that,_ A change may be instantaneous from a threefold +reason. First on the part of the form, which is the terminus of the +change. For, if it be a form that receives more and less, it is +acquired by its subject successively, such as health; and therefore +because a substantial form does not receive more and less, it follows +that its introduction into matter is instantaneous. + +Secondly on the part of the subject, which sometimes is prepared +successively for receiving the form; thus water is heated +successively. When, however, the subject itself is in the ultimate +disposition for receiving the form, it receives it suddenly, as a +transparent body is illuminated suddenly. Thirdly on the part of the +agent, which possesses infinite power: wherefore it can instantly +dispose the matter for the form. Thus it is written (Mk. 7:34) that +when Christ had said, "'Ephpheta,' which is 'Be thou opened,' +immediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was +loosed." + +For these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous. First, +because the substance of Christ's body which is the term of this +conversion, does not receive more or less. Secondly, because in this +conversion there is no subject to be disposed successively. Thirdly, +because it is effected by God's infinite power. + +Reply Obj. 1: Some [*Cf. Albert the Great, Sent. iv, D, 11; St. +Bonaventure, Sent., iv, D, 11] do not grant simply that there is a +mid-time between every two instants. For they say that this is true +of two instants referring to the same movement, but not if they refer +to different things. Hence between the instant that marks the close +of rest, and another which marks the beginning of movement, there is +no mid-time. But in this they are mistaken, because the unity of time +and of instant, or even their plurality, is not taken according to +movements of any sort, but according to the first movement of the +heavens, which is the measure of all movement and rest. + +Accordingly others grant this of the time which measures movement +depending on the movement of the heavens. But there are some +movements which are not dependent on the movement of the heavens, nor +measured by it, as was said in the First Part (Q. 53, A. 3) +concerning the movements of the angels. Hence between two instants +responding to those movements there is no mid-time. But this is not +to the point, because although the change in question has no relation +of itself to the movement of the heavens, still it follows the +pronouncing of the words, which (pronouncing) must necessarily be +measured by the movement of the heavens. And therefore there must of +necessity be a mid-time between every two signate instants in +connection with that change. + +Some say therefore that the instant in which the bread was last, and +the instant in which the body of Christ is first, are indeed two in +comparison with the things measured, but are one comparatively to the +time measuring; as when two lines touch, there are two points on the +part of the two lines, but one point on the part of the place +containing them. But here there is no likeness, because instant and +time is not the intrinsic measure of particular movements, as a line +and point are of a body, but only the extrinsic measure, as place is +to bodies. + +Hence others say that it is the same instant in fact, but another +according to reason. But according to this it would follow that +things really opposite would exist together; for diversity of reason +does not change a thing objectively. + +And therefore it must be said that this change, as stated above, is +wrought by Christ's words which are spoken by the priest, so that the +last instant of pronouncing the words is the first instant in which +Christ's body is in the sacrament; and that the substance of the +bread is there during the whole preceding time. Of this time no +instant is to be taken as proximately preceding the last one, because +time is not made up of successive instants, as is proved in _Phys._ +vi. And therefore a first instant can be assigned in which Christ's +body is present; but a last instant cannot be assigned in which the +substance of bread is there, but a last time can be assigned. And the +same holds good in natural changes, as is evident from the +Philosopher (Phys. viii). + +Reply Obj. 2: In instantaneous changes a thing is "in becoming," and +is "in being" simultaneously; just as becoming illuminated and to be +actually illuminated are simultaneous: for in such, a thing is said +to be "in being" according as it now is; but to be "in becoming," +according as it was not before. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (ad 1), this change comes about in the +last instant of the pronouncing of the words. For then the meaning of +the words is finished, which meaning is efficacious in the forms of +the sacraments. And therefore it does not follow that this change is +successive. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 8] + +Whether This Proposition Is False: "The Body of Christ Is Made Out of +Bread"? + +Objection 1: It seems that this proposition is false: "The body of +Christ is made out of bread." For everything out of which another is +made, is that which is made the other; but not conversely: for we say +that a black thing is made out of a white thing, and that a white +thing is made black: and although we may say that a man becomes black +still we do not say that a black thing is made out of a man, as is +shown in _Phys._ i. If it be true, then, that Christ's body is made +out of bread, it will be true to say that bread is made the body of +Christ. But this seems to be false, because the bread is not the +subject of the making, but rather its term. Therefore, it is not said +truly that Christ's body is made out of bread. + +Obj. 2: Further, the term of _becoming_ is something that is, or +something that is _made._ But this proposition is never true: "The +bread is the body of Christ"; or "The bread is made the body of +Christ"; or again, "The bread will be the body of Christ." Therefore +it seems that not even this is true: "The body of Christ is made out +of bread." + +Obj. 3: Further, everything out of which another is made is converted +into that which is made from it. But this proposition seems to be +false: "The bread is converted into the body of Christ," because such +conversion seems to be more miraculous than the creation of the +world, in which it is not said that non-being is converted into +being. Therefore it seems that this proposition likewise is false: +"The body of Christ is made out of bread." + +Obj. 4: Further, that out of which something is made, can be that +thing. But this proposition is false: "Bread can be the body of +Christ." Therefore this is likewise false: "The body of Christ is +made out of bread." + +_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "When the +consecration takes place, the body of Christ is made out of the +bread." + +_I answer that,_ This conversion of bread into the body of Christ has +something in common with creation, and with natural transmutation, +and in some respect differs from both. For the order of the terms is +common to these three; that is, that after one thing there is another +(for, in creation there is being after non-being; in this sacrament, +Christ's body after the substance of bread; in natural transmutation +white after black, or fire after air); and that the aforesaid terms +are not coexistent. + +Now the conversion, of which we are speaking, has this in common with +creation, that in neither of them is there any common subject +belonging to either of the extremes; the contrary of which appears in +every natural transmutation. + +Again, this conversion has something in common with natural +transmutation in two respects, although not in the same fashion. +First of all because in both, one of the extremes passes into the +other, as bread into Christ's body, and air into fire; whereas +non-being is not converted into being. But this comes to pass +differently on the one side and on the other; for in this sacrament +the whole substance of the bread passes into the whole body of +Christ; whereas in natural transmutation the matter of the one +receives the form of the other, the previous form being laid aside. +Secondly, they have this in common, that on both sides something +remains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation: yet +differently; for the same matter or subject remains in natural +transmutation; whereas in this sacrament the same accidents remain. + +From these observations we can gather the various ways of speaking in +such matters. For, because in no one of the aforesaid three things +are the extremes coexistent, therefore in none of them can one +extreme be predicated of the other by the substantive verb of the +present tense: for we do not say, "Non-being is being" or, "Bread is +the body of Christ," or, "Air is fire," or, "White is black." Yet +because of the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use +the preposition _ex_ (out of), which denotes order; for we can truly +and properly say that "being is made out of non-being," and "out of +bread, the body of Christ," and "out of air, fire," and "out of +white, black." But because in creation one of the extremes does not +pass into the other, we cannot use the word "conversion" in creation, +so as to say that "non-being is converted into being": we can, +however, use the word in this sacrament, just as in natural +transmutation. But since in this sacrament the whole substance is +converted into the whole substance, on that account this conversion +is properly termed transubstantiation. + +Again, since there is no subject of this conversion, the things which +are true in natural conversion by reason of the subject, are not to +be granted in this conversion. And in the first place indeed it is +evident that potentiality to the opposite follows a subject, by +reason whereof we say that "a white thing can be black," or that "air +can be fire"; although the latter is not so proper as the former: for +the subject of whiteness, in which there is potentiality to +blackness, is the whole substance of the white thing; since whiteness +is not a part thereof; whereas the subject of the form of air is part +thereof: hence when it is said, "Air can be fire," it is verified by +synecdoche by reason of the part. But in this conversion, and +similarly in creation, because there is no subject, it is not said +that one extreme can be the other, as that "non-being can be being," +or that "bread can be the body of Christ": and for the same reason it +cannot be properly said that "being is made of (_de_) non-being," or +that "the body of Christ is made of bread," because this preposition +"of" (_de_) denotes a consubstantial cause, which consubstantiality +of the extremes in natural transmutations is considered according to +something common in the subject. And for the same reason it is not +granted that "bread will be the body of Christ," or that it "may +become the body of Christ," just as it is not granted in creation +that "non-being will be being," or that "non-being may become being," +because this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations +by reason of the subject: for instance, when we say that "a white +thing becomes black," or "a white thing will be black." + +Nevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something +remains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above +(A. 5), some of these expressions may be admitted by way of +similitude, namely, that "bread is the body of Christ," or, "bread +will be the body of Christ," or "the body of Christ is made of +bread"; provided that by the word "bread" is not understood the +substance of bread, but in general "that which is contained under the +species of bread," under which species there is first contained the +substance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ. + +Reply Obj. 1: That out of which something else is made, sometimes +implies together with the subject, one of the extremes of the +transmutation, as when it is said "a black thing is made out of a +white one"; but sometimes it implies only the opposite or the +extreme, as when it is said--"out of morning comes the day." And so +it is not granted that the latter becomes the former, that is, "that +morning becomes the day." So likewise in the matter in hand, although +it may be said properly that "the body of Christ is made out of +bread," yet it is not said properly that "bread becomes the body of +Christ," except by similitude, as was said above. + +Reply Obj. 2: That out of which another is made, will sometimes be +that other because of the subject which is implied. And therefore, +since there is no subject of this change, the comparison does not +hold. + +Reply Obj. 3: In this change there are many more difficulties than in +creation, in which there is but this one difficulty, that something +is made out of nothing; yet this belongs to the proper mode of +production of the first cause, which presupposes nothing else. But in +this conversion not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed +into that whole, so that nothing of the former may remain (which does +not belong to the common mode of production of a cause), but +furthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents remain while +the substance is destroyed, and many other difficulties of which we +shall treat hereafter (Q. 77). Nevertheless the word "conversion" is +admitted in this sacrament, but not in creation, as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 4: As was observed above, potentiality belongs to the +subject, whereas there is no subject in this conversion. And +therefore it is not granted that bread can be the body of Christ: for +this conversion does not come about by the passive potentiality of +the creature, but solely by the active power of the Creator. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 76 + +OF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT +(In Eight Articles) + +We have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this +sacrament; and under this head there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament? + +(2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament? + +(3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species? + +(4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament? + +(5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally? + +(6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when +the host or chalice is moved? + +(7) Whether Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by +the eye? + +(8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He +is seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 1] + +Whether the Whole Christ Is Contained Under This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under +this sacrament, because Christ begins to be in this sacrament by +conversion of the bread and wine. But it is evident that the bread +and wine cannot be changed either into the Godhead or into the soul +of Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely, +the Godhead, soul and body, as shown above (Q. 2, A. 5; Q. 5, AA. 1, +3), it seems that the entire Christ is not under this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch as it is +ordained to the refection of the faithful, which consists in food and +drink, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 1). But our Lord said (John 6:56): +"My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." Therefore, +only the flesh and blood of Christ are contained in this sacrament. +But there are many other parts of Christ's body, for instance, the +nerves, bones, and such like. Therefore the entire Christ is not +contained under this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be contained under +the measure of a lesser. But the measure of the bread and wine is +much smaller than the measure of Christ's body. Therefore it is +impossible that the entire Christ be contained under this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Officiis): "Christ is in this +sacrament." + +_I answer that,_ It is absolutely necessary to confess according to +Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we +must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a +twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; +secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, +there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the +pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed +by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other +sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body," or, "This +is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in this +sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the +aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really +united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also +be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an +operation of the mind. + +Reply Obj. 1: Because the change of the bread and wine is not +terminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a +consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this +sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real +concomitance. For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, +wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead +be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this +sacrament concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the +profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): "We are made +partakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common +flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the +truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself." + +On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as +stated above (Q. 50, A. 5). And therefore had this sacrament been +celebrated during those three days when He was dead, the soul of +Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of the +sacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since "Christ rising from +the dead dieth now no more" (Rom. 6:9), His soul is always really +united with His body. And therefore in this sacrament the body indeed +of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but His soul from +real concomitance. + +Reply Obj. 2: By the power of the sacrament there is contained under +it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the +entire body of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like. +And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein it is +not said: "This is My flesh," but "This is My body." Accordingly, +when our Lord said (John 6:56): "My flesh is meat indeed," there the +word flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human +custom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men commonly are +fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the bones or the like. + +Reply Obj. 3: As has been already stated (Q. 75, A. 5), after the +consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine +into His blood, the accidents of both remain. From which it is +evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into +the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. +And so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this +sacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of +Christ's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of Christ is +in this sacrament _by way of substance,_ and not by way of quantity. +But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a +small or large quantity; as the whole nature of air in a great or +small amount of air, and the whole nature of a man in a big or small +individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole substance of +Christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the +whole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the +consecration. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 2] + +Whether the Whole Christ Is Contained Under Each Species of This +Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under +both species of this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for +the salvation of the faithful, not by virtue of the species, but by +virtue of what is contained under the species, because the species +were there even before the consecration, from which comes the power +of this sacrament. If nothing, then, be contained under one species, +but what is contained under the other, and if the whole Christ be +contained under both, it seems that one of them is superfluous in +this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, it was stated above (A. 1, ad 1) that all the other +parts of the body, such as the bones, nerves, and the like, are +comprised under the name of flesh. But the blood is one of the parts +of the human body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima Histor. i). If, +then, Christ's blood be contained under the species of bread, just as +the other parts of the body are contained there, the blood ought not +to be consecrated apart, just as no other part of the body is +consecrated separately. + +Obj. 3: Further, what is once _in being_ cannot be again _in +becoming._ But Christ's body has already begun to be in this +sacrament by the consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot +begin again to be there by the consecration of the wine; and so +Christ's body will not be contained under the species of the wine, +and accordingly neither the entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ +is not contained under each species. + +_On the contrary,_ The gloss on 1 Cor. 11:25, commenting on the word +"Chalice," says that "under each species," namely, of the bread and +wine, "the same is received"; and thus it seems that Christ is entire +under each species. + +_I answer that,_ After what we have said above (A. 1), it must be +held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental +species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed +present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, +while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (A. +1, ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the +species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, +and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: +because now Christ's blood is not separated from His body, as it was +at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had +been celebrated then, the body of Christ would have been under the +species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species +of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as +it was then, in fact. + +Reply Obj. 1: Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it +is so not without purpose. For in the first place this serves to +represent Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the +body; hence in the form for the consecration of the blood mention is +made of its shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this +sacrament, that Christ's body be shown apart to the faithful as food, +and the blood as drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with its effect, in +which sense it was stated above (Q. 74, A. 1) that "the body is +offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the +salvation of the soul." + +Reply Obj. 2: In Christ's Passion, of which this is the memorial, the +other parts of the body were not separated from one another, as the +blood was, but the body remained entire, according to Ex. 12:46: "You +shall not break a bone thereof." And therefore in this sacrament the +blood is consecrated apart from the body, but no other part is +consecrated separately from the rest. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above, the body of Christ is not under the +species of wine by the power of the sacrament, but by real +concomitance: and therefore by the consecration of the wine the body +of Christ is not there of itself, but concomitantly. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Is Entire Under Every Part of the Species of the Bread +and Wine? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ is not entire under every part of +the species of bread and wine. Because those species can be divided +infinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely under every part of the +said species, it would follow that He is in this sacrament an +infinite number of times: which is unreasonable; because the infinite +is repugnant not only to nature, but likewise to grace. + +Obj. 2: Further, since Christ's is an organic body, it has parts +determinately distant. For a determinate distance of the individual +parts from each other is of the very nature of an organic body, as +that of eye from eye, and eye from ear. But this could not be so, if +Christ were entire under every part of the species; for every part +would have to be under every other part, and so where one part would +be, there another part would be. It cannot be then that the entire +Christ is under every part of the host or of the wine contained in +the chalice. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ's body always retains the true nature of a +body, nor is it ever changed into a spirit. Now it is the nature of a +body for it to be "quantity having position" (Predic. iv). But it +belongs to the nature of this quantity that the various parts exist +in various parts of place. Therefore, apparently it is impossible for +the entire Christ to be under every part of the species. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory, +Sacramentarium): "Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under +every morsel, nor is He less in each portion, but bestows Himself +entire under each." + +_I answer that,_ As was observed above (A. 1, ad 3), because the +substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament by the power of the +sacrament, while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real +concomitance, consequently Christ's body is in this sacrament +substantively, that is, in the way in which substance is under +dimensions, but not after the manner of dimensions, which means, not +in the way in which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the +dimensive quantity of place. + +Now it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every +part of the dimensions under which it is contained; just as the +entire nature of air is under every part of air, and the entire +nature of bread under every part of bread; and this indifferently, +whether the dimensions be actually divided (as when the air is +divided or the bread cut), or whether they be actually undivided, but +potentially divisible. And therefore it is manifest that the entire +Christ is under every part of the species of the bread, even while +the host remains entire, and not merely when it is broken, as some +say, giving the example of an image which appears in a mirror, which +appears as one in the unbroken mirror, whereas when the mirror is +broken, there is an image in each part of the broken mirror: for the +comparison is not perfect, because the multiplying of such images +results in the broken mirror on account of the various reflections in +the various parts of the mirror; but here there is only one +consecration, whereby Christ's body is in this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: Number follows division, and therefore so long as +quantity remains actually undivided, neither is the substance of any +thing several times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ's body +several times under the dimensions of the bread; and consequently not +an infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is divided +into parts. + +Reply Obj. 2: The determinate distance of parts in an organic body +is based upon its dimensive quantity; but the nature of substance +precedes even dimensive quantity. And since the conversion of the +substance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the body of +Christ, and since according to the manner of substance the body of +Christ is properly and directly in this sacrament; such distance of +parts is indeed in Christ's true body, which, however, is not +compared to this sacrament according to such distance, but according +to the manner of its substance, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). + +Reply Obj. 3: This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising +from dimensive quantity. But it was said above (ad 2) that Christ's +body is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive +quantity, but by reason of its substance, as already stated. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 4] + +Whether the Whole Dimensive Quantity of Christ's Body Is in This +Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's +body is not in this sacrament. For it was said (A. 3) that Christ's +entire body is contained under every part of the consecrated host. +But no dimensive quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and in +its every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive +quantity of Christ's body to be there. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be +together, even though one be separate from its subject, and the other +in a natural body, as is clear from the Philosopher (Metaph. iii). +But the dimensive quantity of the bread remains in this sacrament, as +is evident to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of +Christ's body is not there. + +Obj. 3: Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by +side, the greater will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive quantity +of Christ's body is considerably larger than the dimensive quantity +of the consecrated host according to every dimension. Therefore, if +the dimensive quantity of Christ's body be in this sacrament together +with the dimensive quantity of the host, the dimensive quantity of +Christ's body is extended beyond the quantity of the host, which +nevertheless is not without the substance of Christ's body. +Therefore, the substance of Christ's body will be in this sacrament +even outside the species of the bread, which is unreasonable, since +the substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament, only by the +consecration of the bread, as stated above (A. 2). Consequently, it +is impossible for the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be +in this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ The existence of the dimensive quantity of any +body cannot be separated from the existence of its substance. But in +this sacrament the entire substance of Christ's body is present, as +stated above (AA. 1, 3). Therefore the entire dimensive quantity of +Christ's body is in this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), any part of Christ is in +this sacrament in two ways: in one way, by the power of the +sacrament; in another, from real concomitance. By the power of the +sacrament the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this +sacrament; for, by the power of the sacrament that is present in this +sacrament, whereat the conversion is terminated. But the conversion +which takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the +substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is +evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread +remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread +passes away. + +Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really +deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it +comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive +quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this +sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: The manner of being of every thing is determined by +what belongs to it of itself, and not according to what is coupled +accidentally with it: thus an object is present to the sight, +according as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although +the same object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in +the sight after the manner of whiteness, and not after that of +sweetness. Since, then, the substance of Christ's body is present on +the altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive +quantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally, +therefore the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this +sacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole +is in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but +after the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in +the whole, and the whole in every part. + +Reply Obj. 2: Two dimensive quantities cannot naturally be in the +same subject at the same time, so that each be there according to the +proper manner of dimensive quantity. But in this sacrament the +dimensive quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner, +that is, according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quantity +of Christ's body, for that is there after the manner of substance, as +stated above (ad 1). + +Reply Obj. 3: The dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this +sacrament not by way of commensuration, which is proper to quantity, +and to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the +lesser; but in the way mentioned above (ad 1, 2). +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 5] + +Whether Christ's Body Is in This Sacrament As in a Place? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a +place. Because, to be in a place definitively or circumscriptively +belongs to being in a place. But Christ's body seems to be +definitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where the +species of the bread and wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the +altar: likewise it seems to be there circumscriptively, because it is +so contained under the species of the consecrated host, that it +neither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ's body is +in this sacrament as in a place. + +Obj. 2: Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty, +because nature abhors a vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread +there, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 2); but only the body of Christ is +there. Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But whatever +fills a place is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in +this sacrament locally. + +Obj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 4), the body of Christ is in +this sacrament with its dimensive quantity, and with all its +accidents. But to be in a place is an accident of a body; hence +"where" is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore +Christ's body is in this sacrament locally. + +_On the contrary,_ The place and the object placed must be equal, as +is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this +sacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore +Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 3; A. 3), Christ's body is +in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, +but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a +place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, +namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to +its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in +this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that +is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; +because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of +bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not +locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so +neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance +of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the +substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was +there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared +with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the +substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the +medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper +dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the +medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located +body. + +Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively, +because then it would be only on the particular altar where this +sacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own +species, and on many other altars under the sacramental species. +Likewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament +circumscriptively, because it is not there according to the +commensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is +not outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part +of the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or +circumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and +conversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 15, A. 2, +sqq.). + +Reply Obj. 2: The place in which Christ's body is, is not empty; nor +yet is it properly filled with the substance of Christ's body, which +is not there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the +sacramental species, which have to fill the place either because of +the nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also +subsist miraculously after the fashion of substance. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (A. 4), the accidents of Christ's body +are in this sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those +accidents of Christ's body which are intrinsic to it are in this +sacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared with the +extrinsic container. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to +be in this sacrament as in a place. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 6] + +Whether Christ's Body Is in This Sacrament Movably? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body is movably in this +sacrament, because the Philosopher says (Topic. ii) that "when we are +moved, the things within us are moved": and this is true even of the +soul's spiritual substance. "But Christ is in this sacrament," as +shown above (Q. 74, A. 1). Therefore He is moved when it is moved. + +Obj. 2: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But, +according to the commandment (Ex. 12:10), concerning the Paschal +Lamb, a figure of this sacrament, "there remained nothing until the +morning." Neither, therefore, if this sacrament be reserved until +morning, will Christ's body be there; and so it is not immovably in +this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, if Christ's body were to remain under this sacrament +even until the morrow, for the same reason it will remain there +during all coming time; for it cannot be said that it ceases to be +there when the species pass, because the existence of Christ's body +is not dependent on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this +sacrament for all coming time. It seems, then, that straightway on +the morrow, or after a short time, He ceases to be under this +sacrament. And so it seems that Christ is in this sacrament movably. + +_On the contrary,_ it is impossible for the same thing to be in +motion and at rest, else contradictories would be verified of the +same subject. But Christ's body is at rest in heaven. Therefore it is +not movably in this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold +in being, there is nothing to hinder it from being moved in one +respect, and yet to remain at rest in another just as it is one thing +for a body to be white, and another thing, to be large; hence it can +be moved as to its whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its +magnitude. But in Christ, being in Himself and being under the +sacrament are not the same thing, because when we say that He is +under this sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this +sacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not moved locally +of Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is not in this +sacrament as in a place, as stated above (A. 5). But what is not in a +place, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to the +motion of the subject in which it is. + +In the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being +which it has in this sacrament, by any other change whatever, as for +instance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever +possesses unfailing existence of itself, cannot be the principle of +failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; +just as God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be +in some corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases +to exist. And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and +incorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not +because He ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own, as is +clear from what has been said, but only by the fact that the +sacramental species cease to exist. + +Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this +sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: This argument deals with accidental movement, whereby +things within us are moved together with us. But with things which +can of themselves be in a place, like bodies, it is otherwise than +with things which cannot of themselves be in a place, such as forms +and spiritual substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we say +of Christ, being moved accidentally, according to the existence which +He has in this sacrament, in which He is not present as in a place. + +Reply Obj. 2: It was this argument which seems to have convinced +those who held that Christ's body does not remain under this +sacrament if it be reserved until the morrow. It is against these +that Cyril says (Ep. lxxxiii): "Some are so foolish as to say that +the mystical blessing departs from the sacrament, if any of its +fragments remain until the next day: for Christ's consecrated body is +not changed, and the power of the blessing, and the life-giving grace +is perpetually in it." Thus are all other consecrations irremovable +so long as the consecrated things endure; on which account they are +not repeated. And although the truth corresponds with the figure, +still the figure cannot equal it. + +Reply Obj. 3: The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only +until the morrow, but also in the future, so long as the sacramental +species remain: and when they cease, Christ's body ceases to be under +them, not because it depends on them, but because the relationship of +Christ's body to those species is taken away, in the same way as God +ceases to be the Lord of a creature which ceases to exist. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 7] + +Whether the Body of Christ, As It Is in This Sacrament, Can Be Seen +by Any Eye, at Least by a Glorified One? + +Objection 1: It seems that the body of Christ, as it is in this +sacrament, can be seen by the eye, at least by a glorified one. For +our eyes are hindered from beholding Christ's body in this sacrament, +on account of the sacramental species veiling it. But the glorified +eye cannot be hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are. +Therefore, the glorified eye can see Christ's body as it is in this +sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be "made +like to the body" of Christ's "glory," according to Phil. 3:21. But +Christ's eye beholds Himself as He is in this sacrament. Therefore, +for the same reason, every other glorified eye can see Him. + +Obj. 3: Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the +angels, according to Luke 20:36. But the angels see the body of +Christ as it is in this sacrament, for even the devils are found to +pay reverence thereto, and to fear it. Therefore, for like reason, +the glorified eye can see Christ as He is in this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ As long as a thing remains the same, it cannot at +the same time be seen by the same eye under diverse species. But the +glorified eye sees Christ always, as He is in His own species, +according to Isa. 33:17: "(His eyes) shall see the king in his +beauty." It seems, then, that it does not see Christ, as He is under +the species of this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye +properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by +similitude. But Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be +seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible +brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now +the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the +substance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate +relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; +consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any +corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3; A. 3), +Christ's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But +substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it +come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but +solely under the intellect, whose object is "what a thing is" (De +Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's body, +according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is +perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by +the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye. + +Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For +since the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely +supernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the +Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect, of +angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine +intellect, sees all supernatural things in the vision of the Divine +Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like +other supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of its +own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils +cannot by their intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except +through faith, to which they do not pay willing assent; yet they are +convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to James 2:19: +"The devils believe, and tremble." + +Reply Obj. 1: Our bodily eye, on account of the sacramental species, +is hindered from beholding the body of Christ underlying them, not +merely as by way of veil (just as we are hindered from seeing what is +covered with any corporeal veil), but also because Christ's body +bears a relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not +through its own accidents, but through the sacramental species. + +Reply Obj. 2: Christ's own bodily eye sees Himself existing under the +sacrament, yet it cannot see the way in which it exists under the +sacrament, because that belongs to the intellect. But it is not the +same with any other glorified eye, because Christ's eye is under this +sacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it. + +Reply Obj. 3: No angel, good or bad, can see anything with a bodily +eye, but only with the mental eye. Hence there is no parallel reason, +as is evident from what was said above. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 8] + +Whether Christ's Body Is Truly There When Flesh or a Child Appears +Miraculously in This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ's body is not truly there when +flesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament. Because His +body ceases to be under this sacrament when the sacramental species +cease to be present, as stated above (A. 6). But when flesh or a +child appears, the sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore +Christ's body is not truly there. + +Obj. 2: Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either under +its own species, or under those of the sacrament. But when such +apparitions occur, it is evident that Christ is not present under His +own species, because the entire Christ is contained in this +sacrament, and He remains entire under the form in which He ascended +to heaven: yet what appears miraculously in this sacrament is +sometimes seen as a small particle of flesh, or at times as a small +child. Now it is evident that He is not there under the sacramental +species, which is that of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that +Christ's body is not there in any way. + +Obj. 3: Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by +consecration and conversion, as was said above (Q. 75, AA. 2, 3, 4). +But the flesh and blood which appear by miracle are not consecrated, +nor are they converted into Christ's true body and blood. Therefore +the body or the blood of Christ is not under those species. + +_On the contrary,_ When such apparition takes place, the same +reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be +done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of +_latria._ Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the +sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ Such apparition comes about in two ways, when +occasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. +Sometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so +affected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while +no change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when +to one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child, +while to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or +when to the same individual it appears for an hour under the +appearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance +of bread. Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of +magicians, because such species is divinely formed in the eye in +order to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing +that Christ's body is truly under this sacrament; just as Christ +without deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus. +For Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that "when our pretense is +referred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a figure of the +truth." And since in this way no change is made in the sacrament, it +is manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease +to be under this sacrament. + +But it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely +by a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which +really exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is +beheld by everyone under such an appearance, and it remains so not +for an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some +think that it is the proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it +matter that sometimes Christ's entire body is not seen there, but +part of His flesh, or else that it is not seen in youthful guise, but +in the semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of a +glorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either +entirely or in part, and under its own semblance or in strange guise, +as will be said later (Suppl., Q. 85, AA. 2, 3). + +But this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under +its proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is +definitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species, +and is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in +this sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at +will, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is +related (Luke 24:31) that our Lord "vanished out of sight" of the +disciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this +sacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being +sometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a +pyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper +semblance. + +Consequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions +remain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in +the other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that +flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this +is not deception, because it is done "to represent the truth," +namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ's body and +blood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the +dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, +as we shall see later on (Q. 77, A. 2), the body of Christ truly +remains in this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: When such apparition takes place, the sacramental +species sometimes continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only +as to that which is principal, as was said above. + +Reply Obj. 2: As stated above, during such apparitions Christ's +proper semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed +either in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions +themselves, as was said above. + +Reply Obj. 3: The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine +continue, while a miraculous change is wrought in the other +accidents, as stated above. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 77 + +OF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT +(In Eight Articles) + +We must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament; +under which head there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject? + +(2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents? + +(3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body? + +(4) Whether they can be corrupted? + +(5) Whether anything can be generated from them? + +(6) Whether they can nourish? + +(7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread? + +(8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 1] + +Whether the Accidents Remain in This Sacrament Without a Subject? + +Objection 1: It seems that the accidents do not remain in this +sacrament without a subject, because there ought not to be anything +disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents +to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God +established in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, +since accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject. +Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, not even by miracle can the definition of a thing be +severed from it, or the definition of another thing be applied to it; +for instance, that, while man remains a man, he can be an irrational +animal. For it would follow that contradictories can exist at the one +time: for the "definition of a thing is what its name expresses," as +is said in _Metaph._ iv. But it belongs to the definition of an +accident for it to be in a subject, while the definition of substance +is that it must subsist of itself, and not in another. Therefore it +cannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the accidents exist +without a subject in this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If +therefore the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject, +they will not be individual, but general, which is clearly false, +because thus they would not be sensible, but merely intelligible. + +Obj. 4: Further, the accidents after the consecration of this +sacrament do not obtain any composition. But before the consecration +they were not composed either of matter and form, nor of existence +(_quo est_) and essence (_quod est_). Therefore, even after +consecration they are not composite in either of these ways. But this +is unreasonable, for thus they would be simpler than angels, whereas +at the same time these accidents are perceptible to the senses. +Therefore, in this sacrament the accidents do not remain without a +subject. + +_On the contrary,_ Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De +Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx) that "the sacramental species are the names +of those things which were there before, namely, of the bread and +wine." Therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does +not remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject. + +_I answer that,_ The species of the bread and wine, which are +perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after +consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the bread and +wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 2); nor in +the substantial form, for that does not remain (Q. 75, A. 6), and if +it did remain, "it could not be a subject," as Boethius declares (De +Trin. i). Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not +subjected in the substance of Christ's body and blood, because the +substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such +accidents; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and impassible +body to be altered so as to receive these qualities. + +Now there are some who say that they are in the surrounding +atmosphere as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first +place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. +Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is, +nay more, the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. +Thirdly, because accidents do not pass from subject to subject, so +that the same identical accident which was first in one subject be +afterwards in another; because an accident is individuated by the +subject; hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining +identically the same to be at one time in one subject, and at another +time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of +its own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents +and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this is done +miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the words of +consecration do not signify this, and they effect only what they +signify. + +Therefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament +without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an +effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who +is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His +unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance +is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper +cause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of +natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin's womb, +"without the seed of man" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers). + +Reply Obj. 1: There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature +from ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless +ordained by a special privilege of grace, as is evident in the +raising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even +thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by +special privilege which are outside the common law. And so, even +though it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to +be in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the order +of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on +account of the reasons given above (Q. 75, A. 5). + +Reply Obj. 2: Since being is not a genus, then being cannot be of +itself the essence of either substance or accident. Consequently, the +definition of substance is not--"a being of itself without a +subject," nor is the definition of accident--"a being in a subject"; +but it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance "to have +existence not in a subject"; while it belongs to the quiddity or +essence of accident "to have existence in a subject." But in this +sacrament it is not in virtue of their essence that accidents are not +in a subject, but through the Divine power sustaining them; and +consequently they do not cease to be accidents, because neither is +the definition of accident withdrawn from them, nor does the +definition of substance apply to them. + +Reply Obj. 3: These accidents acquired individual being in the +substance of the bread and wine; and when this substance is changed +into the body and blood of Christ, they remain in that individuated +being which they possessed before, hence they are individual and +sensible. + +Reply Obj. 4: These accidents had no being of their own nor other +accidents, so long as the substance of the bread and wine remained; +but their subjects had _such_ being through them, just as snow is +_white_ through whiteness. But after the consecration the accidents +which remain have being; hence they are compounded of existence and +essence, as was said of the angels, in the First Part (Q. 50, A. 2, +ad 3); and besides they have composition of quantitative parts. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 2] + +Whether in This Sacrament the Dimensive Quantity of the Bread or Wine +Is the Subject of the Other Accidents? + +Objection 1: It seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity +of the bread or wine is not the subject of the other accidents. For +accident is not the subject of accident; because no form can be a +subject, since to be a subject is a property of matter. But dimensive +quantity is an accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the +subject of the other accidents. + +Obj. 2: Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so +also are the other accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity of the +bread or wine remains individuated according to the being it had +before, in which it is preserved, for like reason the other accidents +remain individuated according to the existence which they had before +in the substance. Therefore they are not in dimensive quantity as in +a subject, since every accident is individuated by its own subject. + +Obj. 3: Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the bread +and wine, the senses perceive also rarity and density, which cannot +be in dimensive quantity existing outside matter; because a thing is +rare which has little matter under great dimensions, while a thing is +dense which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said in +_Phys._ iv. It does not seem, then, that dimensive quantity can be +the subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament. + +Obj. 4: Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be +mathematical quantity, which is not the subject of sensible +qualities. Since, then, the remaining accidents in this sacrament are +sensible, it seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected in +the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains after +consecration. + +_On the contrary,_ Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that +is, by reason of the subject. But the qualities remaining in this +sacrament are divided by the division of dimensive quantity, as is +evident through our senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the +subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ It is necessary to say that the other accidents +which remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive +quantity of the bread and wine that remains: first of all, because +something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents +is perceived by the senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, +because the first disposition of matter is dimensive quantity, hence +Plato also assigned "great" and "small" as the first differences of +matter (Aristotle, _Metaph._ iv). And because the first subject is +matter, the consequence is that all other accidents are related to +their subject through the medium of dimensive quantity; just as the +first subject of color is said to be the surface, on which account +some have maintained that dimensions are the substances of bodies, as +is said in _Metaph._ iii. And since, when the subject is withdrawn, +the accidents remain according to the being which they had before, it +follows that all accidents remain founded upon dimensive quantity. + +Thirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of individuation +of the accidents, it is necessary for what is admitted as the subject +of some accidents to be somehow the principle of individuation: for +it is of the very notion of an individual that it cannot be in +several; and this happens in two ways. First, because it is not +natural to it to be in any one; and in this way immaterial separated +forms, subsisting of themselves, are also individuals of themselves. +Secondly, because a form, be it substantial or accidental, is +naturally in someone indeed, not in several, as this whiteness, which +is in this body. As to the first, matter is the principle of +individuation of all inherent forms, because, since these forms, +considered in themselves, are naturally in something as in a subject, +from the very fact that one of them is received in matter, which is +not in another, it follows that neither can the form itself thus +existing be in another. As to the second, it must be maintained that +the principle of individuation is dimensive quantity. For that +something is naturally in another one solely, is due to the fact that +that other is undivided in itself, and distinct from all others. But +it is on account of quantity that substance can be divided, as is +said in _Phys._ i. And therefore dimensive quantity itself is a +particular principle of individuation in forms of this kind, namely, +inasmuch as forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the +matter. Hence also dimensive quantity has of itself a kind of +individuation, so that we can imagine several lines of the same +species, differing in position, which is included in the notion of +this quantity; for it belongs to dimension for it to be "quantity +having position" (Aristotle, Categor. iv), and therefore dimensive +quantity can be the subject of the other accidents, rather than the +other way about. + +Reply Obj. 1: One accident cannot of itself be the subject of +another, because it does not exist of itself. But inasmuch as an +accident is received in another thing, one is said to be the subject +of the other, inasmuch as one is received in a subject through +another, as the surface is said to be the subject of color. Hence +when God makes an accident to exist of itself, it can also be of +itself the subject of another. + +Reply Obj. 2: The other accidents, even as they were in the substance +of the bread, were individuated by means of dimensive quantity, as +stated above. And therefore dimensive quantity is the subject of the +other accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than conversely. + +Reply Obj. 3: Rarity and density are particular qualities +accompanying bodies, by reason of their having much or little matter +under dimensions; just as all other accidents likewise follow from +the principles of substance. And consequently, as the accidents are +preserved by Divine power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when +matter is withdrawn, the qualities which go with matter, such as +rarity and density, are preserved by Divine power. + +Reply Obj. 4: Mathematical quantity abstracts not from intelligible +matter, but from sensible matter, as is said in _Metaph._ vii. But +matter is termed sensible because it underlies sensible qualities. +And therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity, which +remains in this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical +quantity. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 3] + +Whether the Species Remaining in This Sacrament Can Change External +Objects? + +Objection 1: It seems that the species which remain in this sacrament +cannot affect external objects. For it is proved in _Phys._ vii, that +forms which are in matter are produced by forms that are in matter, +but not from forms which are without matter, because like makes like. +But the sacramental species are species without matter, since they +remain without a subject, as is evident from what was said above (A. +1). Therefore they cannot affect other matter by producing any form +in it. + +Obj. 2: Further, when the action of the principal agent ceases, then +the action of the instrument must cease, as when the carpenter rests, +the hammer is moved no longer. But all accidental forms act +instrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the principal +agent. Therefore, since the substantial form of the bread and wine +does not remain in this sacrament, as was shown above (Q. 75, A. 6), +it seems that the accidental forms which remain cannot act so as to +change external matter. + +Obj. 3: Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an effect +cannot surpass its cause. But all the sacramental species are +accidents. Therefore they cannot change external matter, at least as +to a substantial form. + +_On the contrary,_ If they could not change external bodies, they +could not be felt; for a thing is felt from the senses being changed +by a sensible thing, as is said in _De Anima_ ii. + +_I answer that,_ Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual +being, the consequence is that everything stands in the same relation +to action as it does to being. Therefore, because, according to what +was said above (A. 1), it is an effect of the Divine power that the +sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the +substance of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they +continue in their action. Consequently they retain every action which +they had while the substance of the bread and wine remained, now that +the substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and +blood of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change +external bodies. + +Reply Obj. 1: The sacramental species, although they are forms +existing without matter, still retain the same being which they had +before in matter, and therefore as to their being they are like forms +which are in matter. + +Reply Obj. 2: The action of an accidental form depends upon the +action of a substantial form in the same way as the being of accident +depends upon the being of substance; and therefore, as it is an +effect of Divine power that the sacramental species exist without +substance, so is it an effect of Divine power that they can act +without a substantial form, because every action of a substantial or +accidental form depends upon God as the first agent. + +Reply Obj. 3: The change which terminates in a substantial form is +not effected by a substantial form directly, but by means of the +active and passive qualities, which act in virtue of the substantial +form. But by Divine power this instrumental energy is retained in the +sacramental species, just as it was before: and consequently their +action can be directed to a substantial form instrumentally, just in +the same way as anything can act outside its species, not as by its +own power, but by the power of the chief agent. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 4] + +Whether the Sacramental Species Can Be Corrupted? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot be +corrupted, because corruption comes of the separation of the form +from the matter. But the matter of the bread does not remain in this +sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Q. 75, A. 2). +Therefore these species cannot be corrupted. + +Obj. 2: Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that is, +when its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are +incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual substances. But the +sacramental species are forms without a subject. Therefore they +cannot be corrupted. + +Obj. 3: Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally or +miraculously. But they cannot be corrupted naturally, because no +subject of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the +corruption has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted +miraculously, because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take +place in virtue of the consecration, whereby the sacramental species +are preserved: and the same thing is not the cause of preservation +and of corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental species +be corrupted. + +_On the contrary,_ We perceive by our senses that the consecrated +hosts become putrefied and corrupted. + +_I answer that,_ Corruption is "movement from being into non-being" +(Aristotle, _Phys._ v). Now it has been stated (A. 3) that the +sacramental species retain the same being as they had before when the +substance of the bread was present. Consequently, as the being of +those accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread +and wine was present, so likewise they can be corrupted now that the +substance has passed away. + +But such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways: +in one way, of themselves; in another way, accidentally. They could +be corrupted of themselves, as by alteration of the qualities, and +increase or decrease of the quantity, not in the way in which +increase or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the +substances of the bread and wine are not, but by addition or +division; for, as is said in _Metaph._ iii, one dimension is +dissolved by division, and two dimensions result; while on the +contrary, by addition, two dimensions become one. And in this way +such accidents can be corrupted manifestly after consecration, +because the dimensive quantity which remains can receive division and +addition; and since it is the subject of sensible qualities, as +stated above (A. 1), it can likewise be the subject of their +alteration, for instance, if the color or the savor of the bread or +wine be altered. + +An accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption +of its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after +consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the +being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is +proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be +corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine +was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by +a preceding alteration regarding the accidents. + +Nevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid +corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in +this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be +such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed +for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of +Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such +change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for +instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly +modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the +wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread +or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the +bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood +do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the +qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread +and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread +or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if +the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such +tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain. + +Reply Obj. 1: Since it belongs essentially to corruption to take away +the being of a thing, in so far as the being of some form is in +matter, it results that by corruption the form is separated from the +matter. But if such being were not in matter, yet like such being as +is in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there +is no matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from +what was said above. + +Reply Obj. 2: Although the sacramental species are forms not in +matter, yet they have the being which they had in matter. + +Reply Obj. 3: This corruption of species is not miraculous, but +natural; nevertheless, it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in +the consecration, namely, that those sacramental species retain +without a subject, the same being as they had in a subject; just as a +blind man, to whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 5] + +Whether Anything Can Be Generated from the Sacramental Species? + +Objection 1: It seems that nothing can be generated from the +sacramental species: because, whatever is generated, is generated out +of some matter: for nothing is generated out of nothing, although by +creation something is made out of nothing. But there is no matter +underlying the sacramental species except that of Christ's body, and +that body is incorruptible. Therefore it seems that nothing can be +generated from the sacramental species. + +Obj. 2: Further, things which are not of the same genus cannot spring +from one another: thus a line is not made of whiteness. But accident +and substance differ generically. Therefore, since the sacramental +species are accidents, it seems that no substance can be generated +from them. + +Obj. 3: Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from them, +such substance will not be without accident. Therefore, if any +corporeal substance be generated from the sacramental species, then +substance and accident would be generated from accident, namely, two +things from one, which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible +for any corporeal substance to be generated out of the sacramental +species. + +_On the contrary,_ The senses are witness that something is generated +out of the sacramental species, either ashes, if they be burned, +worms if they putrefy, or dust if they be crushed. + +_I answer that,_ Since "the corruption of one thing is the generation +of another" (De Gener. i), something must be generated necessarily +from the sacramental species if they be corrupted, as stated above +(A. 4); for they are not corrupted in such a way that they disappear +altogether, as if reduced to nothing; on the contrary, something +sensible manifestly succeeds to them. + +Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated +from them. For it is quite evident that nothing is generated out of +the body and blood of Christ which are truly there, because these are +incorruptible. But if the substance, or even the matter, of the bread +and wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have +maintained, it would be easy to account for this sensible object +which succeeds to them. But that supposition is false, as was stated +above (Q. 75, AA. 2, 4, 8). + +Hence it is that others have said that the things generated have not +sprung from the sacramental species, but from the surrounding +atmosphere. But this can be shown in many ways to be impossible. In +the first place, because when a thing is generated from another, the +latter at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration +or corruption appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; hence +the worms or ashes are not generated therefrom. Secondly, because the +nature of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things +being generated by such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible +for many consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be +possible for an earthen body, large enough to be generated from the +atmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly sensible +condensation of the atmosphere took place. Fourthly, because the same +thing can happen to the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron +or stone, which remain entire after the generation of the aforesaid +things. Hence this opinion cannot stand, because it is opposed to +what is manifest to our senses. + +And therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and +wine returns during the corruption of the species, and so from the +returning substance of the bread and wine, ashes or worms or +something of the kind are generated. But this explanation seems an +impossible one. First of all, because if the substance of the bread +and wine be converted into the body and blood of Christ, as was shown +above (Q. 75, AA. 2, 4), the substance of the bread and wine cannot +return, except the body and blood of Christ be again changed back +into the substance of bread and wine, which is impossible: thus if +air be turned into fire, the air cannot return without the fire being +again changed into air. But if the substance of bread or wine be +annihilated, it cannot return again, because what lapses into nothing +does not return numerically the same. Unless perchance it be said +that the said substance returns, because God creates anew another new +substance to replace the first. Secondly, this seems to be +impossible, because no time can be assigned when the substance of the +bread returns. For, from what was said above (A. 4; Q. 76, A. 6, ad +3), it is evident that while the species of the bread and wine +remain, there remain also the body and blood of Christ, which are not +present together with the substance of the bread and wine in this +sacrament, according to what was stated above (Q. 75, A. 2). Hence +the substance of the bread and wine cannot return while the +sacramental species remain; nor, again, when these species pass away; +because then the substance of the bread and wine would be without +their proper accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be +said that in the last instant of the corruption of the species there +returns (not, indeed, the substance of bread and wine, because it is +in that very instant that they have the being of the substance +generated from the species, but) the matter of the bread and wine; +which, matter, properly speaking, would be more correctly described +as created anew, than as returning. And in this sense the aforesaid +position might be held. + +However, since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes +place miraculously in this sacrament, except in virtue of the +consecration itself, which does not imply either creation or return +of matter, it seems better to say that in the actual consecration it +is miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and +wine to be the subject of subsequent forms. Now this is proper to +matter; and therefore as a consequence everything which goes with +matter is bestowed on dimensive quantity; and therefore everything +which could be generated from the matter of bread or wine, if it were +present, can be generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of +the bread or wine, not, indeed, by a new miracle, but by virtue of +the miracle which has already taken place. + +Reply Obj. 1: Although no matter is there out of which a thing may be +generated, nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of +matter, as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 2: Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet +they have the act and power of substance, as stated above (A. 3). + +Reply Obj. 3: The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine retains +its own nature, and receives miraculously the power and property of +substance; and therefore it can pass to both, that is, into substance +and dimension. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 6] + +Whether the Sacramental Species Can Nourish? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish, +because, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), "it is not this bread that +enters into our body, but the bread of everlasting life, which +supports the substance of our soul." But whatever nourishes enters +into the body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same +reason holds good of the wine. + +Obj. 2: Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, "We are nourished by the +very things of which we are made." But the sacramental species are +accidents, whereas man is not made of accidents, because accident is +not a part of substance. Therefore it seems that the sacramental +species cannot nourish. + +Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that "food +nourishes according as it is a substance, but it gives increase by +reason of its quantity." But the sacramental species are not a +substance. Consequently they cannot nourish. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1 +Cor. 11:21): "One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk": upon +which the gloss observes that "he alludes to those who after the +celebration of the sacred mystery, and after the consecration of the +bread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with +others, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby." +But this could not happen if the sacramental species did not nourish. +Therefore the sacramental species do nourish. + +_I answer that,_ This question presents no difficulty, now that we +have solved the preceding question. Because, as stated in _De Anima_ +ii, food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the +individual nourished. Now it has been stated (A. 5) that the +sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from +them. And they can be converted into the human body for the same +reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident +that they nourish. + +But the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. +that the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the +human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses +(as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the +fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a +man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man +could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated +wine in great quantity. + +In like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who +hold that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining +substantial form of the bread and wine: both because the form does +not remain, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 6): and because to nourish is +the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of +the one nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away: +hence it is said in _De Anima_ ii that nourishment is at first +unlike, but at the end is like. + +Reply Obj. 1: After the consecration bread can be said to be in this +sacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, which retain the +name of the previous substance, as Gregory says in an Easter Homily +(Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's very body +can be called bread, since it is the mystical bread "coming down from +heaven." Consequently, Ambrose uses the word "bread" in this second +meaning, when he says that "this bread does not pass into the body," +because, to wit, Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but +nourishes his soul. But he is not speaking of bread taken in the +first acceptation. + +Reply Obj. 2: Although the sacramental species are not those things +out of which the human body is made, yet they are changed into those +things stated above. + +Reply Obj. 3: Although the sacramental species are not a substance, +still they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 7] + +Whether the Sacramental Species Are Broken in This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sacramental species are not broken in +this sacrament, because the Philosopher says in Meteor. iv that +bodies are breakable owing to a certain disposition of the pores; a +thing which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species. +Therefore the sacramental species cannot be broken. + +Obj. 2: Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the sacramental +species emit no sound: because the Philosopher says (De Anima ii), +that what emits sound is a hard body, having a smooth surface. +Therefore the sacramental species are not broken. + +Obj. 3: Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same +object. But it is Christ's true body that is eaten, according to John +6:57: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood." Therefore it +is Christ's body that is broken and masticated: and hence it is said +in the confession of Berengarius: "I agree with the Holy Catholic +Church, and with heart and lips I profess, that the bread and wine +which are placed on the altar, are the true body and blood of Christ +after consecration, and are truly handled and broken by the priest's +hands, broken and crushed by the teeth of believers." Consequently, +the breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental species. + +_On the contrary,_ Breaking arises from the division of that which +has quantity. But nothing having quantity except the sacramental +species is broken here, because neither Christ's body is broken, as +being incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread, because it no +longer remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken. + +_I answer that,_ Many opinions prevailed of old on this matter. Some +held that in this sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality, +but merely in the eyes of the beholders. But this contention cannot +stand, because in this sacrament of truth the sense is not deceived +with regard to its proper object of judgment, and one of these +objects is breaking, whereby from one thing arise many: and these are +common sensibles, as is stated in _De Anima_ ii. + +Others accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine +breaking, but without any subject. But this again contradicts our +senses; because a quantitative body is seen in this sacrament, which +formerly was one, and is now divided into many, and this must be the +subject of the breaking. + +But it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken. First of +all, because it is incorruptible and impassible: secondly, because it +is entire under every part, as was shown above (Q. 76, A. 3), which +is contrary to the nature of a thing broken. + +It remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of +the bread, as in a subject, just as the other accidents. And as the +sacramental species are the sacrament of Christ's true body, so is +the breaking of these species the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, +which was in Christ's true body. + +Reply Obj. 1: As rarity and density remain under the sacramental +species, as stated above (A. 2, ad 3), so likewise porousness +remains, and in consequence breakableness. + +Reply Obj. 2: Hardness results from density; therefore, as density +remains under the sacramental species, hardness remains there too, +and the capability of sound as a consequence. + +Reply Obj. 3: What is eaten under its own species, is also broken and +masticated under its own species; but Christ's body is eaten not +under its proper, but under the sacramental species. Hence in +explaining John 6:64, "The flesh profiteth nothing," Augustine +(Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says that this is to be taken as referring to +those who understood carnally: "for they understood the flesh, thus, +as it is divided piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the +shambles." Consequently, Christ's very body is not broken, except +according to its sacramental species. And the confession made by +Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and +the crushing with the teeth is to be referred to the sacramental +species, under which the body of Christ truly is. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 8] + +Whether Any Liquid Can Be Mingled with the Consecrated Wine? + +Objection 1: It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the +consecrated wine, because everything mingled with another partakes of +its quality. But no liquid can share in the quality of the +sacramental species, because those accidents are without a subject, +as stated above (A. 1). Therefore it seems that no liquid can be +mingled with the sacramental species of the wine. + +Obj. 2: Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those species, +then some one thing must be the result. But no one thing can result +from the liquid, which is a substance, and the sacramental species, +which are accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ's blood, which +owing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease. +Therefore no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine. + +Obj. 3: Further, if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine, +then that also would appear to be consecrated; just as water added to +holy-water becomes holy. But the consecrated wine is truly Christ's +blood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be Christ's blood +otherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no +liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine. + +Obj. 4: Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, there is +no mixture (De Gener. i). But if we mix any liquid, it seems that the +entire species of the sacramental wine is corrupted, so that the +blood of Christ ceases to be beneath it; both because great and +little are difference of quantity, and alter it, as white and black +cause a difference of color; and because the liquid mixed, as having +no obstacle, seems to permeate the whole, and so Christ's blood +ceases to be there, since it is not there with any other substance. +Consequently, no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine. + +_On the contrary,_ It is evident to our senses that another liquid +can be mixed with the wine after it is consecrated, just as before. + +_I answer that,_ The truth of this question is evident from what has +been said already. For it was said above (A. 3; A. 5, ad 2) that the +species remaining in this sacrament, as they acquire the manner of +being of substance in virtue of the consecration, so likewise do they +obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can +do or receive whatever their substance could do or receive, were it +there present. But it is evident that if the substance of wine were +there present, then some other liquid could be mingled with it. + +Nevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both +according to the form and according to the quantity of the liquid. +For if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all +through the wine, then the whole would be a mixed substance. Now what +is made up of things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a +third resulting from both: hence it would result that the former wine +would remain no longer. But if the liquid added were of another +species, for instance, if water were mixed, the species of the wine +would be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of another species. +But if liquid of the same species were added, of instance, wine with +wine, the same species would remain, but the wine would not be the +same numerically, as the diversity of the accidents shows: for +instance, if one wine were white and the other red. + +But if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could +not permeate the whole, the entire wine would not be mixed, but only +part of it, which would not remain the same numerically owing to the +blending of extraneous matter: still it would remain the same +specifically, not only if a little liquid of the same species were +mixed with it, but even if it were of another species, since a drop +of water blended with much wine passes into the species of wine (De +Gener. i). + +Now it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this +sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same, as +stated above (A. 4; Q. 76, A. 6, ad 3); because it is this bread and +this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind +whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of +the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result +would be something numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will +remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so +slight as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the +species, Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the +consecrated wine, yet will remain under the rest. + +Reply Obj. 1: Pope Innocent III in a Decretal writes thus: "The very +accidents appear to affect the wine that is added, because, if water +is added, it takes the savor of the wine. The result is, then, that +the accidents change the subject, just as subject changes accidents; +for nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom." But +this must not be understood as if the same identical accident, which +was in the wine previous to consecration, is afterwards in the wine +that is added; but such change is the result of action; because the +remaining accidents of the wine retain the action of substance, as +stated above, and so they act upon the liquid added, by changing it. + +Reply Obj. 2: The liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no way +mixed with the substance of Christ's blood. Nevertheless it is mixed +with the sacramental species, yet so that after such mixing the +aforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part, after the way +mentioned above (A. 5), whereby something can be generated from those +species. And if they be entirely corrupted, there remains no further +question, because the whole will be uniform. But if they be corrupted +in part, there will be one dimension according to the continuity of +quantity, but not one according to the mode of being, because one +part thereof will be without a subject while the other is in a +subject; as in a body that is made up of two metals, there will be +one body quantitatively, but not one as to the species of the matter. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid Decretal, "if +after the consecration other wine be put in the chalice, it is not +changed into the blood, nor is it mingled with the blood, but, mixed +with the accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused throughout +the body which underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds +it." Now this is to be understood when there is not sufficient mixing +of extraneous liquid to cause the blood of Christ to cease to be +under the whole; because a thing is said to be "diffused throughout," +not because it touches the body of Christ according to its proper +dimensions, but according to the sacramental dimensions, under which +it is contained. Now it is not the same with holy water, because the +blessing works no change in the substance of the water, as the +consecration of the wine does. + +Reply Obj. 4: Some have held that however slight be the mixing of +extraneous liquid, the substance of Christ's blood ceases to be under +the whole, and for the reason given above (Obj. 4); which, however, +is not a cogent one; because "more" or "less" diversify dimensive +quantity, not as to its essence, but as to the determination of its +measure. In like manner the liquid added can be so small as on that +account to be hindered from permeating the whole, and not simply by +the dimensions; which, although they are present without a subject, +still they are opposed to another liquid, just as substance would be +if it were present, according to what was said at the beginning of +the article. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 78 + +OF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT +(In Six Articles) + +We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which +there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) What is the form of this sacrament? + +(2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate? + +(3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate? + +(4) Of the power of each form? + +(5) Of the truth of the expression? + +(6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 1] + +Whether This Is the Form of This Sacrament: "This Is My Body," and +"This Is the Chalice of My Blood"? + +Objection 1: It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament: +"This is My body," and, "This is the chalice of My blood." Because +those words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith +Christ consecrated His body and blood. But Christ first blessed the +bread which He took, and said afterwards: "Take ye and eat; this is +My body" (Matt. 26:26). Therefore the whole of this seems to belong +to the form of this sacrament: and the same reason holds good of the +words which go with the consecration of the blood. + +Obj. 2: Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep. xxix; +Pseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv) says: "The invisible Priest changes visible +creatures into His own body, saying: 'Take ye and eat; this is My +body.'" Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to the form of +this sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to +the blood. + +Obj. 3: Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his act +are expressed, when it is said, "I baptize thee." But in the words +set forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of +his act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is not a suitable one. + +Obj. 4: Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its +perfection; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes +by pronouncing the words of the form only, omitting all the others. +Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament, it +would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by +uttering those words alone, while leaving out all the others which +are said in the mass; yet this seems to be false, because, were the +other words to be passed over, the said words would be taken as +spoken in the person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread and +wine are not changed into his body and blood. Consequently, the +aforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "The consecration is +accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, +by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is +put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes +for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own +words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ's words that +perfect this sacrament." + +_I answer that,_ This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in +two respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is +accomplished by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are +perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in +the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in +a blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally +a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated +instrument, can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this +sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous +change of the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the +minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the +pronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing, +therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the +other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the +other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance, +baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely +the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, +as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My +blood." Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are +pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of +exercising an act, as when it is said, "I baptize thee," or "I +confirm thee," etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said in the +sacrament of order, "Take the power," etc.; or by way of entreaty, as +when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, "By this +anointing and our intercession," etc. But the form of this sacrament +is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is +given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting +this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ. + +Reply Obj. 1: There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said +that Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed +this sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards +He pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate +thereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the +same sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: "In good sooth it +can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine +power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came +after were to consecrate." But in opposition to this view are the +words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ "blessed," and +this blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words +of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather +than determining the point. + +Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other +words not known to us. But this statement cannot stand, because the +blessing of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things +which were then accomplished; hence, if the consecration was not +performed then by these words, neither would it be now. + +Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected +by the same words as are used now; but that Christ spoke them twice, +at first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to +instruct others. But even this will not hold good, because the priest +in consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as +openly pronounced. Accordingly, since these words have no power +except from Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also +consecrated by pronouncing them openly. + +And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow +the precise order in their narrative as that in which things actually +happened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it +is to be understood that the order of what took place can be +expressed thus: "Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My +body, and then He broke it, and gave it to His disciples." But the +same sense can be had even without changing the words of the Gospel; +because the participle "saying" implies sequence of the words uttered +with what goes before. And it is not necessary for the sequence to be +understood only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ +had just then pronounced those words, when He gave it to His +disciples; but the sequence can be understood with regard to all that +had gone before; so that the sense is: "While He was blessing, and +breaking, and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, 'Take +ye,'" etc. + +Reply Obj. 2: In these words, "Take ye and eat," the use of the +consecrated, matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of +this sacrament, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 7). And therefore not even +these words belong to the substance of the form. Nevertheless, +because the use of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain +perfection of the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the +first but the second perfection of a thing, consequently, the whole +perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it +was in this way that Eusebius understood that the sacrament was +accomplished by those words, as to its first and second perfection. + +Reply Obj. 3: In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an +act regarding the use of the matter, which is of the essence of the +sacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no +parallel. + +Reply Obj. 4: Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be +accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the +rest, especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is +false can be seen both from Ambrose's words quoted above, as well as +from the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all +places or times, but various portions have been introduced by various +people. + +Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only +the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this +sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would +cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, +even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The +priest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament +thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church. Nor does +the comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of +necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the +spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf. Q. 73, A. 3, ad +1). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 2] + +Whether This Is the Proper Form for the Consecration of the Bread: +"This Is My Body"? + +Objection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form of this +sacrament: "This is My body." For the effect of a sacrament ought to +be expressed in its form. But the effect of the consecration of the +bread is the change of the substance of the bread into the body of +Christ, and this is better expressed by the word "becomes" than by +"is." Therefore, in the form of the consecration we ought to say: +"This becomes My body." + +Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), "Christ's words +consecrate this sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby +all things are made. The Lord commanded, and the heavens and earth +were made." Therefore, it would be a more proper form of this +sacrament if the imperative mood were employed, so as to say: "Be +this My body." + +Obj. 3: Further, that which is changed is implied in the subject of +this phrase, just as the term of the change is implied in the +predicate. But just as that into which the change is made is +something determinate, for the change is into nothing else but the +body of Christ, so also that which is converted is determinate, since +only bread is converted into the body of Christ. Therefore, as a noun +is inserted on the part of the predicate, so also should a noun be +inserted in the subject, so that it be said: "This bread is My body." + +Obj. 4: Further, just as the term of the change is determinate in +nature, because it is a body, so also is it determinate in person. +Consequently, in order to determine the person, it ought to be said: +"This is the body of Christ." + +Obj. 5: Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what +is substantial to it. Consequently, the conjunction "for" is +improperly added in some books, since it does not belong to the +substance of the form. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is +evident from Matt. 26:26. + +_I answer that,_ This is the proper form for the consecration of the +bread. For it was said (A. 1) that this consecration consists in +changing the substance of bread into the body of Christ. Now the form +of a sacrament ought to denote what is done in the sacrament. +Consequently the form for the consecration of the bread ought to +signify the actual conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. +And herein are three things to be considered: namely, the actual +conversion, the term _whence,_ and the term _whereunto._ + +Now the conversion can be considered in two ways: first, in +_becoming,_ secondly, in _being._ But the conversion ought not to be +signified in this form as in _becoming,_ but as in _being._ First, +because such conversion is not successive, as was said above (Q. 75, +A. 7), but instantaneous; and in such changes the _becoming_ is +nothing else than the _being._ Secondly, because the sacramental +forms bear the same relation to the signification of the sacramental +effect as artificial forms to the representation of the effect of +art. Now an artificial form is the likeness of the ultimate effect, +on which the artist's intention is fixed; just as the art-form in the +builder's mind is principally the form of the house constructed, and +secondarily of the constructing. Accordingly, in this form also the +conversion ought to be expressed as in _being,_ to which the +intention is referred. + +And since the conversion is expressed in this form as in _being,_ it +is necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be signified as +they exist in the fact of conversion. But then the term _whereunto_ +has the proper nature of its own substance; whereas the term _whence_ +does not remain in its own substance, but only as to the accidents +whereby it comes under the senses, and can be determined in relation +to the senses. Hence the term _whence_ of the conversion is +conveniently expressed by the demonstrative pronoun, relative to the +sensible accidents which continue; but the term _whereunto_ is +expressed by the noun signifying the nature of the thing which +terminates the conversion, and this is Christ's entire body, and not +merely His flesh; as was said above (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 2). Hence this +form is most appropriate: "This is My body." + +Reply Obj. 1: The ultimate effect of this conversion is not a +_becoming_ but a _being,_ as stated above, and consequently +prominence should be given to this in the form. + +Reply Obj. 2: God's word operated in the creation of things, and it +is the same which operates in this consecration, yet each in +different fashion: because here it operates effectively and +sacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. And +consequently the last effect of the consecration must needs be +signified in this sentence by a substantive verb of the indicative +mood and present time. But in the creation of things it worked merely +effectively, and such efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom; +and therefore in the creation of things the Lord's word is expressed +by a verb in the imperative mood, as in Gen. 1:3: "Let there be +light, and light was made." + +Reply Obj. 3: The term _whence_ does not retain the nature of its +substance in the _being_ of the conversion, as the term _whereunto_ +does. Therefore there is no parallel. + +Reply Obj. 4: The pronoun "My," which implicitly points to the chief +person, i.e. the person of the speaker, sufficiently indicates +Christ's person, in Whose person these words are uttered, as stated +above (A. 1). + +Reply Obj. 5: The conjunction "for" is set in this form according to +the custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from Peter the +Apostle; and this on account of the sequence with the words +preceding: and therefore it is not part of the form, just as the +words preceding the form are not. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 3] + +Whether This Is the Proper Form for the Consecration of the Wine: +"This Is the Chalice of My Blood," Etc.? + +Objection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form for the +consecration of the wine. "This is the chalice of My blood, of the +New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed +for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins." For as the bread +is changed by the power of consecration into Christ's body, so is the +wine changed into Christ's blood, as is clear from what was said +above (Q. 76, AA. 1, 2, 3). But in the form of the consecration of +the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any +addition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly +expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, +when it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood." + +Obj. 2: Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread +are not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the +wine, since both are Christ's words. But directly the words are +spoken--"This is My body," there is perfect consecration of the +bread. Therefore, directly these other words are uttered--"This is +the chalice of My blood," there is perfect consecration of the blood; +and so the words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance of +the form, especially since they refer to the properties of this +sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal +inspiration, as is evident from the Apostle quoting the words of +Jeremias (31:31): "I will perfect unto the house of Israel a New +Testament . . . I will give My laws into their mind" (Heb. 8:8). But +a sacrament is an outward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the +sacrament the words "of the New Testament" are improperly added. + +Obj. 4: Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the +beginning of its existence. But what is eternal has no beginning of +its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say "of the New and +Eternal," because it seems to savor of a contradiction. + +Obj. 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, +according to Isa. 57:14: "Take away the stumbling blocks out of the +way of My people." But some have fallen into error in thinking that +Christ's body and blood are only mystically present in this +sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add "the mystery of faith." + +Obj. 6: Further, it was said above (Q. 73, A. 3, ad 3), that as +Baptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament +of charity. Consequently, in this form the word "charity" ought +rather to be used than "faith." + +Obj. 7: Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and +blood, is a memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to 1 Cor. +11:26: "As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, +you shall show the death of the Lord." Consequently, mention ought to +be made of Christ's Passion and its fruit rather in the form of the +consecration of the blood, than in the form of the consecration of +the body, especially since our Lord said: "This is My body, which +shall be delivered up for you" (Luke 22:19). + +Obj. 8: Further, as was already observed (Q. 48, A. 2; Q. 49, A. 3), +Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was +profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: "Which shall be +shed for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you." + +Objection 9: Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated +draw their efficacy from Christ's institution. But no Evangelist +narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an +appropriate form for the consecration of the wine. + +_On the contrary,_ The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this +form. + +_I answer that,_ There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some +have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" +alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which +follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them +are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. +consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression. + +And on this account others say more accurately that all the words +which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As +often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this +sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the +form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under +the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. +Moreover, in Luke 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with +the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My +blood." + +Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to +the substance of the form; but that by the first words, "This is the +chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, +as explained above (A. 2) in the form for the consecration of the +bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the +blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and +is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing +our eternal heritage, according to Heb. 10:19: "Having confidence in +the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ"; and in order to +denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, +for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Rom. 3:25, +26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in +His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him +who is of the faith of Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, +"The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the +impediments to both of these things, according to Heb. 9:14: "The +blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," +that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed +for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins." + +Reply Obj. 1: The expression "This is the chalice of My blood" is a +figure of speech, which can be understood in two ways. First, as a +figure of metonymy; because the container is put for the contained, +so that the meaning is: "This is My blood contained in the chalice"; +of which mention is now made, because Christ's blood is consecrated +in this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful, which +is not implied under the notion of blood; consequently this had to be +denoted by the vessel adapted for such usage. + +Secondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ's +Passion is understood by the chalice by way of comparison, because, +like a cup, it inebriates, according to Lam. 3:15: "He hath filled me +with bitterness, he hath inebriated me with wormwood": hence our Lord +Himself spoke of His Passion as a chalice, when He said (Matt. +26:39): "Let this chalice pass away from Me": so that the meaning is: +"This is the chalice of My Passion." This is denoted by the blood +being consecrated apart from the body; because it was by the Passion +that the blood was separated from the body. + +Reply Obj. 2: As was said above (ad 1; Q. 76, A. 2, ad 1), the blood +consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and +therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the +consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the +body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our +Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, +"which shall undergo the Passion for you." + +Reply Obj. 3: A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But God +disposed of a heavenly heritage to men, to be bestowed through the +virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ; because, according to Heb. 9:16: +"Where there is a testament the death of the testator must of +necessity come in." Now Christ's blood was exhibited to men in two +ways. First of all in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament; +consequently the Apostle concludes (Heb. 9:16): "Whereupon neither +was the first indeed dedicated without blood," which is evident from +this, that as related in Ex. 24:7, 8, "when every" commandment of the +law "had been read" by Moses, "he sprinkled all the people" saying: +"This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto +you." + +Secondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New +Testament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says (Rom. +9:15): "Therefore He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by +means of His death . . . they that are called may receive the promise +of eternal inheritance." Consequently, we say here, "The blood of the +New Testament," because it is shown now not in figure but in truth; +and therefore we add, "which shall be shed for you." But the internal +inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, according as +we are justified by Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 4: This Testament is a "new one" by reason of its showing +forth: yet it is called "eternal" both on account of God's eternal +pre-ordination, as well as on account of the eternal heritage which +is prepared by this testament. Moreover, Christ's Person is eternal, +in Whose blood this testament is appointed. + +Reply Obj. 5: The word "mystery" is inserted, not in order to exclude +reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ's +blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was +dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament. + +Reply Obj. 6: It is called the "Sacrament of Faith," as being an +object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of +Christ's blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ's Passion justifies +by faith. Baptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" because it is a +profession of faith. This is called the "Sacrament of Charity," as +being figurative and effective thereof. + +Reply Obj. 7: As stated above (ad 2), the blood consecrated apart +represents Christ's blood more expressively; and therefore mention is +made of Christ's Passion and its fruits, in the consecration of the +blood rather than in that of the body. + +Reply Obj. 8: The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not +merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old +Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in +priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who +partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And +therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many," +namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for +whom it is offered. + +Reply Obj. 9: The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms +of the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept +concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the +ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of +Christ. Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from +various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, "This is the +chalice," are found in Luke 22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew +says in chapter 26:28: "This is My blood of the New Testament, which +shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." The words added, +namely, "eternal" and "mystery of faith," were handed down to the +Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to +1 Cor. 11:23: "I have received of the Lord that which also I +delivered unto you." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 4] + +Whether in the Aforesaid Words of the Forms There Be Any Created +Power Which Causes the Consecration? + +Objection 1: It seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there +is no created power which causes the consecration. Because Damascene +says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The change of the bread into Christ's body +is caused solely by the power of the Holy Ghost." But the power of +the Holy Ghost is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused +by any created power of those words. + +Obj. 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created +power, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the First Part +(Q. 110, A. 4). But the change of the bread and wine into Christ's +body and blood is a work not less miraculous than the creation of +things, or than the formation of Christ's body in the womb of a +virgin: which things could not be done by any created power. +Therefore, neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created power +of the aforesaid words. + +Obj. 3: Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of +many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively. But, as +stated above (Q. 75, A. 7), this change is wrought instantaneously. +Hence it must be done by a simple power. Therefore it is not effected +by the power of those words. + +_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If there be such +might in the word of the Lord Jesus that things non-existent came +into being, how much more efficacious is it to make things existing +to continue, and to be changed into something else? And so, what was +bread before consecration is now the body of Christ after +consecration, because Christ's word changes a creature into something +different." + +_I answer that,_ Some have maintained that neither in the above words +is there any created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in +the other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments +themselves, for producing the sacramental effects. This, as was shown +above (Q. 62, A. 1), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints, +and detracts from the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law. +Hence, since this sacrament is of greater worth than the others, as +stated above (Q. 65, A. 3), the result is that there is in the words +of the form of this sacrament a created power which causes the change +to be wrought in it: instrumental, however, as in the other +sacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, AA. 3, 4). For since these words +are uttered in the person of Christ, it is from His command that they +receive their instrumental power from Him, just as His other deeds +and sayings derive their salutary power instrumentally, as was +observed above (Q. 48, A. 6; Q. 56, A. 1, ad 3). + +Reply Obj. 1: When the bread is said to be changed into Christ's body +solely by the power of the Holy Ghost, the instrumental power which +lies in the form of this sacrament is not excluded: just as when we +say that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the power of +the hammer. + +Reply Obj. 2: No creature can work miracles as the chief agent. Yet +it can do so instrumentally, just as the touch of Christ's hand +healed the leper. And in this fashion Christ's words change the bread +into His body. But in Christ's conception, whereby His body was +fashioned, it was impossible for anything derived from His body to +have the instrumental power of forming that very body. Likewise in +creation there was no term wherein the instrumental action of a +creature could be received. Consequently there is no comparison. + +Reply Obj. 3: The aforesaid words, which work the consecration, +operate sacramentally. Consequently, the converting power latent +under the forms of these sacraments follows the meaning, which is +terminated in the uttering of the last word. And therefore the +aforesaid words have this power in the last instant of their being +uttered, taken in conjunction with those uttered before. And this +power is simple by reason of the thing signified, although there be +composition in the words uttered outwardly. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 5] + +Whether the Aforesaid Expressions Are True? + +Objection 1: It seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true. +Because when we say: "This is My body," the word "this" designates a +substance. But according to what was said above (AA. 1, 4, ad 3; Q. +75, AA. 2, 7), when the pronoun "this" is spoken, the substance of +the bread is still there, because the transubstantiation takes place +in the last instant of pronouncing the words. But it is false to say: +"Bread is Christ's body." Consequently this expression, "This is My +body," is false. + +Obj. 2: Further, the pronoun "this" appeals to the senses. But the +sensible species in this sacrament are neither Christ's body nor even +its accidents. Therefore this expression, "This is My body," cannot +be true. + +Obj. 3: Further, as was observed above (A. 4, ad 3), these words, by +their signification, effect the change of the bread into the body of +Christ. But an effective cause is understood as preceding its effect. +Therefore the meaning of these words is understood as preceding the +change of the bread into the body of Christ. But previous to the +change this expression, "This is My body," is false. Therefore the +expression is to be judged as false simply; and the same reason holds +good of the other phrase: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc. + +_On the contrary,_ These words are pronounced in the person of +Christ, Who says of Himself (John 14:6): "I am the truth." + +_I answer that,_ There have been many opinions on this point. Some +have said that in this expression, "This is My body," the word "this" +implies demonstration as conceived, and not as exercised, because the +whole phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by a way of +narration: for the priest relates that Christ said: "This is My body." + +But such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would not +be applied to the corporeal matter present, and consequently the +sacrament would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in +Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a +sacrament." Moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty +which this question presents: for there is still the objection in +regard to the first uttering of these words by Christ; since it is +evident that then they were employed, not materially, but +significatively. And therefore it must be said that even when spoken +by the priest they are taken significatively, and not merely +materially. Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way +of recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because owing to +Christ's infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the +regenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into +contact with Christ, but into all waters throughout the whole world +and during all future ages, so likewise from Christ's uttering these +words they derived their consecrating power, by whatever priest they +be uttered, as if Christ present were saying them. + +And therefore others have said that in this phrase the word "this" +appeals, not to the senses, but to the intellect; so that the meaning +is, "This is My body"--i.e. "The thing signified by 'this' is My +body." But neither can this stand, because, since in the sacraments +the effect is that which is signified, from such a form it would not +result that Christ's body was in very truth in this sacrament, but +merely as in a sign, which is heretical, as stated above (Q. 85, A. +1). + +Consequently, others have said that the word "this" appeals to the +senses; not at the precise instant of its being uttered, but merely +at the last instant thereof; as when a man says, "Now I am silent," +this adverb "now" points to the instant immediately following the +speech: because the sense is: "Directly these words are spoken I am +silent." But neither can this hold good, because in that case the +meaning of the sentence would be: "My body is My body," which the +above phrase does not effect, because this was so even before the +utterance of the words: hence neither does the aforesaid sentence +mean this. + +Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above (A. 4), +that this sentence possesses the power of effecting the conversion of +the bread into the body of Christ. And therefore it is compared to +other sentences, which have power only of signifying and not of +producing, as the concept of the practical intellect, which is +productive of the thing, is compared to the concept of our +speculative intellect which is drawn from things, because "words are +signs of concepts," as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i). And +therefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not +presuppose the thing understood, but makes it, so the truth of this +expression does not presuppose the thing signified, but makes it; for +such is the relation of God's word to the things made by the Word. +Now this change takes place not successively, but in an instant, as +stated above (Q. 77, A. 7). Consequently one must understand the +aforesaid expression with reference to the last instant of the words +being spoken, yet not so that the subject may be understood to have +stood for that which is the term of the conversion; viz. that the +body of Christ is the body of Christ; nor again that the subject be +understood to stand for that which it was before the conversion, +namely, the bread, but for that which is commonly related to both, +i.e. that which is contained in general under those species. For +these words do not make the body of Christ to be the body of Christ, +nor do they make the bread to be the body of Christ; but what was +contained under those species, and was formerly bread, they make to +be the body of Christ. And therefore expressly our Lord did not say: +"This bread is My body," which would be the meaning of the second +opinion; nor "This My body is My body," which would be the meaning of +the third opinion: but in general: "This is My body," assigning no +noun on the part of the subject, but only a pronoun, which signifies +substance in common, without quality, that is, without a determinate +form. + +Reply Obj. 1: The term "this" points to a substance, yet without +determining its proper nature, as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 2: The pronoun "this" does not indicate the accidents, but +the substance underlying the accidents, which at first was bread, and +is afterwards the body of Christ, which body, although not informed +by those accidents, is yet contained under them. + +Reply Obj. 3: The meaning of this expression is, in the order of +nature, understood before the thing signified, just as a cause is +naturally prior to the effect; but not in order of time, because this +cause has its effect with it at the same time, and this suffices for +the truth of the expression. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 6] + +Whether the Form of the Consecration of the Bread Accomplishes Its +Effect Before the Form of the Consecration of the Wine Be Completed? + +Objection 1: It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread +does not accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration of +the wine be completed. For, as Christ's body begins to be in this +sacrament by the consecration of the bread, so does His blood come to +be there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for +consecrating the bread were to produce their effect before the +consecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ's body would be +present in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper. + +Obj. 2: Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although +there be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does +not produce its effect until the third be completed. But all this +sacrament is one, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 2). Therefore the words +whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their effect +without the sacramental words whereby the wine is consecrated. + +Obj. 3: Further, there are several words in the form for consecrating +the bread, the first of which do not secure their effect until the +last be uttered, as stated above (A. 4, ad 3). Therefore, for the +same reason, neither do the words for the consecration of Christ's +body produce their effect, until the words for consecrating Christ's +blood are spoken. + +_On the contrary,_ Directly the words are uttered for consecrating +the bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, +which would not be done if Christ's body were not there, for that +would be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words of the +bread produce their effect before the words are spoken for +consecrating the wine. + +_I answer that,_ Some of the earlier doctors said that these two +forms, namely, for consecrating the bread and the wine, await each +other's action, so that the first does not produce its effect until +the second be uttered. + +But this cannot stand, because, as stated above (A. 5, ad 3), for the +truth of this phrase, "This is My body," wherein the verb is in the +present tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present +simultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used; +otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a +verb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the +present tense, so that we should not say, "This is My body," but +"This will be My body." But the signification of this speech is +complete directly those words are spoken. And therefore the thing +signified must be present instantaneously, and such is the effect of +this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech. Moreover, +this opinion is against the rite of the Church, which forthwith +adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered. + +Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second +in its action, but has its effect on the instant. + +Reply Obj. 1: It is on this account that they who maintained the +above opinion seem to have erred. Hence it must be understood that +directly the consecration of the bread is complete, the body of +Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood +by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, +conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power of the +sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire +Christ is under either species, as stated above (Q. 76, A. 2). + +Reply Obj. 2: This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above +(Q. 73, A. 2), namely, inasmuch as it is made up of two things, that +is, of food and drink, each of which of itself has its own +perfection; but the three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one +simple effect, and therefore there is no resemblance. + +Reply Obj. 3: The various words in the form for consecrating the +bread constitute the truth of one speech, but the words of the +different forms do not, and consequently there is no parallel. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 79 + +OF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT +(In Eight Articles) + +We must now consider the effects of this sacrament, and under this +head there are eight points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether this sacrament bestows grace? + +(2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament? + +(3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this +sacrament? + +(4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament? + +(5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this +sacrament? + +(6) Whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins? + +(7) Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients? + +(8) Of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 1] + +Whether Grace Is Bestowed Through This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that grace is not bestowed through this +sacrament. For this sacrament is spiritual nourishment. But +nourishment is only given to the living. Therefore since the +spiritual life is the effect of grace, this sacrament belongs only to +one in the state of grace. Therefore grace is not bestowed through +this sacrament for it to be had in the first instance. In like manner +neither is it given so as grace may be increased, because spiritual +growth belongs to the sacrament of Confirmation, as stated above (Q. +72, A. 1). Consequently, grace is not bestowed through this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament is given as a spiritual refreshment. +But spiritual refreshment seems to belong to the use of grace rather +than to its bestowal. Therefore it seems that grace is not given +through this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, as was said above (Q. 74, A. 1), "Christ's body is +offered up in this sacrament for the salvation of the body, and His +blood for that of the soul." Now it is not the body which is the +subject of grace, but the soul, as was shown in the Second Part +(I-II, Q. 110, A. 4). Therefore grace is not bestowed through this +sacrament, at least so far as the body is concerned. + +_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 6:52): "The bread which I will +give, is My flesh for the life of the world." But the spiritual life +is the effect of grace. Therefore grace is bestowed through this +sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ The effect of this sacrament ought to be considered, +first of all and principally, from what is contained in this +sacrament, which is Christ; Who, just as by coming into the world, He +visibly bestowed the life of grace upon the world, according to John +1:17: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," so also, by coming +sacramentally into man causes the life of grace, according to John +6:58: "He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me." Hence +Cyril says on Luke 22:19: "God's life-giving Word by uniting Himself +with His own flesh, made it to be productive of life. For it was +becoming that He should be united somehow with bodies through His +sacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive in a life-giving +blessing in the bread and wine." + +Secondly, it is considered on the part of what is represented by this +sacrament, which is Christ's Passion, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 1; +Q. 76, A. 2, ad 1). And therefore this sacrament works in man the +effect which Christ's Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom +says on the words, "Immediately there came out blood and water" (John +19:34): "Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence, +when you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if +you were going to drink from Christ's own side." Hence our Lord +Himself says (Matt. 26:28): "This is My blood . . . which shall be +shed for many unto the remission of sins." + +Thirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in +which this sacrament is given; for it is given by way of food and +drink. And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all +that material food does for the bodily life, namely, by sustaining, +giving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose +says (De Sacram. v): "This is the bread of everlasting life, which +supports the substance of our soul." And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi +in Joan.): "When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and +embrace Him." And hence our Lord says (John 6:56): "My flesh is meat +indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." + +Fourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species +under which it is given. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): +"Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many +units are made into some one whole: for out of many grains is one +thing made," viz. bread; "and many grapes flow into one thing," viz. +wine. And therefore he observes elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): "O +sacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!" + +And since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace, and since +spiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace, it is +clear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows +grace. + +Reply Obj. 1: This sacrament has of itself the power of bestowing +grace; nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament +except from some desire thereof; from his own desire, as in the case +of the adult, or from the Church's desire in the case of children, as +stated above (Q. 73, A. 3). Hence it is due to the efficacy of its +power, that even from desire thereof a man procures grace whereby he +is enabled to lead the spiritual life. It remains, then, that when +the sacrament itself is really received, grace is increased, and the +spiritual life perfected: yet in different fashion from the sacrament +of Confirmation, in which grace is increased and perfected for +resisting the outward assaults of Christ's enemies. But by this +sacrament grace receives increase, and the spiritual life is +perfected, so that man may stand perfect in himself by union with God. + +Reply Obj. 2: This sacrament confers grace spiritually together with +the virtue of charity. Hence Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) compares +this sacrament to the burning coal which Isaias saw (Isa. 6:6): "For +a live ember is not simply wood, but wood united to fire; so also the +bread of communion is not simple bread but bread united with the +Godhead." But as Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, "God's +love is never idle; for, wherever it is it does great works." And +consequently through this sacrament, as far as its power is +concerned, not only is the habit of grace and of virtue bestowed, but +it is furthermore aroused to act, according to 2 Cor. 5:14: "The +charity of Christ presseth us." Hence it is that the soul is +spiritually nourished through the power of this sacrament, by being +spiritually gladdened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness +of the Divine goodness, according to Cant 5:1: "Eat, O friends, and +drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved." + +Reply Obj. 3: Because the sacraments operate according to the +similitude by which they signify, therefore by way of assimilation it +is said that in this sacrament "the body is offered for the salvation +of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul," although +each works for the salvation of both, since the entire Christ is +under each, as stated above (Q. 76, A. 2). And although the body is +not the immediate subject of grace, still the effect of grace flows +into the body while in the present life we present "our [Vulg.: +'your'] members" as "instruments of justice unto God" (Rom. 6:13), +and in the life to come our body will share in the incorruption and +the glory of the soul. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 2] + +Whether the Attaining of Glory Is an Effect of This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the attaining of glory is not an effect of +this sacrament. For an effect is proportioned to its cause. But this +sacrament belongs to "wayfarers" (_viatoribus_), and hence it is +termed "Viaticum." Since, then, wayfarers are not yet capable of +glory, it seems that this sacrament does not cause the attaining of +glory. + +Obj. 2: Further, given sufficient cause, the effect follows. But many +take this sacrament who will never come to glory, as Augustine +declares (De Civ. Dei xxi). Consequently, this sacrament is not the +cause of attaining unto glory. + +Obj. 3: Further, the greater is not brought about by the lesser, for +nothing acts outside its species. But it is the lesser thing to +receive Christ under a strange species, which happens in this +sacrament, than to enjoy Him in His own species, which belongs to +glory. Therefore this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 6:52): "If any man eat of this +bread, he shall live for ever." But eternal life is the life of +glory. Therefore the attaining of glory is an effect of this +sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ In this sacrament we may consider both that from +which it derives its effect, namely, Christ contained in it, as also +His Passion represented by it; and that through which it works its +effect, namely, the use of the sacrament, and its species. + +Now as to both of these it belongs to this sacrament to cause the +attaining of eternal life. Because it was by His Passion that Christ +opened to us the approach to eternal life, according to Heb. 9:15: +"He is the Mediator of the New Testament; that by means of His death +. . . they that are called may receive the promise of eternal +inheritance." Accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said: +"This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament." + +In like manner the refreshment of spiritual food and the unity +denoted by the species of the bread and wine are to be had in the +present life, although imperfectly, but perfectly in the state of +glory. Hence Augustine says on the words, "My flesh is meat indeed" +(John 6:56): "Seeing that in meat and drink, men aim at this, that +they hunger not nor thirst, this verily nought doth afford save only +this meat and drink which maketh them who partake thereof to be +immortal and incorruptible, in the fellowship of the saints, where +shall be peace, and unity, full and perfect." + +Reply Obj. 1: As Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof this sacrament +is accomplished, is indeed the sufficient cause of glory, yet not so +that we are thereby forthwith admitted to glory, but we must first +"suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified" afterwards +"with Him" (Rom. 8:17), so this sacrament does not at once admit us +to glory, but bestows on us the power of coming unto glory. And +therefore it is called "Viaticum," a figure whereof we read in 3 +Kings 19:8: "Elias ate and drank, and walked in the strength of that +food forty days and forty nights unto the mount of God, Horeb." + +Reply Obj. 2: Just as Christ's Passion has not its effect in them who +are not disposed towards it as they should be, so also they do not +come to glory through this sacrament who receive it unworthily. Hence +Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), expounding the same passage, +observes: "The sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament +another. Many receive it from the altar . . . and by receiving" . . . +die . . . Eat, then, spiritually the heavenly "bread, bring innocence +to the altar." It is no wonder, then, if those who do not keep +innocence, do not secure the effect of this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: That Christ is received under another species belongs +to the nature of a sacrament, which acts instrumentally. But there is +nothing to prevent an instrumental cause from producing a more mighty +effect, as is evident from what was said above (Q. 77, A. 3, ad 3). +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 3] + +Whether the Forgiveness of Mortal Sin Is an Effect of This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect +of this sacrament. For it is said in one of the Collects +(Postcommunion, Pro vivis et defunctis): "May this sacrament be a +cleansing from crimes." But mortal sins are called crimes. Therefore +mortal sins are blotted out by this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by the power of +Christ's Passion. But mortal sins are forgiven by Baptism, as stated +above (Q. 69, A. 1). Therefore they are forgiven likewise by this +sacrament, especially since in the form of this sacrament it is said: +"Which shall be shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins." + +Obj. 3: Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as stated +above (A. 1). But by grace a man is justified from mortal sins, +according to Rom. 3:24: "Being justified freely by His grace." +Therefore mortal sins are forgiven by this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 11:29): "He that eateth and +drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself": and a +gloss of the same passage makes the following commentary: "He eats +and drinks unworthily who is in the state of sin, or who handles (the +sacrament) irreverently; and such a one eats and drinks judgment, +i.e. damnation, unto himself." Therefore, he that is in mortal sin, +by taking the sacrament heaps sin upon sin, rather than obtains +forgiveness of his sin. + +_I answer that,_ The power of this sacrament can be considered in two +ways. First of all, in itself: and thus this sacrament has from +Christ's Passion the power of forgiving all sins, since the Passion +is the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins. + +Secondly, it can be considered in comparison with the recipient of +the sacrament, in so far as there is, or is not, found in him an +obstacle to receiving the fruit of this sacrament. Now whoever is +conscious of mortal sin, has within him an obstacle to receiving the +effect of this sacrament; since he is not a proper recipient of this +sacrament, both because he is not alive spiritually, and so he ought +not to eat the spiritual nourishment, since nourishment is confined +to the living; and because he cannot be united with Christ, which is +the effect of this sacrament, as long as he retains an attachment +towards mortal sin. Consequently, as is said in the book _De Eccles. +Dogm.:_ "If the soul leans towards sin, it is burdened rather than +purified from partaking of the Eucharist." Hence, in him who is +conscious of mortal sin, this sacrament does not cause the +forgiveness of sin. + +Nevertheless this sacrament can effect the forgiveness of sin in two +ways. First of all, by being received, not actually, but in desire; +as when a man is first justified from sin. Secondly, when received by +one in mortal sin of which he is not conscious, and for which he has +no attachment; since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at +first, but by approaching this sacrament devoutly and reverently he +obtains the grace of charity, which will perfect his contrition and +bring forgiveness of sin. + +Reply Obj. 1: We ask that this sacrament may be the "cleansing of +crimes," or of those sins of which we are unconscious, according to +Ps. 18:13: "Lord, cleanse me from my hidden sins"; or that our +contrition may be perfected for the forgiveness of our sins; or that +strength be bestowed on us to avoid sin. + +Reply Obj. 2: Baptism is spiritual generation, which is a transition +from spiritual non-being into spiritual being, and is given by way of +ablution. Consequently, in both respects he who is conscious of +mortal sin does not improperly approach Baptism. But in this +sacrament man receives Christ within himself by way of spiritual +nourishment, which is unbecoming to one that lies dead in his sins. +Therefore the comparison does not hold good. + +Reply Obj. 3: Grace is the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of +mortal sin; yet it does not forgive sin except when it is first +bestowed on the sinner. But it is not given so in this sacrament. +Hence the argument does not prove. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 4] + +Whether Venial Sins Are Forgiven Through This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this +sacrament, because this is the "sacrament of charity," as Augustine +says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But venial sins are not contrary to +charity, as was shown in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 88, AA. 1, 2; +II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Therefore, since contrary is taken away by its +contrary, it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this +sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, if venial sins be forgiven by this sacrament, then +all of them are forgiven for the same reason as one is. But it does +not appear that all are forgiven, because thus one might frequently +be without any venial sin, against what is said in 1 John 1:8: "If we +say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves." Therefore no venial +sin is forgiven by this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, contraries mutually exclude each other. But venial +sins do not forbid the receiving of this sacrament: because Augustine +says on the words, "If any man eat of it he shall [Vulg.: 'may'] not +die for ever" (John 6:50): "Bring innocence to the altar: your sins, +though they be daily . . . let them not be deadly." Therefore neither +are venial sins taken away by this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Innocent III says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv) that this +sacrament "blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins." + +_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered in this sacrament, to +wit, the sacrament itself, and the reality of the sacrament: and it +appears from both that this sacrament has the power of forgiving +venial sins. For this sacrament is received under the form of +nourishing food. Now nourishment from food is requisite for the body +to make good the daily waste caused by the action of natural heat. +But something is also lost daily of our spirituality from the heat of +concupiscence through venial sins, which lessen the fervor of +charity, as was shown in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). And +therefore it belongs to this sacrament to forgive venial sins. Hence +Ambrose says (De Sacram. v) that this daily bread is taken "as a +remedy against daily infirmity." + +The reality of this sacrament is charity, not only as to its habit, +but also as to its act, which is kindled in this sacrament; and by +this means venial sins are forgiven. Consequently, it is manifest +that venial sins are forgiven by the power of this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: Venial sins, although not opposed to the habit of +charity, are nevertheless opposed to the fervor of its act, which act +is kindled by this sacrament; by reason of which act venial sins are +blotted out. + +Reply Obj. 1: The passage quoted is not to be understood as if a man +could not at some time be without all guilt of venial sin: but that +the just do not pass through this life without committing venial sins. + +Reply Obj. 3: The power of charity, to which this sacrament belongs, +is greater than that of venial sins: because charity by its act takes +away venial sins, which nevertheless cannot entirely hinder the act +of charity. And the same holds good of this sacrament. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 5] + +Whether the Entire Punishment Due to Sin Is Forgiven Through This +Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the entire punishment due to sin is +forgiven through this sacrament. For through this sacrament man +receives the effect of Christ's Passion within himself as stated +above (AA. 1, 2), just as he does through Baptism. But through +Baptism man receives forgiveness of all punishment, through the +virtue of Christ's Passion, which satisfied sufficiently for all +sins, as was explained above (Q. 69, A. 2). Therefore it seems the +whole debt of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth.): "No +sacrifice can be greater than the body and the blood of Christ." But +man satisfied for his sins by the sacrifices of the old Law: for it +is written (Lev. 4, 5): "If a man shall sin, let him offer" (so and +so) "for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him." Therefore this +sacrament avails much more for the forgiveness of all punishment. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is certain that some part of the debt of +punishment is forgiven by this sacrament; for which reason it is +sometimes enjoined upon a man, by way of satisfaction, to have masses +said for himself. But if one part of the punishment is forgiven, for +the same reason is the other forgiven: owing to Christ's infinite +power contained in this sacrament. Consequently, it seems that the +whole punishment can be taken away by this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ In that case no other punishment would have to be +enjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized. + +_I answer that,_ This sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament. +it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it is offered up; and it +has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received. And +therefore it has the effect of a sacrament in the recipient, and the +effect of a sacrifice in the offerer, or in them for whom it is +offered. + +If, then, it be considered as a sacrament, it produces its effect in +two ways: first of all directly through the power of the sacrament; +secondly as by a kind of concomitance, as was said above regarding +what is contained in the sacrament (Q. 76, AA. 1, 2). Through the +power of the sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it +was instituted. Now it was instituted not for satisfaction, but for +nourishing spiritually through union between Christ and His members, +as nourishment is united with the person nourished. But because this +union is the effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains +forgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is +that as a consequence, and by concomitance with the chief effect, man +obtains forgiveness of the punishment, not indeed of the entire +punishment, but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor. + +But in so far as it is a sacrifice, it has a satisfactory power. Yet +in satisfaction, the affection of the offerer is weighed rather than +the quantity of the offering. Hence our Lord says (Mk. 12:43: cf. +Luke 21:4) of the widow who offered "two mites" that she "cast in +more than all." Therefore, although this offering suffices of its own +quantity to satisfy for all punishment, yet it becomes satisfactory +for them for whom it is offered, or even for the offerers, according +to the measure of their devotion, and not for the whole punishment. + +Reply Obj. 1: The sacrament of Baptism is directly ordained for the +remission of punishment and guilt: not so the Eucharist, because +Baptism is given to man as dying with Christ, whereas the Eucharist +is given as by way of nourishing and perfecting him through Christ. +Consequently there is no parallel. + +Reply Obj. 2: Those other sacrifices and oblations did not effect the +forgiveness of the whole punishment, neither as to the quantity of +the thing offered, as this sacrament does, nor as to personal +devotion; from which it comes to pass that even here the whole +punishment is not taken away. + +Reply Obj. 3: If part of the punishment and not the whole be taken +away by this sacrament, it is due to a defect not on the part of +Christ's power, but on the part of man's devotion. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 6] + +Whether Man Is Preserved by This Sacrament from Future Sins? + +Objection 1: It seems that man is not preserved by this sacrament +from future sins. For there are many that receive this sacrament +worthily, who afterwards fall into sin. Now this would not happen if +this sacrament were to preserve them from future sins. Consequently, +it is not an effect of this sacrament to preserve from future sins. + +Obj. 2: Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as stated +above (A. 4). But charity does not seem to preserve from future sins, +because it can be lost through sin after one has possessed it, as was +stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 11). Therefore it seems +that this sacrament does not preserve man from sin. + +Obj. 3: Further, the origin of sin within us is "the law of sin, +which is in our members," as declared by the Apostle (Rom. 7:23). But +the lessening of the fomes, which is the law of sin, is set down as +an effect not of this sacrament, but rather of Baptism. Therefore +preservation from sin is not an effect of this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 6:50): "This is the bread +which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not +die": which manifestly is not to be understood of the death of the +body. Therefore it is to be understood that this sacrament preserves +from spiritual death, which is through sin. + +_I answer that,_ Sin is the spiritual death of the soul. Hence man is +preserved from future sin in the same way as the body is preserved +from future death of the body: and this happens in two ways. First of +all, in so far as man's nature is strengthened inwardly against inner +decay, and so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from +death. Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults; and thus +he is protected by means of arms by which he defends his body. + +Now this sacrament preserves man from sin in both of these ways. For, +first of all, by uniting man with Christ through grace, it +strengthens his spiritual life, as spiritual food and spiritual +medicine, according to Ps. 103:5: "(That) bread strengthens [Vulg.: +'may strengthen'] man's heart." Augustine likewise says (Tract. xxvi +in Joan.): "Approach without fear; it is bread, not poison." +Secondly, inasmuch as it is a sign of Christ's Passion, whereby the +devils are conquered, it repels all the assaults of demons. Hence +Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): "Like lions breathing forth +fire, thus do we depart from that table, being made terrible to the +devil." + +Reply Obj. 1: The effect of this sacrament is received according to +man's condition: such is the case with every active cause in that its +effect is received in matter according to the condition of the +matter. But such is the condition of man on earth that his free-will +can be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament of itself +has the power of preserving from sin, yet it does not take away from +man the possibility of sinning. + +Reply Obj. 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to +Rom. 13:10: "The love of our neighbor worketh no evil": but it is due +to the mutability of free-will that a man sins after possessing +charity, just as after receiving this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: Although this sacrament is not ordained directly to +lessen the fomes, yet it does lessen it as a consequence, inasmuch as +it increases charity, because, as Augustine says (Q. 83), "the +increase of charity is the lessening of concupiscence." But it +directly strengthens man's heart in good; whereby he is also +preserved from sin. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 7] + +Whether This Sacrament Benefit Others Besides the Recipients? + +Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament benefits only the +recipients. For this sacrament is of the same genus as the other +sacraments, being one of those into which that genus is divided. But +the other sacraments only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized +person alone receives effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this +sacrament benefit others than the recipients. + +Obj. 2: Further, the effects of this sacrament are the attainment of +grace and glory, and the forgiveness of sin, at least of venial sin. +If therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others +besides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire grace and glory +and forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself, +through another receiving or offering this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is likewise +multiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit others besides the +recipients, it would follow that it benefits a man more if he receive +this sacrament through many hosts being consecrated in one mass, +whereas this is not the Church's custom: for instance, that many +receive communion for the salvation of one individual. Consequently, +it does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the +recipient. + +_On the contrary,_ Prayer is made for many others during the +celebration of this sacrament; which would serve no purpose were the +sacrament not beneficial to others. Therefore, this sacrament is +beneficial not merely to them who receive it. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), this sacrament is not only a +sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a +sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ's Passion is +represented, whereby Christ "offered Himself a Victim to God" (Eph. +5:2), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible +grace is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species. So, +then, this sacrament benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and +of sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it +is said in the Canon of the Mass: "May as many of us as, by +participation at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and +blood of Thy Son, be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace." + +But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of +sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation. Hence it is +said in the Canon of the Mass: "Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, +men and women . . . for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this +sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the +redemption of their souls, for the hope of their safety and +salvation." And our Lord expressed both ways, saying (Matt. 26:28, +with Luke 22:20): "Which for you," i.e. who receive it, "and for +many," i.e. others, "shall be shed unto remission of sins." + +Reply Obj. 1: This sacrament has this in addition to the others, that +it is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails. + +Reply Obj. 2: As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the forgiveness +of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it produces no +effect except in those who are united with Christ's Passion through +faith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the memorial +of our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are united +with this sacrament through faith and charity. Hence Augustine says +to Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): "Who may offer Christ's body +except for them who are Christ's members?" Hence in the Canon of the +Mass no prayer is made for them who are outside the pale of the +Church. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according +to the measure of their devotion. + +Reply Obj. 3: Receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament, but +offering belongs to the nature of sacrifice: consequently, when one +or even several receive the body of Christ, no help accrues to +others. In like fashion even when the priest consecrates several +hosts in one mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased, +since there is only one sacrifice; because there is no more power in +several hosts than in one, since there is only one Christ present +under all the hosts and under one. Hence, neither will any one +receive greater effect from the sacrament by taking many consecrated +hosts in one mass. But the oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in +several masses, and therefore the effect of the sacrifice and of the +sacrament is multiplied. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 8] + +Whether the Effect of This Sacrament Is Hindered by Venial Sin? + +Objection 1: It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not +hindered by venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), +commenting on John 6:52, "If any man eat of this bread," etc., says: +"Eat the heavenly bread spiritually; bring innocence to the altar; +your sins, though they be daily, let them not be deadly." From this +it is evident that venial sins, which are called daily sins, do not +prevent spiritual eating. But they who eat spiritually, receive the +effect of this sacrament. Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the +effect of this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism. +But, as stated above (Q. 69, AA. 9, 10), only pretense checks the +effect of Baptism, and venial sins do not belong to pretense; because +according to Wis. 1:5: "the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from +the deceitful," yet He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore +neither do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, nothing which is removed by the action of any cause, +can hinder the effect of such cause. But venial sins are taken away +by this sacrament. Therefore, they do not hinder its effect. + +_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The fire of +that desire which is within us, being kindled by the burning coal," +i.e. this sacrament, "will consume our sins, and enlighten our +hearts, so that we shall be inflamed and made godlike." But the fire +of our desire or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder the +fervor of charity, as was shown in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 81, A. +4; II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Therefore venial sins hinder the effect of +this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all +as past, secondly as in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken +in the first way do not in any way hinder the effect of this +sacrament. For it can come to pass that after many venial sins a man +may approach devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect. +Considered in the second way venial sins do not utterly hinder the +effect of this sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been stated +above (A. 1), that the effect of this sacrament is not only the +obtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual +refreshment of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if +anyone approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial +sins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken +away. + +Reply Obj. 1: He that approaches this sacrament with actual venial +sin, eats spiritually indeed, in habit but not in act: and therefore +he shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament, but not in its +actual effect. + +Reply Obj. 2: Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament is, for the +fervor of charity as its actual effect. Because Baptism is spiritual +regeneration, through which the first perfection is acquired, which +is a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating, which has +actual delight. + +Reply Obj. 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, which are +taken away by this sacrament. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 80 + +OF THE USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL +(In Twelve Articles) + +We have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament, first +of all in general; secondly, how Christ used this sacrament. + +Under the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely, +sacramentally and spiritually? + +(2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually? + +(3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally? + +(4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally? + +(5) Of the degree of this sin; + +(6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that +approaches it? + +(7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this +sacrament? + +(8) Whether it is to be received only when one is fasting? + +(9) Whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason? + +(10) Whether it is to be received daily? + +(11) Whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether? + +(12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 1] + +Whether There Are Two Ways to Be Distinguished of Eating Christ's +Body? + +Objection 1: It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of +eating Christ's body, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For, as +Baptism is spiritual regeneration, according to John 3:5: "Unless a +man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost," etc., so also this +sacrament is spiritual food: hence our Lord, speaking of this +sacrament, says (John 6:64): "The words that I have spoken to you are +spirit and life." But there are no two distinct ways of receiving +Baptism, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. Therefore neither +ought this distinction to be made regarding this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, when two things are so related that one is on +account of the other, they should not be put in contradistinction to +one another, because the one derives its species from the other. But +sacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating as its end. +Therefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with +spiritual eating. + +Obj. 3: Further, things which cannot exist without one another ought +not to be divided in contrast with each other. But it seems that no +one can eat spiritually without eating sacramentally; otherwise the +fathers of old would have eaten this sacrament spiritually. Moreover, +sacramental eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating +could be had without it. Therefore it is not right to distinguish a +twofold eating, namely, sacramental and spiritual. + +_On the contrary,_ The gloss says on 1 Cor. 11:29: "He that eateth +and drinketh unworthily," etc.: "We hold that there are two ways of +eating, the one sacramental, and the other spiritual." + +_I answer that,_ There are two things to be considered in the +receiving of this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and its +fruits, and we have already spoken of both (QQ. 73, 79). The perfect +way, then, of receiving this sacrament is when one takes it so as to +partake of its effect. Now, as was stated above (Q. 79, AA. 3, 8), it +sometimes happens that a man is hindered from receiving the effect of +this sacrament; and such receiving of this sacrament is an imperfect +one. Therefore, as the perfect is divided against the imperfect, so +sacramental eating, whereby the sacrament only is received without +its effect, is divided against spiritual eating, by which one +receives the effect of this sacrament, whereby a man is spiritually +united with Christ through faith and charity. + +Reply Obj. 1: The same distinction is made regarding Baptism and the +other sacraments: for, some receive the sacrament only, while others +receive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. However, +there is a difference, because, since the other sacraments are +accomplished in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament +is the actual perfection of the sacrament; whereas this sacrament is +accomplished in the consecration of the matter: and consequently both +uses follow the sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism and in the +other sacraments that imprint a character, they who receive the +sacrament receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character. +which is not the case in this sacrament. And therefore, in this +sacrament, rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use is +distinguished from the spiritual use. + +Reply Obj. 2: That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual +eating is not divided in contrast with spiritual eating, but is +included under it; but that sacramental eating which does not secure +the effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just as the +imperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is +divided in contrast with the perfect. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 73, A. 3), the effect of the +sacrament can be secured by every man if he receive it in desire, +though not in reality. Consequently, just as some are baptized with +the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being +baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament +spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. Now this happens in +two ways. First of all, from desire of receiving the sacrament +itself, and thus are said to be baptized, and to eat spiritually, and +not sacramentally, they who desire to receive these sacraments since +they have been instituted. Secondly, by a figure: thus the Apostle +says (1 Cor. 10:2), that the fathers of old were "baptized in the +cloud and in the sea," and that "they did eat . . . spiritual food, +and . . . drank . . . spiritual drink." Nevertheless sacramental +eating is not without avail, because the actual receiving of the +sacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does +the desire thereof, as stated above of Baptism (Q. 69, A. 4, ad 2). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 2] + +Whether It Belongs to Man Alone to Eat This Sacrament Spiritually? + +Objection 1: It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat +this sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. Because on Ps. +77:25: "Man ate the bread of angels," the gloss says: "that is, the +body of Christ, Who is truly the food of angels." But it would not be +so unless the angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the +angels eat Christ spiritually. + +Obj. 2: Further, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: By "this meat +and drink, He would have us to understand the fellowship of His body +and members, which is the Church in His predestinated ones." But not +only men, but also the holy angels belong to that fellowship. +Therefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually. + +Obj. 3: Further, Augustine in his book _De Verbis Domini_ (Serm. +cxlii) says: "Christ is to be eaten spiritually, as He Himself +declares: 'He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in +Me, and I in him.'" But this belongs not only to men, but also to the +holy angels, in whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him. +Consequently, it seems that to eat Christ spiritually is not for men +only, but also for the angels. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: "Eat the +bread" of the altar "spiritually; take innocence to the altar." But +angels do not approach the altar as for the purpose of taking +something therefrom. Therefore the angels do not eat spiritually. + +_I answer that,_ Christ Himself is contained in this sacrament, not +under His proper species, but under the sacramental species. +Consequently there are two ways of eating spiritually. First, as +Christ Himself exists under His proper species, and in this way the +angels eat Christ spiritually inasmuch as they are united with Him in +the enjoyment of perfect charity, and in clear vision (and this is +the bread we hope for in heaven), and not by faith, as we are united +with Him here. + +In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the +sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, while +desiring to receive this sacrament; and this is not merely to eat +Christ spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament; which does +not fall to the lot of the angels. And therefore although the angels +feed on Christ spiritually, yet it does not belong to them to eat +this sacrament spiritually. + +Reply Obj. 1: The receiving of Christ under this sacrament is +ordained to the enjoyment of heaven, as to its end, in the same way +as the angels enjoy it; and since the means are gauged by the end, +hence it is that such eating of Christ whereby we receive Him under +this sacrament, is, as it were, derived from that eating whereby the +angels enjoy Christ in heaven. Consequently, man is said to eat the +"bread of angels," because it belongs to the angels to do so firstly +and principally, since they enjoy Him in his proper species; and +secondly it belongs to men, who receive Christ under this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: Both men and angels belong to the fellowship of His +mystical body; men by faith, and angels by manifest vision. But the +sacraments are proportioned to faith, through which the truth is seen +"through a glass" and "in a dark manner." And therefore, properly +speaking, it does not belong to angels, but to men, to eat this +sacrament spiritually. + +Reply Obj. 3: Christ dwells in men through faith, according to their +present state, but He is in the blessed angels by manifest vision. +Consequently the comparison does not hold, as stated above (ad 2). +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 3] + +Whether the Just Man Alone May Eat Christ Sacramentally? + +Objection 1: It seems that none but the just man may eat Christ +sacramentally. For Augustine says in his book _De Remedio +Penitentiae_ (cf. Tract. in Joan. xxv, n. 12; xxvi, n. 1): "Why make +ready tooth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten . . . For to +believe in Him, this it is, to eat the living bread." But the sinner +does not believe in Him; because he has not living faith, to which it +belongs to believe "in God," as stated above in the Second Part +(II-II, Q. 2, A. 2; Q. 4, A. 5). Therefore the sinner cannot eat +this sacrament, which is the living bread. + +Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament is specially called "the sacrament of +charity," as stated above (Q. 78, A. 3, ad 6). But as unbelievers +lack faith, so all sinners lack charity. Now unbelievers do not seem +to be capable of eating this sacrament, since in the sacramental form +it is called the "Mystery of Faith." Therefore, for like reason, the +sinner cannot eat Christ's body sacramentally. + +Obj. 3: Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the +irrational creature: for it is said of the sinner (Ps. 48:21): "Man +when he was in honor did not understand; he hath been compared to +senseless beasts, and made like to them." But an irrational animal, +such as a mouse or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it +cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore it seems that for +the like reason neither may sinners eat this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on +the words, "that if any man eat of it he may not die," says: "Many +receive from the altar, and by receiving die: whence the Apostle +saith, 'eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.'" But only sinners +die by receiving. Therefore sinners eat the body of Christ +sacramentally, and not the just only. + +_I answer that,_ In the past, some have erred upon this point, saying +that Christ's body is not received sacramentally by sinners; but that +directly the body is touched by the lips of sinners, it ceases to be +under the sacramental species. + +But this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth of this +sacrament, to which truth it belongs that so long as the species +last, Christ's body does not cease to be under them, as stated above +(Q. 76, A. 6, ad 3; Q. 77, A. 8). But the species last so long as the +substance of the bread would remain, if it were there, as was stated +above (Q. 77, A. 4). Now it is clear that the substance of bread +taken by a sinner does not at once cease to be, but it continues +until digested by natural heat: hence Christ's body remains just as +long under the sacramental species when taken by sinners. Hence it +must be said that the sinner, and not merely the just, can eat +Christ's body. + +Reply Obj. 1: Such words and similar expressions are to be understood +of spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners. Consequently, +it is from such expressions being misunderstood that the above error +seems to have arisen, through ignorance of the distinction between +corporeal and spiritual eating. + +Reply Obj. 2: Should even an unbeliever receive the sacramental +species, he would receive Christ's body under the sacrament: hence he +would eat Christ sacramentally, if the word "sacramentally" qualify +the verb on the part of the thing eaten. But if it qualify the verb +on the part of the one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not +eat sacramentally, because he uses what he takes, not as a sacrament, +but as simple food. Unless perchance the unbeliever were to intend to +receive what the Church bestows; without having proper faith +regarding the other articles, or regarding this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the +consecrated host, the substance of Christ's body would not cease to +be under the species, so long as those species remain, and that is, +so long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as if it +were to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity +regarding Christ's body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners +without detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or +dog does not touch Christ's body in its proper species, but only as +to its sacramental species. Some, however, have said that Christ's +body would cease to be there, directly it were touched by a mouse or +a dog; but this again detracts from the truth of the sacrament, as +stated above. None the less it must not be said that the irrational +animal eats the body of Christ sacramentally; since it is incapable +of using it as a sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's body +_accidentally,_ and not sacramentally, just as if anyone not knowing +a host to be consecrated were to consume it. And since no genus is +divided by an accidental difference, therefore this manner of eating +Christ's body is not set down as a third way besides sacramental and +spiritual eating. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 4] + +Whether the Sinner Sins in Receiving Christ's Body Sacramentally? + +Objection 1: It seems that the sinner does not sin in receiving +Christ's body sacramentally, because Christ has no greater dignity +under the sacramental species than under His own. But sinners did not +sin when they touched Christ's body under its proper species; nay, +rather they obtained forgiveness of their sins, as we read in Luke 7 +of the woman who was a sinner; while it is written (Matt. 14:36) that +"as many as touched the hem of His garment were healed." Therefore, +they do not sin, but rather obtain salvation, by receiving the body +of Christ. + +Obj. 2: Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual +medicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery, +according to Matt. 9:12: "They that are in health need not a +physician." Now they that are spiritually sick or infirm are sinners. +Therefore this sacrament can be received by them without sin. + +Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts, since +it contains Christ. But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. ii), the +greatest gifts are those "which no one can abuse." Now no one sins +except by abusing something. Therefore no sinner sins by receiving +this sacrament. + +Obj. 4: Further, as this sacrament is perceived by taste and touch, +so also is it by sight. Consequently, if the sinner sins by receiving +the sacrament, it seems that he would sin by beholding it, which is +manifestly untrue, since the Church exposes this sacrament to be seen +and adored by all. Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating this +sacrament. + +Obj. 5: Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is unconscious +of his sin. Yet such a one does not seem to sin by receiving the body +of Christ, for according to this all who receive it would sin, as +exposing themselves to danger, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:4): +"I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not hereby +justified." Therefore, the sinner, if he receive this sacrament, does +not appear to be guilty of sin. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:29): "He that eateth +and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." +Now the gloss says on this passage: "He eats and drinks unworthily +who is in sin, or who handles it irreverently." Therefore, if anyone, +while in mortal sin, receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation, +by sinning mortally. + +_I answer that,_ In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a +sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a +twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 6): one +which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the +other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's mystical body, +which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives +this sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ, +and incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, +which no one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest +that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty +of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he +profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally. + +Reply Obj. 1: When Christ appeared under His proper species, He did +not give Himself to be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union +with Himself, as He gives Himself to be received in this sacrament. +And therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper species did +not incur the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in +receiving this sacrament. + +Furthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin; +consequently He fittingly allowed Himself to be touched by sinners. +But as soon as the body of sin was taken away by the glory of the +Resurrection, he forbade the woman to touch Him, for her faith in Him +was defective, according to John 20:17: "Do not touch Me, for I am +not yet ascended to My Father," i.e. "in your heart," as Augustine +explains (Tract. cxxi in Joan.). And therefore sinners, who lack +living faith regarding Christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: Every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness; +because the tonic given to those who are recovering from fever would +be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition. So +likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines, given to +take away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a medicine +given to strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to them who +are quit of sin. + +Reply Obj. 3: By the greatest gifts Augustine understands the soul's +virtues, "which no one uses to evil purpose," as though they were +principles of evil. Nevertheless sometimes a man makes a bad use of +them, as objects of an evil use, as is seen in those who are proud of +their virtues. So likewise this sacrament, so far as the sacrament is +concerned, is not the principle of an evil use, but the object +thereof. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "Many receive +Christ's body unworthily; whence we are taught what need there is to +beware of receiving a good thing evilly . . . For behold, of a good +thing, received evilly, evil is wrought": just as on the other hand, +in the Apostle's case, "good was wrought through evil well received," +namely, by bearing patiently the sting of Satan. + +Reply Obj. 4: Christ's body is not received by being seen, but only +its sacrament, because sight does not penetrate to the substance of +Christ's body, but only to the sacramental species, as stated above +(Q. 76, A. 7). But he who eats, receives not only the sacramental +species, but likewise Christ Himself Who is under them. Consequently, +no one is forbidden to behold Christ's body, when once he has +received Christ's sacrament, namely, Baptism: whereas the +non-baptized are not to be allowed even to see this sacrament, as is +clear from Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vii). But only those are to be +allowed to share in the eating who are united with Christ not merely +sacramentally, but likewise really. + +Reply Obj. 5: The fact of a man being unconscious of his sin can come +about in two ways. First of all through his own fault, either because +through ignorance of the law (which ignorance does not excuse him), +he thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as for example +if one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to +be a mortal sin; or because he neglects to examine his conscience, +which is opposed to what the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:28): "Let a man +prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the +chalice." And in this way nevertheless the sinner who receives +Christ's body commits sin, although unconscious thereof, because the +very ignorance is a sin on his part. + +Secondly, it may happen without fault on his part, as, for instance, +when he has sorrowed over his sin, but is not sufficiently contrite: +and in such a case he does not sin in receiving the body of Christ, +because a man cannot know for certain whether he is truly contrite. +It suffices, however, if he find in himself the marks of contrition, +for instance, if he "grieve over past sins," and "propose to avoid +them in the future" [*Cf. Rule of Augustine]. But if he be ignorant +that what he did was a sinful act, through ignorance of the fact, +which excuses, for instance, if a man approach a woman whom he +believed to be his wife whereas she was not, he is not to be called a +sinner on that account; in the same way if he has utterly forgotten +his sin, general contrition suffices for blotting it out, as will be +said hereafter (Suppl., Q. 2, A. 3, ad 2); hence he is no longer to +be called a sinner. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 5] + +Whether to Approach This Sacrament with Consciousness of Sin Is the +Gravest of All Sins? + +Objection 1: It seems that to approach this sacrament with +consciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle +says (1 Cor. 11:27): "Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the +chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of +the blood of the Lord": upon which the gloss observes: "He shall be +punished as though he slew Christ." But the sin of them who slew +Christ seems to have been most grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a +man approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears to +be the gravest. + +Obj. 2: Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): "What hast thou to +do with women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the altar?" +[*The remaining part of the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say, +priest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son of God with the same +lips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? "Judas, +thou betrayest the Son of Man with a kiss!" And thus it appears that +the fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, whose +sin was most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver +than fornication, especially the sin of unbelief. Therefore the sin +of every sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all. + +Obj. 3: Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God than +corporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud or a +cess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he +sins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which is spiritual +uncleanness, upon his soul. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says on the words, "If I had not come, +and had not spoken to them, they would be without sin" (Tract. lxxxix +in Joan.), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, "in +which all sins are comprised," and so the greatest of all sins +appears to be, not this, but rather the sin of unbelief. + +_I answer that,_ As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 73, AA. 3, 6; +II-II, Q. 73, A. 3), one sin can be said to be graver than another in +two ways: first of all essentially, secondly accidentally. +Essentially, in regard to its species, which is taken from its +object: and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is +committed is greater. And since Christ's Godhead is greater than His +humanity, and His humanity greater than the sacraments of His +humanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are +committed against the Godhead, such as unbelief and blasphemy. The +second degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed +against His humanity: hence it is written (Matt. 12:32): "Whosoever +shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; +but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be +forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come." In the +third place come sins committed against the sacraments, which belong +to Christ's humanity; and after these are the other sins committed +against mere creatures. + +Accidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's +part. For example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of +weakness is lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure +knowledge; and the same reason holds good of other circumstances. And +according to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in +them who from actual contempt and with consciousness of sin approach +this sacrament: but in others it is less grave; for instance, in +those who from fear of their sin being discovered, approach this +sacrament with consciousness of sin. + +So, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than +many others, yet it is not the greatest of all. + +Reply Obj. 1: The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the +sin of them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is +committed against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of +the crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver, first +of all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own +species, while this sin is against it under sacramental species; +secondly, because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ, +while this does not. + +Reply Obj. 2: The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body is +likened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin, +because each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as +to the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And this +resemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to +fornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against the +charity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the +more according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of +fornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament, +because thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh, +which is a hindrance to the fervor of love required for this +sacrament. + +However, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the +hindrance to its fervor. Hence the sin of unbelief, which +fundamentally severs a man from the unity of the Church, simply +speaking, makes him to be utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament; +because it is the sacrament of the Church's unity, as stated above +(Q. 61, A. 2). Hence the unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins +more grievously than the believer who is in sin; and shows greater +contempt towards Christ Who is in the sacrament, especially if he +does not believe Christ to be truly in this sacrament; because, so +far as lies in him, he lessens the holiness of the sacrament, and the +power of Christ acting in it, and this is to despise the sacrament in +itself. But the believer who receives the sacrament with +consciousness of sin, by receiving it unworthily despises the +sacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence the Apostle (1 Cor. +11:29) in assigning the cause of this sin, says, "not discerning the +body of the Lord," that is, not distinguishing it from other food: +and this is what he does who disbelieves Christ's presence in this +sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: The man who would throw this sacrament into the mire +would be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the +sacrament fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he +would intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving +Christ's body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the +sinner is capable of grace; hence he is more capable of receiving +this sacrament than any irrational creature. Hence he would make a +most revolting use of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to +eat, or fling it in the mire to be trodden upon. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 6] + +Whether the Priest Ought to Deny the Body of Christ to the Sinner +Seeking It? + +Objection 1: It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ +to the sinner seeking it. For Christ's precept is not to be set aside +for the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone. +But (Matt. 7:6) our Lord gave this command: "Give not that which is +holy to dogs." Now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to +give this sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of +avoiding scandal or infamy should this sacrament be administered to +the sinner who asks for it. + +Obj. 2: Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it +seems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an +unconsecrated host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by +receiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that the course +to be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be +exposed to infamy, or that an unconsecrated host be given to him. + +Obj. 3: Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those +suspected of crime in order to put them to proof. Because we read in +the Decretals: "It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in +monasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the brethren +have to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall +celebrate Mass, or someone else deputed by him, in the presence of +the community; and so, when the Mass is over, all shall communicate +under these words: 'May the body of Christ prove thee today.'" And +further on: "If any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest, for +each charge he must say Mass and communicate, and show that he is +innocent of each act imputed." But secret sinners must not be +disclosed, for, once the blush of shame is set aside, they will +indulge the more in sin, as Augustine says (De Verbis. Dom.; cf. +Serm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body is not to be given to +occult sinners, even if they ask for it. + +_On the contrary,_ on Ps. 21:30: "All the fat ones of the earth have +eaten and have adored," Augustine says: "Let not the dispenser hinder +the fat ones of the earth," i.e. sinners, "from eating at the table +of the Lord." + +_I answer that,_ A distinction must be made among sinners: some are +secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as +public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil +men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy +Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. +Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): "You were so kind as to +consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, and that +magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as +to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such +with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the +Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church's modesty +and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion." + +But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion +should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every +Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the +Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some +open cause. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, "If he who is called a brother +among you," etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any +person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been +named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." +Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately +warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from +approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins +and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and +reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, +especially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of +Carthage (Can. xxxv) we read: "Reconciliation is not to be denied to +stage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates, +after their conversion to God." + +Reply Obj. 1: Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is, +to notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be published, but +are to be left to the Divine judgment. + +Reply Obj. 2: Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin +mortally in taking the body of Christ, rather than be defamed, +nevertheless for the priest administering the body of Christ it is +worse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner +than that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to +commit mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin. Hence +Augustine says (Quaest. super Gen. 42): "It is a most dangerous +exchange, for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil." +But the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach the +Lord's table unworthily. + +Yet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a +consecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far as he is +concerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant, +commit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host; because, +as Augustine says on Ps. 98:5: "Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except +he first adore it." Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss., +Ch. De Homine) it is said: "Although he who reputes himself unworthy +of the Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if +he receive; still he seems to offend more deeply who deceitfully has +presumed to simulate it." + +Reply Obj. 3: Those decrees were abolished by contrary enactments of +Roman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen V writes as follows: "The Sacred +Canons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any person by +trial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs to our +government to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means of +confession made spontaneously, or by proof of witnesses: but private +and unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts +of the sons of men." And the same is found in the Decretals (Extra, +De Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in all such practices there +seems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done +without sin. And it would seem graver still if anyone were to incur +judgment of death through this sacrament, which was instituted as a +means of salvation. Consequently, the body of Christ should never be +given to anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 7] + +Whether the Seminal Loss That Occurs During Sleep Hinders Anyone from +Receiving This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from +receiving the body of Christ: because no one is prevented from +receiving the body of Christ except on account of sin. But seminal +loss happens without sin: for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that +"the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present +itself to the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter be unable to +distinguish the image from the reality, and is moved carnally and +with the result that usually follows such motions; and there is as +little sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking +about such things." Consequently these motions do not prevent one +from receiving this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine, Bishop of the +English (Regist. xi): "Those who pay the debt of marriage not from +lust, but from desire to have children, should be left to their own +judgment, as to whether they should enter the church and receive the +mystery of our Lord's body, after such intercourse: because they +ought not to be forbidden from receiving it, since they have passed +through the fire unscorched." + +From this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake, if it be +without sin, is no hindrance to receiving the body of Christ. +Consequently, much less is it in the case of one asleep. + +Obj. 3: Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring with them +only bodily uncleanness. But there are other bodily defilements which +according to the Law forbade entrance into the holy places, yet which +under the New Law do not prevent receiving this sacrament: as, for +instance, in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her +periods, or suffering from issue of blood, as Gregory writes to +Augustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi). Therefore it seems +that neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man from +receiving this sacrament. + +Obj. 4: Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the +sacrament, nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even supposing +that seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin, whether of +intemperance, or of bad thoughts, for the most part such sin is +venial; and if occasionally it be mortal, a man may repent of it by +morning and confess it. Consequently, it seems that he ought not to +be prevented from receiving this sacrament. + +Obj. 5: Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment is greater than +a sin against the Sixth. But if a man dream that he has broken the +Fifth or Seventh or any other Commandment, he is not on that account +debarred from receiving this sacrament. Therefore it seems that much +less should he be debarred through defilement resulting from a dream +against the Sixth Commandment. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Lev. 15:16): "The man from whom the +seed of copulation goeth out . . . shall be unclean until evening." +But for the unclean there is no approaching to the sacraments. +Therefore, it seems that owing to such defilement of the flesh a man +is debarred from taking this which is the greatest of the sacraments. + +_I answer that,_ There are two things to be weighed regarding the +aforesaid movements: one on account of which they necessarily prevent +a man from receiving this sacrament; the other, on account of which +they do so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety. + +Mortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this +sacrament: and although these movements during sleep, considered in +themselves, cannot be a mortal sin, nevertheless, owing to their +cause, they [sometimes] have mortal sin connected with them; which +cause, therefore, must be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an +external spiritual cause, viz. the deception of the demons, who can +stir up phantasms, as was stated in the First Part (I, Q. 111, A. 3), +through the apparition of which, these movements occasionally follow. +Sometimes they are due to an internal spiritual cause, such as +previous thoughts. At other times they arise from some internal +corporeal cause, as from abundance or weakness of nature, or even +from surfeit of meat or drink. Now every one of these three causes +can be without sin at all, or else with venial sin, or with mortal +sin. If it be without sin, or with venial sin, it does not +necessarily prevent the receiving of this sacrament, so as to make a +man guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: but should it be with +mortal sin, it prevents it of necessity. + +For such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's +not striving to receive fervently; and this can be either a mortal or +a venial sin. At other times it is due to malice alone on the part of +the demons who wish to keep men from receiving this sacrament. So we +read in the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii) that +when a certain one always suffered thus on those feast-days on which +he had to receive Communion, his superiors, discovering that there +was no fault on his part, ruled that he was not to refrain from +communicating on that account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased. + +In like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any +sin whatever, as when one has to think of such things on account of +lecturing or debating; and if it be done without concupiscence and +delectation, the thoughts will not be unclean but honest; and yet +defilement can come of such thoughts, as is clear from the authority +of Augustine (Obj. 1). At other times such thoughts come of +concupiscence and delectation, and should there be consent, it will +be a mortal sin: otherwise it will be a venial sin. + +In the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin, as when +it arises from bodily debility, and hence some individuals suffer +seminal loss without sin even in their wakeful hours; or it can come +from the abundance of nature: for, just as blood can flow without +sin, so also can the semen which is superfluity of the blood, +according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i). But occasionally +it is with sin, as when it is due to excess of food or drink. And +this also can be either venial or mortal sin; although more +frequently the sin is mortal in the case of evil thoughts on account +of the proneness to consent, rather than in the case of consumption +of food and drink. Hence Gregory, writing to Augustine, Bishop of the +English (Regist. xi), says that one ought to refrain from Communion +when this arises from evil thoughts, but not when it arises from +excess of food or drink, especially if necessity call for Communion. +So, then, one must judge from its cause whether such bodily +defilement of necessity hinders the receiving of this sacrament. + +At the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion on two +accounts. The first of these is always verified, viz. the bodily +defilement, with which, out of reverence for the sacrament, it is +unbecoming to approach the altar (and hence those who wish to touch +any sacred object, wash their hands): except perchance such +uncleanness be perpetual or of long standing, such as leprosy or +issue of blood, or anything else of the kind. The other reason is the +mental distraction which follows after the aforesaid movements, +especially when they take place with unclean imaginings. Now this +obstacle, which arises from a sense of decency, can be set aside +owing to any necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi): "As when +perchance either a festival day calls for it, or necessity compels +one to exercise the ministry because there is no other priest at +hand." + +Reply Obj. 1: A person is hindered necessarily, only by mortal sin, +from receiving this sacrament: but from a sense of decency one may be +hindered through other causes, as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 2: Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin, (for +instance, if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring, or of +paying the marriage debt), does not prevent the receiving of this +sacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question +which happen without sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the +defilement to the body and distraction to the mind. On this account +Jerome expresses himself in the following terms in his commentary on +Matthew (Epist. xxviii, among St. Jerome's works): "If the loaves of +Proposition might not be eaten by them who had known their wives +carnally, how much less may this bread which has come down from +heaven be defiled and touched by them who shortly before have been in +conjugal embraces? It is not that we condemn marriages, but that at +the time when we are going to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not +to indulge in carnal acts." But since this is to be understood in the +sense of decency, and not of necessity, Gregory says that such a +person "is to be left to his own judgment." "But if," as Gregory says +(Regist. xi), "it be not desire of begetting offspring, but lust that +prevails," then such a one should be forbidden to approach this +sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above to +Augustine, Bishop of the English, in the Old Testament some persons +were termed polluted figuratively, which the people of the New Law +understand spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if perpetual +or of long standing, do not hinder the receiving of this saving +sacrament, as they prevented approaching those figurative sacraments; +but if they pass speedily, like the uncleanness of the aforesaid +movements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder the receiving +of this sacrament during the day on which it happens. Hence it is +written (Deut. 23:10): "If there be among you any man, that is +defiled in a dream by night, he shall go forth out of the camp; and +he shall not return before he be washed with water in the evening." + +Reply Obj. 4: Although the stain of guilt be taken away by contrition +and confession nevertheless the bodily defilement is not taken away, +nor the mental distraction which follows therefrom. + +Reply Obj. 5: To dream of homicide brings no bodily uncleanness, nor +such distraction of mind as fornication, on account of its intense +delectation; still if the dream of homicide comes of a cause sinful +in itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing to its cause it +hinders the receiving of this sacrament. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 8] + +Whether Food or Drink Taken Beforehand Hinders the Receiving of This +Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that food or drink taken beforehand does not +hinder the receiving of this sacrament. For this sacrament was +instituted by our Lord at the supper. But when the supper was ended +our Lord gave the sacrament to His disciples, as is evident from Luke +22:20, and from 1 Cor. 11:25. Therefore it seems that we ought to +take this sacrament after receiving other food. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 11:33): "When you come +together to eat," namely, the Lord's body, "wait for one another; if +any man be hungry, let him eat at home": and thus it seems that after +eating at home a man may eat Christ's body in the Church. + +Obj. 3: Further, we read in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can. +xxix): "Let the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men who +are fasting, with the exception of the anniversary day on which the +Lord's Supper is celebrated." Therefore, at least on that day, one +may receive the body of Christ after partaking of other food. + +Obj. 4: Further, the taking of water or medicine, or of any other +food or drink in very slight quantity, or of the remains of food +continuing in the mouth, neither breaks the Church's fast, nor takes +away the sobriety required for reverently receiving this sacrament. +Consequently, one is not prevented by the above things from receiving +this sacrament. + +Obj. 5: Further, some eat and drink late at night, and possibly after +passing a sleepless night receive the sacred mysteries in the morning +when the food is not digested. But it would savor more of moderation +if a man were to eat a little in the morning and afterwards receive +this sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is occasionally +a longer interval of time. Consequently, it seems that such taking of +food beforehand does not keep one from this sacrament. + +Obj. 6: Further, there is no less reverence due to this sacrament +after receiving it, than before. But one may take food and drink +after receiving the sacrament. Therefore one may do so before +receiving it. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv): "It +has pleased the Holy Ghost that, out of honor for this great +sacrament, the Lord's body should enter the mouth of a Christian +before other foods." + +_I answer that,_ A thing may prevent the receiving of this sacrament +in two ways: first of all in itself, like mortal sin, which is +repugnant to what is signified by this sacrament, as stated above (A. +4): secondly, on account of the Church's prohibition; and thus a man +is prevented from taking this sacrament after receiving food or +drink, for three reasons. First, as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., +Ep. liv), "out of respect for this sacrament," so that it may enter +into a mouth not yet contaminated by any food or drink. Secondly, +because of its signification, i.e. to give us to understand that +Christ, Who is the reality of this sacrament, and His charity, ought +to be first of all established in our hearts, according to Matt. +6:33: "Seek first the kingdom of God." Thirdly, on account of the +danger of vomiting and intemperance, which sometimes arise from +over-indulging in food, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:21): "One, +indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk." + +Nevertheless the sick are exempted from this general rule, for they +should be given Communion at once, even after food, should there be +any doubt as to their danger, lest they die without Communion, +because necessity has no law. Hence it is said in the Canon de +Consecratione: "Let the priest at once take Communion to the sick +person, lest he die without Communion." + +Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says in the same book, "the fact that our +Lord gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why the +brethren should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake +of it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle +reproves and corrects. For our Saviour, in order the more strongly to +commend the depth of this mystery, wished to fix it closely in the +hearts and memories of the disciples; and on that account He gave no +command for it to be received in that order, leaving this to the +apostles, to whom He was about to entrust the government of the +churches." + +Reply Obj. 2: The text quoted is thus paraphrased by the gloss: "If +any man be hungry and loath to await the rest, let him partake of his +food at home, that is, let him fill himself with earthly bread, +without partaking of the Eucharist afterwards." + +Reply Obj. 3: The wording of this decree is in accordance with the +former custom observed by some of receiving the body of Christ on +that day after breaking their fast, so as to represent the Lord's +supper. But this is now abrogated, because as Augustine says (Resp. +ad Januar., Ep. liv), it is customary throughout the whole world for +Christ's body to be received before breaking the fast. + +Reply Obj. 4: As stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 147, A. 6, ad +2), there are two kinds of fast. First, there is the natural fast, +which implies privation of everything taken before-hand by way of +food or drink: and such fast is required for this sacrament for the +reasons given above. And therefore it is never lawful to take this +sacrament after taking water, or other food or drink, or even +medicine, no matter how small the quantity be. Nor does it matter +whether it nourishes or not, whether it be taken by itself or with +other things, provided it be taken by way of food or drink. But the +remains of food left in the mouth, if swallowed accidentally, do not +hinder receiving this sacrament, because they are swallowed not by +way of food but by way of saliva. The same holds good of the +unavoidable remains of the water or wine wherewith the mouth is +rinsed, provided they be not swallowed in great quantity, but mixed +with saliva. + +Secondly, there is the fast of the Church, instituted for afflicting +the body: and this fast is not hindered by the things mentioned (in +the objection), because they do not give much nourishment, but are +taken rather as an alterative. + +Reply Obj. 5: That this sacrament ought to enter into the mouth of a +Christian before any other food must not be understood absolutely of +all time, otherwise he who had once eaten or drunk could never +afterwards take this sacrament: but it must be understood of the same +day; and although the beginning of the day varies according to +different systems of reckoning (for some begin their day at noon, +some at sunset, others at midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman +Church begins it at midnight. Consequently, if any person takes +anything by way of food or drink after midnight, he may not receive +this sacrament on that day; but he can do so if the food was taken +before midnight. Nor does it matter, so far as the precept is +concerned, whether he has slept after taking food or drink, or +whether he has digested it; but it does matter as to the mental +disturbance which one suffers from want of sleep or from indigestion, +for, if the mind be much disturbed, one becomes unfit for receiving +this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 6: The greatest devotion is called for at the moment of +receiving this sacrament, because it is then that the effect of the +sacrament is bestowed, and such devotion is hindered more by what +goes before it than by what comes after it. And therefore it was +ordained that men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather +than after. Nevertheless there ought to be some interval between +receiving this sacrament and taking other food. Consequently, both +the Postcommunion prayer of thanksgiving is said in the Mass, and the +communicants say their own private prayers. + +However, according to the ancient Canons, the following ordination was +made by Pope Clement I, (Ep. ii), "If the Lord's portion be eaten in +the morning, the ministers who have taken it shall fast until the +sixth hour, and if they take it at the third or fourth hour, they +shall fast until evening." For in olden times, the priest celebrated +Mass less frequently, and with greater preparation: but now, because +the sacred mysteries have to be celebrated oftener, the same could not +be easily observed, and so it has been abrogated by contrary custom. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 9] + +Whether Those Who Have Not the Use of Reason Ought to Receive This +Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that those who have not the use of reason ought +not to receive this sacrament. For it is required that man should +approach this sacrament with devotion and previous self-examination, +according to 1 Cor. 11:28: "Let a man prove himself, and so let him +eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice." But this is not +possible for those who are devoid of reason. Therefore this sacrament +should not be given to them. + +Obj. 2: Further, among those who have not the use of reason are the +possessed, who are called energumens. But such persons are kept from +even beholding this sacrament, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. +iii). Therefore this sacrament ought not to be given to those who +have not the use of reason. + +Obj. 3: Further, among those that lack the use of reason are +children, the most innocent of all. But this sacrament is not given +to children. Therefore much less should it be given to others +deprived of the use of reason. + +_On the contrary,_ We read in the First Council of Orange, (Canon +13); and the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "All +things that pertain to piety are to be given to the insane": and +consequently, since this is the "sacrament of piety," it must be +given to them. + +_I answer that,_ Men are said to be devoid of reason in two ways. +First, when they are feeble-minded, as a man who sees dimly is said +not to see: and since such persons can conceive some devotion towards +this sacrament, it is not to be denied them. + +In another way men are said not to possess fully the use of reason. +Either, then, they never had the use of reason, and have remained so +from birth; and in that case this sacrament is not to be given to +them, because in no way has there been any preceding devotion towards +the sacrament: or else, they were not always devoid of reason, and +then, if when they formerly had their wits they showed devotion +towards this sacrament, it ought to be given to them in the hour of +death; unless danger be feared of vomiting or spitting it out. Hence +we read in the acts of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Canon 76). and +the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): "If a sick man +ask to receive the sacrament of Penance; and if, when the priest who +has been sent for comes to him, he be so weak as to be unable to +speak, or becomes delirious, let them, who heard him ask, bear +witness, and let him receive the sacrament of Penance. then if it be +thought that he is going to die shortly, let him be reconciled by +imposition of hands, and let the Eucharist be placed in his mouth." + +Reply Obj. 1: Those lacking the use of reason can have devotion +towards the sacrament; actual devotion in some cases, and past in +others. + +Reply Obj. 2: Dionysius is speaking there of energumens who are not +yet baptized, in whom the devil's power is not yet extinct, since it +thrives in them through the presence of original sin. But as to +baptized persons who are vexed in body by unclean spirits, the same +reason holds good of them as of others who are demented. Hence +Cassian says (Collat. vii): "We do not remember the most Holy +Communion to have ever been denied by our elders to them who are +vexed by unclean spirits." + +Reply Obj. 3: The same reason holds good of newly born children as of +the insane who never have had the use of reason: consequently, the +sacred mysteries are not to be given to them. Although certain Greeks +do the contrary, because Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that Holy +Communion is to be given to them who are baptized; not understanding +that Dionysius is speaking there of the Baptism of adults. Nor do +they suffer any loss of life from the fact of our Lord saying (John +6:54), "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His +blood, you shall not have life in you"; because, as Augustine writes +to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, Comment. in 1 Cor. 10:17), "then every one +of the faithful becomes a partaker," i.e. spiritually, "of the body +and blood of the Lord, when he is made a member of Christ's body in +Baptism." But when children once begin to have some use of reason so +as to be able to conceive some devotion for the sacrament, then it +can be given to them. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 10] + +Whether It Is Lawful to Receive This Sacrament Daily? + +Objection 1: It does not appear to be lawful to receive this +sacrament daily, because, as Baptism shows forth our Lord's Passion, +so also does this sacrament. Now one may not be baptized several +times, but only once, because "Christ died once" only "for our sins," +according to 1 Pet. 3:18. Therefore, it seems unlawful to receive +this sacrament daily. + +Obj. 2: Further, the reality ought to answer to the figure. But the +Paschal Lamb, which was the chief figure of this sacrament, as was +said above (Q. 73, A. 9) was eaten only once in the year; while the +Church once a year commemorates Christ's Passion, of which this +sacrament is the memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to +receive this sacrament not daily, but only once in the year. + +Obj. 3: Further, the greatest reverence is due to this sacrament as +containing Christ. But it is a token of reverence to refrain from +receiving this sacrament; hence the Centurion is praised for saying +(Matt. 8:8), "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my +roof"; also Peter, for saying (Luke 5:8), "Depart from me, for I am a +sinful man, O Lord." Therefore, it is not praiseworthy for a man to +receive this sacrament daily. + +Obj. 4: Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this +sacrament frequently, then the oftener it were taken the more +praise-worthy it would be. But there would be greater frequency if +one were to receive it several times daily; and yet this is not the +custom of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to +receive it daily. + +Obj. 5: Further, the Church by her statutes intends to promote the +welfare of the faithful. But the Church's statute only requires +Communion once a year; hence it is enacted (Extra, De Poenit. et +Remiss. xii): "Let every person of either sex devoutly receive the +sacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter; unless by the advice +of his parish priest, and for some reasonable cause, he considers he +ought to refrain from receiving for a time." Consequently, it is not +praiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxviii): +"This is our daily bread; take it daily, that it may profit thee +daily." + +_I answer that,_ There are two things to be considered regarding the +use of this sacrament. The first is on the part of the sacrament +itself, the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it +is profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily. +Hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If, whenever Christ's blood is +shed, it is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should +receive it often: I need a frequent remedy." The second thing to be +considered is on the part of the recipient, who is required to +approach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion. +Consequently, if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every +day, he will do well to receive it daily. Hence, Augustine after +saying, "Receive daily, that it may profit thee daily," adds: "So +live, as to deserve to receive it daily." But because many persons +are lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks both +spiritual and corporal from which they suffer, it is not expedient +for all to approach this sacrament every day; but they should do so +as often as they find themselves properly disposed. Hence it is said +in De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: "I neither praise nor blame daily +reception of the Eucharist." + +Reply Obj. 1: In the sacrament of Baptism a man is conformed to +Christ's death, by receiving His character within him. And therefore, +as Christ died but once, so a man ought to be baptized but once. But +a man does not receive Christ's character in this sacrament; He +receives Christ Himself, Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it is +written (Heb. 10:14): "By one oblation He hath perfected for ever +them that are sanctified." Consequently, since man has daily need of +Christ's health-giving virtue, he may commendably receive this +sacrament every day. + +And since Baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration, therefore, +as a man is born naturally but once, so ought he by Baptism to be +reborn spiritually but once, as Augustine says (Tract. xi in Joan.), +commenting on John 3:4, "How can a man be born again, when he is +grown old?" But this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as +bodily food is taken every day, so is it a good thing to receive this +sacrament every day. Hence it is that our Lord (Luke 11:3), teaches +us to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread": in explaining which +words Augustine observes (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxviii): "If you +receive it," i.e. this sacrament, every day, "every day is today for +thee, and Christ rises again every day in thee, for when Christ +riseth it is today." + +Reply Obj. 2: The Paschal Lamb was the figure of this sacrament +chiefly as to Christ's Passion represented therein; and therefore it +was partaken of once a year only, since Christ died but once. And on +this account the Church celebrates once a year the remembrance of +Christ's Passion. But in this sacrament the memorial of His Passion +is given by way of food which is partaken of daily; and therefore in +this respect it is represented by the manna which was given daily to +the people in the desert. + +Reply Obj. 3: Reverence for this sacrament consists in fear +associated with love; consequently reverential fear of God is called +filial fear, as was said in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 67, A. 4, ad 2; +II-II, Q. 19, AA. 9, 11, 12); because the desire of receiving arises +from love, while the humility of reverence springs from fear. +Consequently, each of these belongs to the reverence due to this +sacrament; both as to receiving it daily, and as to refraining from +it sometimes. Hence Augustine says (Ep. liv): "If one says that the +Eucharist should not be received daily, while another maintains the +contrary, let each one do as according to his devotion he thinketh +right; for Zaccheus and the Centurion did not contradict one another +while the one received the Lord with joy, whereas the other said: +'Lord I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof'; since +both honored our Saviour, though not in the same way." But love and +hope, whereunto the Scriptures constantly urge us, are preferable to +fear. Hence, too, when Peter had said, "Depart from me, for I am a +sinful man, O Lord," Jesus answered: "Fear not." + +Reply Obj. 4: Because our Lord said (Luke 11:3), "Give us this day +our daily bread," we are not on that account to communicate several +times daily, for, by one daily communion the unity of Christ's +Passion is set forth. + +Reply Obj. 5: Various statutes have emanated according to the various +ages of the Church. In the primitive Church, when the devotion of the +Christian faith was more flourishing, it was enacted that the +faithful should communicate daily: hence Pope Anaclete says (Ep. i): +"When the consecration is finished, let all communicate who do not +wish to cut themselves off from the Church; for so the apostles have +ordained, and the holy Roman Church holds." Later on, when the fervor +of faith relaxed, Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) gave +permission "that all should communicate, if not more frequently, at +least three times in the year, namely, at Easter, Pentecost, and +Christmas." Pope Soter likewise (Second Council of Chalon, Canon +xlvii) declares that Communion should be received "on Holy Thursday," +as is set forth in the Decretals (De Consecratione, dist. 2). Later +on, when "iniquity abounded and charity grew cold" (Matt. 24:12), +Pope Innocent III commanded that the faithful should communicate "at +least once a year," namely, "at Easter." However, in De Eccles. +Dogmat. xxiii, the faithful are counseled "to communicate on all +Sundays." +_______________________ + +ELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 11] + +Whether It Is Lawful to Abstain Altogether from Communion? + +Objection 1: It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from +Communion. Because the Centurion is praised for saying (Matt. 8:8): +"Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof"; and +he who deems that he ought to refrain entirely from Communion can be +compared to the Centurion, as stated above (A. 10, ad 3). Therefore, +since we do not read of Christ entering his house, it seems to be +lawful for any individual to abstain from Communion his whole life +long. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is lawful for anyone to refrain from what is not +of necessity for salvation. But this sacrament is not of necessity +for salvation, as was stated above (Q. 73, A. 3). Therefore it is +permissible to abstain from Communion altogether. + +Obj. 3: Further, sinners are not bound to go to Communion: hence Pope +Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) after saying, "Let all +communicate thrice each year," adds: "Except those who are hindered +by grievous crimes." Consequently, if those who are not in the state +of sin are bound to go to Communion, it seems that sinners are better +off than good people, which is unfitting. Therefore, it seems lawful +even for the godly to refrain from Communion. + +_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 6:54): "Except ye eat the +flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life +in you." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), there are two ways of +receiving this sacrament namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Now +it is clear that all are bound to eat it at least spiritually, +because this is to be incorporated in Christ, as was said above (Q. +73, A. 3, ad 1). Now spiritual eating comprises the desire or +yearning for receiving this sacrament, as was said above (A. 1, ad 3, +A. 2). Therefore, a man cannot be saved without desiring to receive +this sacrament. + +Now a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when opportunity +presented itself. Consequently, it is evident that a man is bound to +receive this sacrament, not only by virtue of the Church's precept, +but also by virtue of the Lord's command (Luke 22:19): "Do this in +memory of Me." But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times +for fulfilling Christ's command. + +Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory says: "He is truly humble, who is not +obstinate in rejecting what is commanded for his good." Consequently, +humility is not praiseworthy if anyone abstains altogether from +Communion against the precept of Christ and the Church. Again the +Centurion was not commanded to receive Christ into his house. + +Reply Obj. 2: This sacrament is said not to be as necessary as +Baptism, with regard to children, who can be saved without the +Eucharist, but not without the sacrament of Baptism: both, however, +are of necessity with regard to adults. + +Reply Obj. 3: Sinners suffer great loss in being kept back from +receiving this sacrament, so that they are not better off on that +account; and although while continuing in their sins they are not on +that account excused from transgressing the precept, nevertheless, as +Pope Innocent III says, penitents, "who refrain on the advice of +their priest," are excused. +_______________________ + +TWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 12] + +Whether It Is Lawful to Receive the Body of Christ Without the Blood? + +Objection 1: It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ without +the blood. For Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): "We have +learned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred +body, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I know not for +what superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either +receive the entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the +sacrament altogether." Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body +of Christ without His blood. + +Obj. 2: Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood +are required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated above +(Q. 73, A. 2; Q. 76, A. 2, ad 1). Consequently, if the body be taken +without the blood, it will be an imperfect sacrament, which seems to +savor of sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De Consecr. ii), +"because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen +without a great sacrilege." + +Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our Lord's +Passion, as stated above (Q. 73, AA. 4, 5; Q. 74, A. 1), and is +received for the health of soul. But the Passion is expressed in the +blood rather than in the body; moreover, as stated above (Q. 74, A. +1), the blood is offered for the health of the soul. Consequently, +one ought to refrain from receiving the body rather than the blood. +Therefore, such as approach this sacrament ought not to take Christ's +body without His blood. + +_On the contrary,_ It is the custom of many churches for the body of +Christ to be given to the communicant without His blood. + +_I answer that,_ Two points should be observed regarding the use of +this sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the +part of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for +both the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of +the sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the +priest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought +on no account to receive Christ's body without the blood. + +But on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution +are called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a +mystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood, +for, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because +the multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are +old, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to +observe due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a +prudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to +the reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone. + +Reply Obj. 1: Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, as they +consecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communicate in the entire +sacrament. For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo, "What +kind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer is known +to have a share?" + +Reply Obj. 2: The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in the +use of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter. And hence +there is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament; if +the people receive the body without the blood, provided that the +priest who consecrates receive both. + +Reply Obj. 3: Our Lord's Passion is represented in the very +consecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be +consecrated without the blood. But the body can be received by the +people without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament. +Because the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of +all; and Christ is fully contained under either species, as was shown +above (Q. 76, A. 2). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 81 + +OF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT AT ITS INSTITUTION +(In Four Articles) + +We have now to consider the use which Christ made of this sacrament +at its institution; under which heading there are four points of +inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood? + +(2) Whether He gave it to Judas? + +(3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible +or impassible? + +(4) What would have been the condition of Christ's body under this +sacrament, if it had been reserved or consecrated during the three +days He lay dead? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 81, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Received His Own Body and Blood? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and +blood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ's doings +or sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred +Scripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own +body or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a +fact. + +Obj. 2: Further, nothing can be within itself except perchance by +reason of its parts, for instance, as one part is in another, as is +stated in _Phys._ iv. But what is eaten and drunk is in the eater and +drinker. Therefore, since the entire Christ is under each species of +the sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received this +sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, namely, +spiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable for +Christ, as He derived no benefit from the sacrament; and in +consequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect without the +spiritual, as was observed above (Q. 80, A. 1). Consequently, in no +way did Christ partake of this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Jerome says (Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), "The Lord Jesus +Christ, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what +is eaten." + +_I answer that,_ Some have said that Christ during the supper gave +His body and blood to His disciples, but did not partake of it +Himself. But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was the +first to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed +first to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in +Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." Hence He first of all +took His own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to be taken by +the disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth 3:7, "When he had eaten +and drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He gave to +the disciples the sacrament of His body and blood. Hence, 'because +the children partook [*Vulg.: 'are partakers' (Heb. 2:14)] of His +flesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.'" + +Reply Obj. 1: We read in the Gospels how Christ "took the bread . . . +and the chalice"; but it is not to be understood that He took them +merely into His hands, as some say, but that He took them in the same +way as He gave them to others to take. Hence when He said to the +disciples, "Take ye and eat," and again, "Take ye and drink," it is +to be understood that He Himself, in taking it, both ate and drank. +Hence some have composed this rhyme: + +"The King at supper sits, +The twelve as guests He greets, +Clasping Himself in His hands, +The food Himself now eats." + +Reply Obj. 2: As was said above (Q. 76, A. 5), Christ as contained +under this sacrament stands in relation to place, not according to +His own dimensions, but according to the dimensions of the +sacramental species; so that Christ is Himself in every place where +those species are. And because the species were able to be both in +the hands and the mouth of Christ, the entire Christ could be in both +His hands and mouth. Now this could not come to pass were His +relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions. + +Reply Obj. 3: As was stated above (Q. 79, A. 1, ad 2), the effect of +this sacrament is not merely an increase of habitual grace, but +furthermore a certain actual delectation of spiritual sweetness. But +although grace was not increased in Christ through His receiving this +sacrament, yet He had a certain spiritual delectation from the new +institution of this sacrament. Hence He Himself said (Luke 22:15): +"With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you," which words +Eusebius explains of the new mystery of the New Testament, which He +gave to the disciples. And therefore He ate it both spiritually and +sacramentally, inasmuch as He received His own body under the +sacrament which sacrament of His own body He both understood and +prepared; yet differently from others who partake of it both +sacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase of +grace, and they have need of the sacramental signs for perceiving its +truth. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 81, Art. 2] + +Whether Christ Gave His Body to Judas? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ did not give His body to Judas. +Because, as we read (Matt. 26:29), our Lord, after giving His body +and blood to the disciples, said to them: "I will not drink from +henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall +drink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father." From this it +appears that those to whom He had given His body and blood were to +drink of it again with Him. But Judas did not drink of it afterwards +with Him. Therefore he did not receive Christ's body and blood with +the other disciples. + +Obj. 2: Further, what the Lord commanded, He Himself fulfilled, as is +said in Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." But He gave the +command (Matt. 7:6): "Give not that which is holy to dogs." +Therefore, knowing Judas to be a sinner, seemingly He did not give +him His body and blood. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is distinctly related (John 13:26) that Christ +gave dipped bread to Judas. Consequently, if He gave His body to him, +it appears that He gave it him in the morsel, especially since we +read (John 13:26) that "after the morsel, Satan entered into him." +And on this passage Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): "From this +we learn how we should beware of receiving a good thing in an evil +way . . . For if he be 'chastised' who does 'not discern,' i.e. +distinguish, the body of the Lord from other meats, how must he be +'condemned' who, feigning himself a friend, comes to His table a +foe?" But (Judas) did not receive our Lord's body with the dipped +morsel; thus Augustine commenting on John 13:26, "When He had dipped +the bread, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot [Vulg.: +'to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon']," says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): +"Judas did not receive Christ's body then, as some think who read +carelessly." Therefore it seems that Judas did not receive the body +of Christ. + +_On the contrary,_ Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth.): "Judas +was not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on +both sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued +with such a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because he +became none the better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from +the benefit received, nor from the honor conferred on him." + +_I answer that,_ Hilary, in commenting on Matt. 26:17, held that +Christ did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have +been quite proper, if the malice of Judas be considered. But since +Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping +with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from +Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof; lest +the Church's prelates might have an example for doing the like, and +lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning. +Therefore, it remains to be said that Judas received our Lord's body +and blood with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. +iii), and Augustine (Tract. lxii in Joan.). + +Reply Obj. 1: This is Hilary's argument, to show that Judas did not +receive Christ's body. But it is not cogent; because Christ is +speaking to the disciples, from whose company Judas separated +himself: and it was not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ +for His part drinks the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God; +but Judas himself repudiated this banquet. + +Reply Obj. 2: The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as God; but +it was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it. +Consequently, Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to +furnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by +other priests. + +Reply Obj. 3: Without any doubt Judas did not receive Christ's body +in the dipped bread; he received mere bread. Yet as Augustine +observes (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "perchance the feigning of Judas is +denoted by the dipping of the bread; just as some things are dipped +to be dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here anything good" +(for instance, the sweetness of the Divine goodness, since bread is +rendered more savory by being dipped), "then, not undeservedly, did +condemnation follow his ingratitude for that same good." And owing to +that ingratitude, "what is good became evil to him, as happens to +them who receive Christ's body unworthily." + +And as Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.), "it must be understood +that our Lord had already distributed the sacrament of His body and +blood to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, as Luke +narrates: and after that, we came to this, where, according to the +relation of John, our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does +most openly declare His betrayer." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 81, Art. 3] + +Whether Christ Received and Gave to the Disciples His Impassible Body? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ both received and gave to the +disciples His impassible body. Because on Matt. 17:2, "He was +transfigured before them," the gloss says: "He gave to the disciples +at the supper that body which He had through nature, but neither +mortal nor passible." And again, on Lev. 2:5, "if thy oblation be +from the frying-pan," the gloss says: "The Cross mightier than all +things made Christ's flesh fit for being eaten, which before the +Passion did not seem so suited." But Christ gave His body as suited +for eating. Therefore He gave it just as it was after the Passion, +that is, impassible and immortal. + +Obj. 2: Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by being +eaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would have +suffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples. + +Obj. 3: Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in +the person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered by +Christ Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is +Christ's impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the +altar. Therefore, much more so was it then. + +_On the contrary,_ As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), "He +bestowed on the disciples His body such as it was." But then He had a +passible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal +body to the disciples. + +_I answer that,_ Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt. +Myst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at +various times the four properties of a glorified body--namely, +subtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the +Virgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the +Transfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave +His body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave +His body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples. + +But whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning +which we have already stated what should be held (Q. 28, A. 2, ad 3; +Q. 45, A. 2), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility +is inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ +which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received +by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species +it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. +Therefore, neither was Christ's body impassible when given under the +sacramental species. + +Yet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that +which was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which +of itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in +contact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require +contact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's +body, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (A. 1, +ad 2; Q. 76, A. 5), is not compared with its surroundings through the +intermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other, +but through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is +those species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's own +body. + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ is said not to have given His mortal and +passible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and +passible fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating, +inasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's body, as it was +passible, were also present in a passible manner in this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 76, A. 4), the accidents of +Christ's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance, but not by +the power of the sacrament, whereby the substance of Christ's body +comes to be there. And therefore the power of the sacramental words +extends to this, that the body, i.e. Christ's, is under this +sacrament, whatever accidents really exist in it. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 81, Art. 4] + +Whether, If This Sacrament Had Been Reserved in a Pyx, or Consecrated +at the Moment of Christ's Death by One of the Apostles, Christ +Himself Would Have Died There? + +Objection 1: It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a +pyx at the moment of Christ's death, or had then been consecrated by +one of the apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For +Christ's death happened through His Passion. But even then He was in +this sacrament in an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die +in this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated from +the body. But His flesh and blood are together in this sacrament. +Therefore He could not die in this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from +the body. But both the body and the soul of Christ are contained in +this sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have +been in this sacrament. But He died upon the cross. Therefore, if +this sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein. + +_I answer that,_ Christ's body is substantially the same in this +sacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same fashion; +because in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding +bodies by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in this +sacrament, as stated above (A. 3). And therefore, all that belongs to +Christ, as He is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both in His +proper species, and as He exists in the sacrament; such as to live, +to die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the like; while +all that belongs to Him in relation to outward bodies, can be +attributed to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He +is in this sacrament; such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be +crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed +this verse: + +"Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils +But cannot feel the piercing of the thorns and nails." + +Reply Obj. 1: As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body that +suffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ, as +in this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die. + +Reply Obj. 2: As was said above (Q. 76, A. 2), in virtue of the +consecration, the body of Christ is under the species of bread, while +His blood is under the species of wine. But now that His blood is not +really separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His blood +is present with the body under the species of the bread, and His body +together with the blood under the species of the wine. But at the +time when Christ suffered, when His blood was really separated from +His body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only +would have been present under the species of the bread, and the blood +only under the species of the wine. + +Reply Obj. 3: As was observed above (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 1), Christ's +soul is in this sacrament by real concomitance; because it is not +without the body: but it is not there in virtue of the consecration. +And therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated then, or +reserved, when His soul was really separated from His body, Christ's +soul would not have been under this sacrament, not from any defect in +the form of the words, but owing to the different dispositions of the +thing contained. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 82 + +OF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT +(In Ten Articles) + +We now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament: under +which head there are ten points for our inquiry: + +(1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament? + +(2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same +host? + +(3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament? + +(4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from +communicating? + +(5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament? + +(6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of +a good one? + +(7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated, +can perform this sacrament? + +(8) Whether degraded priests can do so? + +(9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of +sinning? + +(10) Whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from +celebrating? + +[*This is the order observed by St. Thomas in writing the Articles; +but in writing this prologue, he placed Article 10 immediately after +Article 4 (Cf. Leonine edition).] +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 1] + +Whether the Consecration of This Sacrament Belongs to a Priest Alone? + +Objection 1: It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does +not belong exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above (Q. 78, +A. 4) that this sacrament is consecrated in virtue of the words, +which are the form of this sacrament. But those words are not +changed, whether spoken by a priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it +seems that not only a priest, but anyone else, can consecrate this +sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, the priest performs this sacrament in the person of +Christ. But a devout layman is united with Christ through charity. +Therefore, it seems that even a layman can perform this sacrament. +Hence Chrysostom (Opus imperfectum in Matth., Hom. xliii) says that +"every holy man is a priest." + +Obj. 3: Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind, +so also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Q. +74, A. 1; Q. 79, A. 2). But a layman can also baptize, as was stated +above (Q. 67, A. 3). Consequently, the consecration of this sacrament +is not proper to a priest. + +Obj. 4: Further, this sacrament is completed in the consecration of +the matter. But the consecration of other matters such as the chrism, +the holy oil, and blessed oil, belongs exclusively to a bishop; yet +their consecration does not equal the dignity of the consecration of +the Eucharist, in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it +belongs, not to a priest, but only to a bishop, to perform this +sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Isidore says in an Epistle to Ludifred (Decretals, +dist. 25): "It belongs to a priest to consecrate this sacrament of +the Lord's body and blood upon God's altar." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 78, AA. 1, 4), such is the +dignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person +of Christ. Now whoever performs any act in another's stead, must do +so by the power bestowed by such a one. But as the power of receiving +this sacrament is conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so +likewise the power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf +is bestowed upon the priest at his ordination: for thereby he is put +upon a level with them to whom the Lord said (Luke 22:19): "Do this +for a commemoration of Me." Therefore, it must be said that it +belongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: The sacramental power is in several things, and not +merely in one: thus the power of Baptism lies both in the words and +in the water. Accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the +words, but likewise in the power delivered to the priest in his +consecration and ordination, when the bishop says to him: "Receive +the power of offering up the Sacrifice in the Church for the living +as well as for the dead." For instrumental power lies in several +instruments through which the chief agent acts. + +Reply Obj. 2: A devout layman is united with Christ by spiritual +union through faith and charity, but not by sacramental power: +consequently he has a spiritual priesthood for offering spiritual +sacrifices, of which it is said (Ps. 1:19): "A sacrifice to God is an +afflicted spirit"; and (Rom. 12:1): "Present your bodies a living +sacrifice." Hence, too, it is written (1 Pet. 2:5): "A holy +priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices." + +Reply Obj. 3: The receiving of this sacrament is not of such +necessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was +said above (Q. 65, AA. 3, 4; Q. 80, A. 11, ad 2). And therefore, +although a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform +this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 4: The bishop receives power to act on Christ's behalf +upon His mystical body, that is, upon the Church; but the priest +receives no such power in his consecration, although he may have it +by commission from the bishop. Consequently all such things as do not +belong to the mystical body are not reserved to the bishop, such as +the consecration of this sacrament. But it belongs to the bishop to +deliver, not only to the people, but likewise to priests, such things +as serve them in the fulfillment of their respective duties. And +because the blessing of the chrism, and of the holy oil, and of the +oil of the sick, and other consecrated things, such as altars, +churches, vestments, and sacred vessels, makes such things fit for +use in performing the sacraments which belong to the priestly duty, +therefore such consecrations are reserved to the bishop as the head +of the whole ecclesiastical order. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 2] + +Whether Several Priests Can Consecrate One and the Same Host? + +Objection 1: It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and +the same host. For it was said above (Q. 67, A. 6), that several +cannot at the same time baptize one individual. But the power of a +priest consecrating is not less than that of a man baptizing. +Therefore, several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same +time. + +Obj. 2: Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously done by +several. But there ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments. +Since, then, one is sufficient for consecrating, it seems that +several cannot consecrate one host. + +Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), this is +"the sacrament of unity." But multitude seems to be opposed to unity. +Therefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several +priests to consecrate the same host. + +_On the contrary,_ It is the custom of some Churches for priests +newly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), when a priest is ordained he +is placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from +our Lord at the Supper. And therefore, according to the custom of +some Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ supped, so the +newly ordained co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the +consecration, on that account, repeated over the same host, because +as Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the intention of all +should be directed to the same instant of the consecration. + +Reply Obj. 1: We do not read of Christ baptizing with the apostles +when He committed to them the duty of baptizing; consequently there +is no parallel. + +Reply Obj. 2: If each individual priest were acting in his own power, +then other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be +sufficient. But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in +Christ's stead; and since many are "one in Christ" (Gal. 3:28); +consequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated +by one or by many, except that the rite of the Church must be +observed. + +Reply Obj. 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, +which is brought about by many being "one in Christ." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 3] + +Whether Dispensing of This Sacrament Belongs to a Priest Alone? + +Objection 1: It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not +belong to a priest alone. For Christ's blood belongs to this +sacrament no less than His body. But Christ's blood is dispensed by +deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus +(Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): "Try whether you have +chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of +the Lord's blood." Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of +Christ's body does not belong to priests only. + +Obj. 2: Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the +sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of +the matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. +Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense +the Lord's body. + +Obj. 3: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this +sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs, +not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore +likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to +the priest. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): "It has +come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord's body to a +layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore +forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself +communicate the sick." + +_I answer that,_ The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the +priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (A. 1), +he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated +His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken +of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs +to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. +Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between +God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's +gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to +the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, +nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and +the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for +touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to +touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon +the ground, or else in some other case of urgency. + +Reply Obj. 1: The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a +certain share in the latter's duties, so that he may dispense the +blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding +of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ's blood is +contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by +the dispenser, as Christ's body is touched. Secondly, because the +blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence +it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the +people. And because deacons are between priest and people, the +dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than +the dispensing of the body. + +Reply Obj. 2: For the reason given above, it belongs to the same +person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest's +"power of enlightening" (Eccl. Hier. v), inasmuch as he dispenses the +blood, so the priest shares in the "perfective dispensing" (Eccl. +Hier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament +whereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other +perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to others, are +reserved to the bishop. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 4] + +Whether the Priest Who Consecrates Is Bound to Receive This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to +receive this sacrament. Because, in the other consecrations, he who +consecrates the matter does not use it, just as the bishop +consecrating the chrism is not anointed therewith. But this sacrament +consists in the consecration of the matter. Therefore, the priest +performing this sacrament need not use the same, but may lawfully +refrain from receiving it. + +Obj. 2: Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not give +the sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as stated +above (Q. 66, A. 5, ad 4). But as Baptism is dispensed in due order, +so also is this sacrament. Therefore the priest who consecrates this +sacrament ought not to receive it at his own hands. + +Obj. 3: Further, it sometimes happens that Christ's body appears upon +the altar under the guise of flesh, and the blood under the guise of +blood; which are unsuited for food and drink: hence, as was said +above (Q. 75, A. 5), it is on that account that they are given under +another species, lest they beget revulsion in the communicants. +Therefore the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive +this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) Council of +Toledo (Can. v), and again (De Consecr., dist. 2): "It must be +strictly observed that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and +blood of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the altar, he must himself be a +partaker of Christ's body and blood." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 79, AA. 5, 7), the Eucharist is +not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers +sacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward +sacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he +offers himself to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by +partaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise +his. In the same way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people +he shows that he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought +himself to be the first to partake, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. +iii). Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the +people. Accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above (Twelfth +Council of Toledo, Can. v): "What kind of sacrifice is that wherein +not even the sacrificer is known to have a share?" But it is by +partaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle +says (1 Cor. 10:18): "Are not they that eat of the sacrifices, +partakers of the altar?" Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as +often as he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity. + +Reply Obj. 1: The consecration of chrism or of anything else is not a +sacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is: consequently +there is no parallel. + +Reply Obj. 2: The sacrament of Baptism is accomplished in the use of +the matter, and consequently no one can baptize himself, because the +same person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament. Hence +neither in this sacrament does the priest consecrate himself, but he +consecrates the bread and wine, in which consecration the sacrament +is completed. But the use thereof follows the sacrament, and +therefore there is no parallel. + +Reply Obj. 3: If Christ's body appears miraculously upon the altar +under the guise of flesh, or the blood under the guise of blood, it +is not to be received. For Jerome says upon Leviticus (cf. De +Consecr., dist. 2): "It is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which is +wonderfully performed in memory of Christ: but it is not lawful for +anyone to eat of that one which Christ offered on the altar of the +cross." Nor does the priest transgress on that account, because +miraculous events are not subject to human laws. Nevertheless the +priest would be well advised to consecrate again and receive the +Lord's body and blood. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 5] + +Whether a Wicked Priest Can Consecrate the Eucharist? + +Objection 1: It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the +Eucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Sophon. iii, 4, says: "The +priests who perform the Eucharist, and who distribute our Lord's +blood to the people, act wickedly against Christ's law, in deeming +that the Eucharist is consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good +life; and that only the solemn prayer is requisite, and not the +priest's merits: of whom it is said: 'Let not the priest, in whatever +defilement he may be, approach to offer oblations to the Lord'" (Lev. +21:21, Septuagint). But the sinful priest, being defiled, has neither +the life nor the merits befitting this sacrament. Therefore a sinful +priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist. + +Obj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "the bread +and wine are changed supernaturally into the body and blood of our +Lord, by the coming of the Holy Ghost." But Pope Gelasius I says (Ep. +ad Elphid., cf. Decret. i, q. 1): "How shall the Holy Spirit, when +invoked, come for the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the +priest invoking him be proved full of guilty deeds?" Consequently, +the Eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest. + +Obj. 3: Further, this sacrament is consecrated by the priest's +blessing. But a sinful priest's blessing is not efficacious for +consecrating this sacrament, since it is written (Malachi 2:2): "I +will curse your blessings." Again, Dionysius says in his Epistle +(viii) to the monk Demophilus: "He who is not enlightened has +completely fallen away from the priestly order; and I wonder that +such a man dare to employ his hands in priestly actions, and in the +person of Christ to utter, over the Divine symbols, his unclean +infamies, for I will not call them prayers." + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Paschasius) says (De Corp. Dom. xii): +"Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of the Lord's body and +blood, nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less by an +evil priest, because it is not by the merits of the consecrator that +the sacrament is accomplished, but by the Creator's word, and by the +power of the Holy Spirit." + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (AA. 1, 3), the priest consecrates +this sacrament not by his own power, but as the minister of Christ, +in Whose person he consecrates this sacrament. But from the fact of +being wicked he does not cease to be Christ's minister; because our +Lord has good and wicked ministers or servants. Hence (Matt. 24:45) +our Lord says: "Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant?" +and afterwards He adds: "But if that evil servant shall say in his +heart," etc. And the Apostle (1 Cor. 4:1) says: "Let a man so account +of us as of the ministers of Christ"; and afterwards he adds: "I am +not conscious to myself of anything; yet am I not hereby justified." +He was therefore certain that he was Christ's minister; yet he was +not certain that he was a just man. Consequently, a man can be +Christ's minister even though he be not one of the just. And this +belongs to Christ's excellence, Whom, as the true God, things both +good and evil serve, since they are ordained by His providence for +His glory. Hence it is evident that priests, even though they be not +godly, but sinners, can consecrate the Eucharist. + +Reply Obj. 1: In those words Jerome is condemning the error of +priests who believed they could consecrate the Eucharist worthily, +from the mere fact of being priests, even though they were sinners; +and Jerome condemns this from the fact that persons defiled are +forbidden to approach the altar; but this does not prevent the +sacrifice, which they offer, from being a true sacrifice, if they do +approach. + +Reply Obj. 2: Previous to the words quoted, Pope Gelasius expresses +himself as follows: "That most holy rite, which contains the Catholic +discipline, claims for itself such reverence that no one may dare to +approach it except with clean conscience." From this it is evident +that his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not to +approach this sacrament. Hence when he resumes, "How shall the Holy +Spirit come when summoned," it must be understood that He comes, not +through the priest's merits, but through the power of Christ, Whose +words the priest utters. + +Reply Obj. 3: As the same action can be evil, inasmuch as it is done +with a bad intention of the servant; and good from the good intention +of the master; so the blessing of a sinful priest, inasmuch as he +acts unworthily is deserving of a curse, and is reputed an infamy and +a blasphemy, and not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is pronounced +in the person of Christ, it is holy and efficacious. Hence it is said +with significance: "I will curse your blessings." +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 6] + +Whether the Mass of a Sinful Priest Is of Less Worth Than the Mass of +a Good Priest? + +Objection 1: It seems that the mass of a sinful priest is not of less +worth than that of a good priest. For Pope Gregory says in the +Register: "Alas, into what a great snare they fall who believe that +the Divine and hidden mysteries can be sanctified more by some than +by others; since it is the one and the same Holy Ghost Who hallows +those mysteries in a hidden and invisible manner." But these hidden +mysteries are celebrated in the mass. Therefore the mass of a sinful +priest is not of less value than the mass of a good priest. + +Obj. 2: Further, as Baptism is conferred by a minister through the +power of Christ Who baptizes, so likewise this sacrament is +consecrated in the person of Christ. But Baptism is no better when +conferred by a better priest, as was said above (Q. 64, A. 1, ad 2). +Therefore neither is a mass the better, which is celebrated by a +better priest. + +Obj. 3: Further, as the merits of priests differ in the point of +being good and better, so they likewise differ in the point of being +good and bad. Consequently, if the mass of a better priest be itself +better, it follows that the mass of a bad priest must be bad. Now +this is unreasonable, because the malice of the ministers cannot +affect Christ's mysteries, as Augustine says in his work on Baptism +(Contra Donat. xii). Therefore neither is the mass of a better priest +the better. + +_On the contrary,_ It is stated in Decretal i, q. 1: "The worthier +the priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays." + +_I answer that,_ There are two things to be considered in the mass. +namely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief thing; and the +prayers which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead. +So far as the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked priest +is not of less value than that of a good priest, because the same +sacrifice is offered by both. + +Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two +respects: first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the +devotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect there is no +doubt but that the mass of the better priest is the more fruitful. In +another respect, inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the +mass in the place of the entire Church, of which the priest is the +minister; and this ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said +above (A. 5) in regard to Christ's ministry. Hence, in this respect +the prayer even of the sinful priest is fruitful, not only that which +he utters in the mass, but likewise all those he recites in the +ecclesiastical offices, wherein he takes the place of the Church. on +the other hand, his private prayers are not fruitful, according to +Prov. 28:9: "He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his +prayer shall be an abomination." + +Reply Obj. 1: Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the Divine +sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: In the sacrament of Baptism solemn prayers are not made +for all the faithful, as in the mass; therefore there is no parallel +in this respect. There is, however, a resemblance as to the effect of +the sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: By reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, Who +communicates to each one the blessings of Christ's members on account +of their being united in charity, the private blessing in the mass of +a good priest is fruitful to others. But the private evil of one man +cannot hurt another, except the latter, in some way, consent, as +Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii). +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 7] + +Whether Heretics, Schismatics, and Excommunicated Persons Can +Consecrate? + +Objection 1: It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated +persons are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says +(Liber sentent. Prosperi xv) that "there is no such thing as a true +sacrifice outside the Catholic Church": and Pope Leo I says (Ep. +lxxx; cf. Decretal i, q. 1): Elsewhere "(i.e. than in the Church +which is Christ's body) there is neither valid priesthood nor true +sacrifice." But heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are +severed from the Church. Therefore they are unable to offer a true +sacrifice. + +Obj. 2: Further (Decretal, caus. i, q. 1), Innocent I is quoted as +saying: "Because we receive the laity of the Arians and other +pestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that +their clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of any other +ministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save +Baptism." But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless he have the +dignity of the priesthood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot +consecrate the Eucharist. + +Obj. 3: Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside the Church +to act on behalf of the Church. But when the priest consecrates the +Eucharist, he does so in the person of the entire Church, as is +evident from the fact of his putting up all prayers in the person of +the Church. Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the +Church, such as those who are heretics, schismatics, and +excommunicate, are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Just as +Baptism remains in them," i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those +who are excommunicate, "so do their orders remain intact." Now, by +the power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist. +Therefore, it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are +excommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders +remain entire. + +_I answer that,_ Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and +the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot +perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as +Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), "it is one thing to lack +something utterly, and another to have it improperly"; and in like +fashion, "it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, +but not rightly." Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, +received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being +ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they +use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by +heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while +separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do +they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is +clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they +return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are +received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist +is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are +separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can +indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them +contains Christ's true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin +by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the +sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice. + +Reply Obj. 1: Such and similar authorities are to be understood in +this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church. +Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is +a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a true +sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above +(Q. 80, A. 3), that the sinner receives Christ's body sacramentally, +but not spiritually. + +Reply Obj. 2: Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, +and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of +necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, +or confer the other sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 3: The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass, speaks +instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating +the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he +holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest severed +from the unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost the +power of order, he consecrates Christ's true body and blood; but +because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have +no efficacy. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 8] + +Whether a Degraded Priest Can Consecrate This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate this +sacrament. For no one can perform this sacrament except he have the +power of consecrating. But the priest "who has been degraded has no +power of consecrating, although he has the power of baptizing" (App. +Gratiani). Therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot +consecrate the Eucharist. + +Obj. 2: Further, he who gives can take away. But the bishop in +ordaining gives to the priest the power of consecrating. Therefore he +can take it away by degrading him. + +Obj. 3: Further, the priest, by degradation, loses either the power +of consecrating, or the use of such power. But he does not lose +merely the use, for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one +excommunicated, who also lacks the use. Therefore it seems that he +loses the power to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot +perform this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Contra Parmen. ii) proves that +"apostates" from the faith "are not deprived of their Baptism," from +the fact that "it is not restored to them when they return repentant; +and therefore it is deemed that it cannot be lost." But in like +fashion, if the degraded man be restored, he has not to be ordained +over again. Consequently, he has not lost the power of consecrating, +and so the degraded priest can perform this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ The power of consecrating the Eucharist belongs to +the character of the priestly order. But every character is +indelible, because it is given with a kind of consecration, as was +said above (Q. 63, A. 5), just as the consecrations of all other +things are perpetual, and cannot be lost or repeated. Hence it is +clear that the power of consecrating is not lost by degradation. For, +again, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): "Both are sacraments," +namely Baptism and order, "and both are given to a man with a kind of +consecration; the former, when he is baptized; the latter when he is +ordained; and therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat +either of them." And thus it is evident that the degraded priest can +perform this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: That Canon is speaking, not as by way of assertion, but +by way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the context. + +Reply Obj. 2: The bishop gives the priestly power of order, not as +though coming from himself, but instrumentally, as God's minister, +and its effect cannot be taken away by man, according to Matt. 19:6: +"What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." And +therefore the bishop cannot take this power away, just as neither can +he who baptizes take away the baptismal character. + +Reply Obj. 3: Excommunication is medicinal. And therefore the +ministry of the priestly power is not taken away from the +excommunicate, as it were, perpetually, but only for a time, that +they may mend; but the exercise is withdrawn from the degraded, as +though condemned perpetually. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 9] + +Whether It Is Permissible to Receive Communion from Heretical, +Excommunicate, or Sinful Priests, and to Hear Mass Said by Them? + +Objection 1: It seems that one may lawfully receive Communion from +heretical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, and to hear mass +said by them. Because, as Augustine says (Contra Petilian. iii), "we +should not avoid God's sacraments, whether they be given by a good +man or by a wicked one." But priests, even if they be sinful, or +heretics, or excommunicate, perform a valid sacrament. Therefore it +seems that one ought not to refrain from receiving Communion at their +hands, or from hearing their mass. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His mystical +body, as was said above (Q. 67, A. 2). But Christ's true body is +consecrated by the priests mentioned above. Therefore it seems that +whoever belongs to His mystical body can communicate in their +sacrifices. + +Obj. 3: Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But it +is not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise. +Therefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests +guilty of this sin. + +_On the contrary,_ The Canon says (Dist. 32): "Let no one hear the +mass of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine." +Moreover, Gregory says (Dial. iii) that "the faithless father sent an +Arian bishop to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the +consecrated Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop +arrived, God's devoted servant rebuked him, as was right for him to +do." + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (AA. 5, 7), heretical, +schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they +have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a +proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever +communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. +Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that +saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." +Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to +assist at their mass. + +Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, +schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's +sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever +hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. +But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence +from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine +sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any +ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is +pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to +hear their mass. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, "with such a one not so much +as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was +unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary +suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by +God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of +his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted." + +Reply Obj. 1: By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, or to +receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God's sacraments; on +the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor (hence a host +consecrated by such priests is to be adored, and if it be reserved, +it can be consumed by a lawful priest): but what we shun is the sin +of the unworthy ministers. + +Reply Obj. 2: The unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true +body received. But those who receive or minister unworthily, are +deprived of the fruit, as was said above (A. 7; Q. 80, A. 4). And +therefore, those who belong to the unity of the Faith are not to +receive the sacrament from their dispensing. + +Reply Obj. 3: Although fornication is not graver than other sins, yet +men are more prone to it, owing to fleshly concupiscence. +Consequently, this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the +Church, lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage. +However, this is to be understood of one who is notorious, either +from being convicted and sentenced, or from having acknowledged his +guilt in legal form, or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt +by any subterfuge. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 10] + +Whether It Is Lawful for a Priest to Refrain Entirely from +Consecrating the Eucharist? + +Objection 1: It seems to be lawful for a priest to refrain entirely +from consecrating the Eucharist. Because, as it is the priest's +office to consecrate the Eucharist, so it is likewise to baptize and +administer the other sacraments. But the priest is not bound to act +as a minister of the other sacraments, unless he has undertaken the +care of souls. Therefore, it seems that likewise he is not bound to +consecrate the Eucharist except he be charged with the care of souls. + +Obj. 2: Further, no one is bound to do what is unlawful for him to +do; otherwise he would be in two minds. But it is not lawful for the +priest who is in a state of sin, or excommunicate, to consecrate the +Eucharist, as was said above (A. 7). Therefore it seems that such men +are not bound to celebrate, and so neither are the others; otherwise +they would be gainers by their fault. + +Obj. 3: Further, the priestly dignity is not lost by subsequent +weakness: because Pope Gelasius I says (cf. Decretal, Dist. 55): "As +the canonical precepts do not permit them who are feeble in body to +approach the priesthood, so if anyone be disabled when once in that +state, he cannot lose that he received at the time he was well." But +it sometimes happens that those who are already ordained as priests +incur defects whereby they are hindered from celebrating, such as +leprosy or epilepsy, or the like. Consequently, it does not appear +that priests are bound to celebrate. + +_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says in one of his Orations (xxxiii): "It +is a grave matter if we do not approach Thy altar with clean heart +and pure hands; but it is graver still if while shunning sins we also +fail to offer our sacrifice." + +_I answer that,_ Some have said that a priest may lawfully refrain +altogether from consecrating, except he be bound to do so, and to +give the sacraments to the people, by reason of his being entrusted +with the care of souls. + +But this is said quite unreasonably, because everyone is bound to use +the grace entrusted to him, when opportunity serves, according to 2 +Cor. 6:1: "We exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in +vain." But the opportunity of offering sacrifice is considered not +merely in relation to the faithful of Christ to whom the sacraments +must be administered, but chiefly with regard to God to Whom the +sacrifice of this sacrament is offered by consecrating. Hence, it is +not lawful for the priest, even though he has not the care of souls, +to refrain altogether from celebrating; and he seems to be bound to +celebrate at least on the chief festivals, and especially on those +days on which the faithful usually communicate. And hence it is that +(2 Macc. 4:14) it is said against some priests that they "were not +now occupied about the offices of the altar . . . despising the +temple and neglecting the sacrifices." + +Reply Obj. 1: The other sacraments are accomplished in being used by +the faithful, and therefore he alone is bound to administer them who +has undertaken the care of souls. But this sacrament is performed in +the consecration of the Eucharist, whereby a sacrifice is offered to +God, to which the priest is bound from the order he has received. + +Reply Obj. 2: The sinful priest, if deprived by the Church's sentence +from exercising his order, simply or for a time, is rendered +incapable of offering sacrifice; consequently, the obligation lapses. +But if not deprived of the power of celebrating, the obligation is +not removed; nor is he in two minds, because he can repent of his sin +and then celebrate. + +Reply Obj. 3: Weakness or sickness contracted by a priest after his +ordination does not deprive him of his orders; but hinders him from +exercising them, as to the consecration of the Eucharist: sometimes +by making it impossible to exercise them, as, for example, if he lose +his sight, or his fingers, or the use of speech; and sometimes on +account of danger, as in the case of one suffering from epilepsy, or +indeed any disease of the mind; and sometimes, on account of +loathsomeness, as is evident in the case of a leper, who ought not to +celebrate in public: he can, however, say mass privately, unless the +leprosy has gone so far that it has rendered him incapable owing to +the wasting away of his limbs. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 83 + +OF THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT +(In Six Articles) + +We have now to consider the Rite of this sacrament, under which head +there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery? + +(2) Of the time of celebrating; + +(3) Of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this +celebration; + +(4) Of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery; + +(5) Of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery. + +(6) Of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 1] + +Whether Christ Is Sacrificed in This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It seems that Christ is not sacrificed in the +celebration of this sacrament. For it is written (Heb. 10:14) that +"Christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are +sanctified." But that oblation was His oblation. Therefore Christ is +not sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ's sacrifice was made upon the cross, whereon +"He delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for +an odor of sweetness," as is said in Eph. 5:2. But Christ is not +crucified in the celebration of this mystery. Therefore, neither is +He sacrificed. + +Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv), in Christ's +sacrifice the priest and the victim are one and the same. But in the +celebration of this sacrament the priest and the victim are not the +same. Therefore, the celebration of this sacrament is not a sacrifice +of Christ. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in the Liber Sentent. Prosp. (cf. +Ep. xcviii): "Christ was sacrificed once in Himself, and yet He is +sacrificed daily in the Sacrament." + +_I answer that,_ The celebration of this sacrament is called a +sacrifice for two reasons. First, because, as Augustine says (Ad +Simplician. ii), "the images of things are called by the names of the +things whereof they are the images; as when we look upon a picture or +a fresco, we say, 'This is Cicero and that is Sallust.'" But, as was +said above (Q. 79, A. 1), the celebration of this sacrament is an +image representing Christ's Passion, which is His true sacrifice. +Accordingly the celebration of this sacrament is called Christ's +sacrifice. Hence it is that Ambrose, in commenting on Heb. 10:1, +says: "In Christ was offered up a sacrifice capable of giving eternal +salvation; what then do we do? Do we not offer it up every day in +memory of His death?" Secondly it is called a sacrifice, in respect +of the effect of His Passion: because, to wit, by this sacrament, we +are made partakers of the fruit of our Lord's Passion. Hence in one +of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say: +"Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work +of our redemption is enacted." Consequently, according to the first +reason, it is true to say that Christ was sacrificed, even in the +figures of the Old Testament: hence it is stated in the Apocalypse +(13:8): "Whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, +which was slain from the beginning of the world." But according to +the second reason, it is proper to this sacrament for Christ to be +sacrificed in its celebration. + +Reply Obj. 1: As Ambrose says (commenting on Heb. 10:1), "there is +but one victim," namely that which Christ offered, and which we +offer, "and not many victims, because Christ was offered but once: +and this latter sacrifice is the pattern of the former. For, just as +what is offered everywhere is one body, and not many bodies, so also +is it but one sacrifice." + +Reply Obj. 2: As the celebration of this sacrament is an image +representing Christ's Passion, so the altar is representative of the +cross itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species. + +Reply Obj. 3: For the same reason (cf. Reply Obj. 2) the priest also +bears Christ's image, in Whose person and by Whose power he +pronounces the words of consecration, as is evident from what was +said above (Q. 82, AA. 1, 3). And so, in a measure, the priest and +victim are one and the same. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 2] + +Whether the Time for Celebrating This Mystery Has Been Properly +Determined? + +Objection 1: It seems that the time for celebrating this mystery has +not been properly determined. For as was observed above (A. 1), this +sacrament is representative of our Lord's Passion. But the +commemoration of our Lord's Passion takes place in the Church once in +the year: because Augustine says (Enarr. ii in Ps. 21): "Is not +Christ slain as often as the Pasch is celebrated? Nevertheless, the +anniversary remembrance represents what took place in by-gone days; +and so it does not cause us to be stirred as if we saw our Lord +hanging upon the cross." Therefore this sacrament ought to be +celebrated but once a year. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ's Passion is commemorated in the Church on +the Friday before Easter, and not on Christmas Day. Consequently, +since this sacrament is commemorative of our Lord's Passion, it seems +unsuitable for this sacrament to be celebrated thrice on Christmas +Day, and to be entirely omitted on Good Friday. + +Obj. 3: Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church +ought to imitate Christ's institution. But it was in the evening that +Christ consecrated this sacrament. Therefore it seems that this +sacrament ought to be celebrated at that time of day. + +Obj. 4: Further, as is set down in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. +i), Pope Leo I wrote to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, that "it is +permissible to celebrate mass in the first part of the day." But the +day begins at midnight, as was said above (Q. 80, A. 8, ad 5). +Therefore it seems that after midnight it is lawful to celebrate. + +Obj. 5: Further, in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after +Pentecost) we say: "Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, to frequent +these mysteries." But there will be greater frequency if the priest +celebrates several times a day. Therefore it seems that the priest +ought not to be hindered from celebrating several times daily. + +On the contrary is the custom which the Church observes according to +the statutes of the Canons. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), in the celebration of this +mystery, we must take into consideration the representation of our +Lord's Passion, and the participation of its fruits; and the time +suitable for the celebration of this mystery ought to be determined +by each of these considerations. Now since, owing to our daily +defects, we stand in daily need of the fruits of our Lord's Passion, +this sacrament is offered regularly every day in the Church. Hence +our Lord teaches us to pray (Luke 11:3): "Give us this day our daily +bread": in explanation of which words Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. +xxviii): "If it be a daily bread, why do you take it once a year, as +the Greeks have the custom in the east? Receive it daily that it may +benefit you every day." + +But since our Lord's Passion was celebrated from the third to the +ninth hour, therefore this sacrament is solemnly celebrated by the +Church in that part of the day. + +Reply Obj. 1: Christ's Passion is recalled in this sacrament, +inasmuch as its effect flows out to the faithful; but at Passion-tide +Christ's Passion is recalled inasmuch as it was wrought in Him Who is +our Head. This took place but once; whereas the faithful receive +daily the fruits of His Passion: consequently, the former is +commemorated but once in the year, whereas the latter takes place +every day, both that we may partake of its fruit and in order that we +may have a perpetual memorial. + +Reply Obj. 2: The figure ceases on the advent of the reality. But +this sacrament is a figure and a representation of our Lord's +Passion, as stated above. And therefore on the day on which our +Lord's Passion is recalled as it was really accomplished, this +sacrament is not consecrated. Nevertheless, lest the Church be +deprived on that day of the fruit of the Passion offered to us by +this sacrament, the body of Christ consecrated the day before is +reserved to be consumed on that day; but the blood is not reserved, +on account of danger, and because the blood is more specially the +image of our Lord's Passion, as stated above (Q. 78, A. 3, ad 2). Nor +is it true, as some affirm, that the wine is changed into blood when +the particle of Christ's body is dropped into it. Because this cannot +be done otherwise than by consecration under the due form of words. + +On Christmas Day, however, several masses are said on account of +Christ's threefold nativity. Of these the first is His eternal birth, +which is hidden in our regard, and therefore one mass is sung in the +night, in the "Introit" of which we say: "The Lord said unto Me: Thou +art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." The second is His +nativity in time, and the spiritual birth, whereby Christ rises "as +the day-star in our [Vulg.: 'your'] hearts" (2 Pet. 1:19), and on +this account the mass is sung at dawn, and in the "Introit" we say: +"The light will shine on us today." The third is Christ's temporal +and bodily birth, according as He went forth from the virginal womb, +becoming visible to us through being clothed with flesh: and on that +account the third mass is sung in broad daylight, in the "Introit" of +which we say: "A child is born to us." Nevertheless, on the other +hand, it can be said that His eternal generation, of itself, is in +the full light, and on this account in the gospel of the third mass +mention is made of His eternal birth. But regarding His birth in the +body, He was literally born during the night, as a sign that He came +to the darknesses of our infirmity; hence also in the midnight mass +we say the gospel of Christ's nativity in the flesh. + +Likewise on other days upon which many of God's benefits have to be +recalled or besought, several masses are celebrated on one day, as +for instance, one for the feast, and another for a fast or for the +dead. + +Reply Obj. 3: As already observed (Q. 73, A. 5), Christ wished to +give this sacrament last of all, in order that it might make a deeper +impression on the hearts of the disciples; and therefore it was after +supper, at the close of day, that He consecrated this sacrament and +gave it to His disciples. But we celebrate at the hour when our Lord +suffered, i.e. either, as on feast-days, at the hour of Terce, when +He was crucified by the tongues of the Jews (Mk. 15:25), and when the +Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples (Acts 2:15); or, as when no +feast is kept, at the hour of Sext, when He was crucified at the +hands of the soldiers (John 19:14), or, as on fasting days, at None, +when crying out with a loud voice He gave up the ghost (Matt. 27:46, +50). + +Nevertheless the mass can be postponed, especially when Holy orders +have to be conferred, and still more on Holy Saturday; both on +account of the length of the office, and also because orders belong +to the Sunday, as is set forth in the Decretals (dist. 75). + +Masses, however, can be celebrated "in the first part of the day," +owing to any necessity; as is stated De Consecr., dist. 1. + +Reply Obj. 4: As a rule mass ought to be said in the day and not in +the night, because Christ is present in this sacrament, Who says +(John 9:4, 5): "I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it +is day: because the night cometh when no man can work; as long as I +am in the world, I am the light of the world." Yet this should be +done in such a manner that the beginning of the day is not to be +taken from midnight; nor from sunrise, that is, when the substance of +the sun appears above the earth; but when the dawn begins to show: +because then the sun is said to be risen when the brightness of his +beams appears. Accordingly it is written (Mk. 16:1) that "the women +came to the tomb, the sun being now risen"; though, as John relates +(John 20:1), "while it was yet dark they came to the tomb." It is in +this way that Augustine explains this difference (De Consens. Evang. +iii). + +Exception is made on the night of Christmas eve, when mass is +celebrated, because our Lord was born in the night (De Consecr., +dist. 1). And in like manner it is celebrated on Holy Saturday +towards the beginning of the night, since our Lord rose in the night, +that is, "when it was yet dark, before the sun's rising was manifest." + +Reply Obj. 5: As is set down in the decree (De Consecr., dist. 1), in +virtue of a decree of Pope Alexander II, "it is enough for a priest +to celebrate one mass each day, because Christ suffered once and +redeemed the whole world; and very happy is he who can worthily +celebrate one mass. But there are some who say one mass for the dead, +and another of the day, if need be. But I do not deem that those +escape condemnation who presume to celebrate several masses daily, +either for the sake of money, or to gain flattery from the laity." +And Pope Innocent III says (Extra, De Celebr. Miss., chap. +Consuluisti) that "except on the day of our Lord's birth, unless +necessity urges, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only one mass +each day." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 3] + +Whether This Sacrament Ought to Be Celebrated in a House and with +Sacred Vessels? + +Objection 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated +in a house and with sacred vessels. For this sacrament is a +representation of our Lord's Passion. But Christ did not suffer in a +house, but outside the city gate, according to Heb. 1:12: "Jesus, +that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without +the gate." Therefore, it seems that this sacrament ought not to be +celebrated in a house, but rather in the open air. + +Obj. 2: Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church +ought to imitate the custom of Christ and the apostles. But the house +wherein Christ first wrought this sacrament was not consecrated, but +merely an ordinary supper-room prepared by the master of the house, +as related in Luke 22:11, 12. Moreover, we read (Acts 2:46) that "the +apostles were continuing daily with one accord in the temple; and, +breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with +gladness." Consequently, there is no need for houses, in which this +sacrament is celebrated, to be consecrated. + +Obj. 3: Further, nothing that is to no purpose ought to be done in +the Church, which is governed by the Holy Ghost. But it seems useless +to consecrate a church, or an altar, or such like inanimate things, +since they are not capable of receiving grace or spiritual virtue. +Therefore it is unbecoming for such consecrations to be performed in +the Church. + +Obj. 4: Further, only Divine works ought to be recalled with +solemnity, according to Ps. 91:5: "I shall rejoice in the works of +Thy hands." Now the consecration of a church or altar, is the work of +a man; as is also the consecration of the chalice, and of the +ministers, and of other such things. But these latter consecrations +are not commemorated in the Church. Therefore neither ought the +consecration of a church or of an altar to be commemorated with +solemnity. + +Obj. 5: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But +in the Old Testament, which was a figure of the New, the altar was +not made of hewn stones: for, it is written (Ex. 20:24): "You shall +make an altar of earth unto Me . . . and if thou make an altar of +stone unto Me, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones." Again, the +altar is commanded to be made of "setim-wood," covered "with brass" +(Ex. 27:1, 2), or "with gold" (Ex. 25). Consequently, it seems +unfitting for the Church to make exclusive use of altars made of +stone. + +Obj. 6: Further, the chalice with the paten represents Christ's tomb, +which was "hewn in a rock," as is narrated in the Gospels. +Consequently, the chalice ought to be of stone, and not of gold or of +silver or tin. + +Obj. 7: Further, just as gold is the most precious among the +materials of the altar vessels, so are cloths of silk the most +precious among other cloths. Consequently, since the chalice is of +gold, the altar cloths ought to be made of silk and not of linen. + +Obj. 8: Further, the dispensing and ordering of the sacraments belong +to the Church's ministers, just as the ordering of temporal affairs +is subject to the ruling of secular princes; hence the Apostle says +(1 Cor. 4:1): "Let a man so esteem us as the ministers of Christ and +the dispensers of the mysteries of God." But if anything be done +against the ordinances of princes it is deemed void. Therefore, if +the various items mentioned above are suitably commanded by the +Church's prelates, it seems that the body of Christ could not be +consecrated unless they be observed; and so it appears to follow that +Christ's words are not sufficient of themselves for consecrating this +sacrament: which is contrary to the fact. Consequently, it does not +seem fitting for such ordinances to be made touching the celebration +of this sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ The Church's ordinances are Christ's own +ordinances; since He said (Matt. 18:20): "Wherever two or three are +gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." + +_I answer that,_ There are two things to be considered regarding the +equipment of this sacrament: one of these belongs to the +representation of the events connected with our Lord's Passion; while +the other is connected with the reverence due to the sacrament, in +which Christ is contained verily, and not in figure only. + +Hence we consecrate those things which we make use of in this +sacrament; both that we may show our reverence for the sacrament, and +in order to represent the holiness which is the effect of the Passion +of Christ, according to Heb. 13:12: "Jesus, that He might sanctify +the people by His own blood," etc. + +Reply Obj. 1: This sacrament ought as a rule to be celebrated in a +house, whereby the Church is signified, according to 1 Tim. 3:15: +"That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the +house of God, which is the Church of the living God." Because +"outside the Church there is no place for the true sacrifice," as +Augustine says (Liber Sentent. Prosp. xv). And because the Church was +not to be confined within the territories of the Jewish people, but +was to be established throughout the whole world, therefore Christ's +Passion was not celebrated within the city of the Jews, but in the +open country, that so the whole world might serve as a house for +Christ's Passion. Nevertheless, as is said in De Consecr., dist. 1, +"if a church be not to hand, we permit travelers to celebrate mass in +the open air, or in a tent, if there be a consecrated altar-table to +hand, and the other requisites belonging to the sacred function." + +Reply Obj. 2: The house in which this sacrament is celebrated denotes +the Church, and is termed a church; and so it is fittingly +consecrated, both to represent the holiness which the Church acquired +from the Passion, as well as to denote the holiness required of them +who have to receive this sacrament. By the altar Christ Himself is +signified, of Whom the Apostle says (Heb. 13:15): "Through Him we +offer a sacrifice of praise to God." Hence the consecration of the +altar signifies Christ's holiness, of which it was said (Luke 1:35): +"The Holy one born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Hence we +read in De Consecr., dist. 1: "It has seemed pleasing for the altars +to be consecrated not merely with the anointing of chrism, but +likewise with the priestly blessing." + +And therefore, as a rule, it is not lawful to celebrate this +sacrament except in a consecrated house. Hence it is enacted (De +Consecr., dist. 1): "Let no priest presume to say mass except in +places consecrated by the bishop." And furthermore because pagans and +other unbelievers are not members of the Church, therefore we read +(De Consecr., dist. 1): "It is not lawful to bless a church in which +the bodies of unbelievers are buried, but if it seem suitable for +consecration, then, after removing the corpses and tearing down the +walls or beams, let it be rebuilt. If, however, it has been already +consecrated, and the faithful lie in it, it is lawful to celebrate +mass therein." Nevertheless in a case of necessity this sacrament can +be performed in houses which have not been consecrated, or which have +been profaned; but with the bishop's consent. Hence we read in the +same distinction: "We deem that masses are not to be celebrated +everywhere, but in places consecrated by the bishop, or where he +gives permission." But not without a portable altar consecrated by +the bishop: hence in the same distinction we read: "We permit that, +if the churches be devastated or burned, masses may be celebrated in +chapels, with a consecrated altar." For because Christ's holiness is +the fount of all the Church's holiness, therefore in necessity a +consecrated altar suffices for performing this sacrament. And on this +account a church is never consecrated without consecrating the altar. +Yet sometimes an altar is consecrated apart from the church, with the +relics of the saints, "whose lives are hidden with Christ in God" +(Col. 3:3). Accordingly under the same distinction we read: "It is +our pleasure that altars, in which no relics of saints are found +enclosed, be thrown down, if possible, by the bishops presiding over +such places." + +Reply Obj. 3: The church, altar, and other like inanimate things are +consecrated, not because they are capable of receiving grace, but +because they acquire special spiritual virtue from the consecration, +whereby they are rendered fit for the Divine worship, so that man +derives devotion therefrom, making him more fitted for Divine +functions, unless this be hindered by want of reverence. Hence it is +written (2 Macc. 3:38): "There is undoubtedly in that place a certain +power of God; for He that hath His dwelling in the heavens is the +visitor, and the protector of that place." + +Hence it is that such places are cleansed and exorcised before being +consecrated, that the enemy's power may be driven forth. And for the +same reason churches defiled by shedding of blood or seed are +reconciled: because some machination of the enemy is apparent on +account of the sin committed there. And for this reason we read in +the same distinction: "Wherever you find churches of the Arians, +consecrate them as Catholic churches without delay by means of devout +prayers and rites." Hence, too, it is that some say with probability, +that by entering a consecrated church one obtains forgiveness of +venial sins, just as one does by the sprinkling of holy water; +alleging the words of Ps. 84:2, 3: "Lord, Thou hast blessed Thy land +. . . Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people." And therefore, +in consequence of the virtue acquired by a church's consecration, the +consecration is never repeated. Accordingly we find in the same +distinction the following words quoted from the Council of Nicaea: +"Churches which have once been consecrated, must not be consecrated +again, except they be devastated by fire, or defiled by shedding of +blood or of anyone's seed; because, just as a child once baptized in +the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ought +not to be baptized again, so neither ought a place, once dedicated to +God, to be consecrated again, except owing to the causes mentioned +above; provided that the consecrators held faith in the Holy +Trinity": in fact, those outside the Church cannot consecrate. But, +as we read in the same distinction: "Churches or altars of doubtful +consecration are to be consecrated anew." + +And since they acquire special spiritual virtue from their +consecration, we find it laid down in the same distinction that "the +beams of a dedicated church ought not to be used for any other +purpose, except it be for some other church, or else they are to be +burned, or put to the use of brethren in some monastery: but on no +account are they to be discarded for works of the laity." We read +there, too, that "the altar covering, chair, candlesticks, and veil, +are to be burned when warn out; and their ashes are to be placed in +the baptistery, or in the walls, or else cast into the trenches +beneath the flag-stones, so as not to be defiled by the feet of those +that enter." + +Reply Obj. 4: Since the consecration of the altar signifies Christ's +holiness, and the consecration of a house the holiness of the entire +Church, therefore the consecration of a church or of an altar is more +fittingly commemorated. And on this account the solemnity of a church +dedication is observed for eight days, in order to signify the happy +resurrection of Christ and of the Church's members. Nor is the +consecration of a church or altar man's doing only, since it has a +spiritual virtue. Hence in the same distinction (De Consecr.) it is +said: "The solemnities of the dedication of churches are to be +solemnly celebrated each year: and that dedications are to be kept up +for eight days, you will find in the third book of Kings" (8:66). + +Reply Obj. 5: As we read in De Consecr., dist. 1, "altars, if not of +stone, are not to be consecrated with the anointing of chrism." And +this is in keeping with the signification of this sacrament; both +because the altar signifies Christ, for in 1 Cor. 10:3, it is +written, "But the rock was Christ": and because Christ's body was +laid in a stone sepulchre. This is also in keeping with the use of +the sacrament. Because stone is solid, and may be found everywhere, +which was not necessary in the old Law, when the altar was made in +one place. As to the commandment to make the altar of earth, or of +unhewn stones, this was given in order to remove idolatry. + +Reply Obj. 6: As is laid down in the same distinction, "formerly the +priests did not use golden but wooden chalices; but Pope Zephyrinus +ordered the mass to be said with glass patens; and subsequently Pope +Urban had everything made of silver." Afterwards it was decided that +"the Lord's chalice with the paten should be made entirely of gold, +or of silver or at least of tin. But it is not to be made of brass, +or copper, because the action of the wine thereon produces verdigris, +and provokes vomiting. But no one is to presume to sing mass with a +chalice of wood or of glass," because as the wood is porous, the +consecrated blood would remain in it; while glass is brittle and +there might arise danger of breakage; and the same applies to stone. +Consequently, out of reverence for the sacrament, it was enacted that +the chalice should be made of the aforesaid materials. + +Reply Obj. 7: Where it could be done without danger, the Church gave +order for that thing to be used which more expressively represents +Christ's Passion. But there was not so much danger regarding the body +which is placed on the corporal, as there is with the blood contained +in the chalice. And consequently, although the chalice is not made of +stone, yet the corporal is made of linen, since Christ's body was +wrapped therein. Hence we read in an Epistle of Pope Silvester, +quoted in the same distinction: "By a unanimous decree we command +that no one shall presume to celebrate the sacrifice of the altar +upon a cloth of silk, or dyed material, but upon linen consecrated by +the bishop; as Christ's body was buried in a clean linen +winding-sheet." Moreover, linen material is becoming, owing to its +cleanness, to denote purity of conscience, and, owing to the manifold +labor with which it is prepared, to denote Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 8: The dispensing of the sacraments belongs to the +Church's ministers; but their consecration is from God Himself. +Consequently, the Church's ministers can make no ordinances regarding +the form of the consecration, and the manner of celebrating. And +therefore, if the priest pronounces the words of consecration over +the proper matter with the intention of consecrating, then, without +every one of the things mentioned above--namely, without house, and +altar, consecrated chalice and corporal, and the other things +instituted by the Church--he consecrates Christ's body in very truth; +yet he is guilty of grave sin, in not following the rite of the +Church. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 4] + +Whether the Words Spoken in This Sacrament Are Properly Framed? + +Objection 1: It seems that the words spoken in this sacrament are not +properly framed. For, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), this sacrament +is consecrated with Christ's own words. Therefore no other words +besides Christ's should be spoken in this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, Christ's words and deeds are made known to us +through the Gospel. But in consecrating this sacrament words are used +which are not set down in the Gospels: for we do not read in the +Gospel, of Christ lifting up His eyes to heaven while consecrating +this sacrament: and similarly it is said in the Gospel: "Take ye and +eat" (_comedite_) without the addition of the word "all," whereas in +celebrating this sacrament we say: "Lifting up His eyes to heaven," +and again, "Take ye and eat (_manducate_) of this." Therefore such +words as these are out of place when spoken in the celebration of +this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, all the other sacraments are ordained for the +salvation of all the faithful. But in the celebration of the other +sacraments there is no common prayer put up for the salvation of all +the faithful and of the departed. Consequently it is unbecoming in +this sacrament. + +Obj. 4: Further, Baptism especially is called the sacrament of faith. +Consequently, the truths which belong to instruction in the faith +ought rather to be given regarding Baptism than regarding this +sacrament, such as the doctrine of the apostles and of the Gospels. + +Obj. 5: Further, devotion on the part of the faithful is required in +every sacrament. Consequently, the devotion of the faithful ought not +to be stirred up in this sacrament more than in the others by Divine +praises and by admonitions, such as, "Lift up your hearts." + +Obj. 6: Further, the minister of this sacrament is the priest, as +stated above (Q. 82, A. 1). Consequently, all the words spoken in +this sacrament ought to be uttered by the priest, and not some by the +ministers, and some by the choir. + +Obj. 7: Further, the Divine power works this sacrament unfailingly. +Therefore it is to no purpose that the priest asks for the perfecting +of this sacrament, saying: "Which oblation do thou, O God, in all," +etc. + +Obj. 8: Further, the sacrifice of the New Law is much more excellent +than the sacrifice of the fathers of old. Therefore, it is unfitting +for the priest to pray that this sacrifice may be as acceptable as +the sacrifice of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech. + +Objection 9: Further, just as Christ's body does not begin to be in +this sacrament by change of place, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 2), so +likewise neither does it cease to be there. Consequently, it is +improper for the priest to ask: "Bid these things be borne by the +hands of thy holy angel unto Thine altar on high." + +_On the contrary,_ We find it stated in _De Consecr.,_ dist. 1, that +"James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, +bishop of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the mass": and +from their authority it is manifest that whatever words are employed +in this matter, are chosen becomingly. + +_I answer that,_ Since the whole mystery of our salvation is +comprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater +solemnity than the other sacraments. And since it is written (Eccles. +4:17): "Keep thy foot when thou goest into the house of God"; and +(Ecclus. 18:23): "Before prayer prepare thy soul," therefore the +celebration of this mystery is preceded by a certain preparation in +order that we may perform worthily that which follows after. The +first part of this preparation is Divine praise, and consists in the +"Introit": according to Ps. 49:23: "The sacrifice of praise shall +glorify me; and there is the way by which I will show him the +salvation of God": and this is taken for the most part from the +Psalms, or, at least, is sung with a Psalm, because, as Dionysius +says (Eccl. Hier. iii): "The Psalms comprise by way of praise +whatever is contained in Sacred Scripture." + +The second part contains a reference to our present misery, by reason +of which we pray for mercy, saying: "Lord, have mercy on us," thrice +for the Person of the Father, and "Christ, have mercy on us," thrice +for the Person of the Son, and "Lord, have mercy on us," thrice for +the Person of the Holy Ghost; against the threefold misery of +ignorance, sin, and punishment; or else to express the +"circuminsession" of all the Divine Persons. + +The third part commemorates the heavenly glory, to the possession of +which, after this life of misery, we are tending, in the words, +"Glory be to God on high," which are sung on festival days, on which +the heavenly glory is commemorated, but are omitted in those +sorrowful offices which commemorate our unhappy state. + +The fourth part contains the prayer which the priest makes for the +people, that they may be made worthy of such great mysteries. + +There precedes, in the second place, the instruction of the faithful, +because this sacrament is "a mystery of faith," as stated above (Q. +78, A. 3, ad 5). Now this instruction is given "dispositively," when +the Lectors and Sub-deacons read aloud in the church the teachings of +the prophets and apostles: after this "lesson," the choir sing the +"Gradual," which signifies progress in life; then the "Alleluia" is +intoned, and this denotes spiritual joy; or in mournful offices the +"Tract", expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought +to result from the aforesaid teaching. But the people are instructed +"perfectly" by Christ's teaching contained in the Gospel, which is +read by the higher ministers, that is, by the Deacons. And because we +believe Christ as the Divine truth, according to John 8:46, "If I +tell you the truth, why do you not believe Me?" after the Gospel has +been read, the "Creed" is sung in which the people show that they +assent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And it is sung on those +festivals of which mention is made therein, as on the festivals of +Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid the +foundations of this faith, and on other such days. + +So then, after the people have been prepared and instructed, the next +step is to proceed to the celebration of the mystery, which is both +offered as a sacrifice, and consecrated and received as a sacrament: +since first we have the oblation; then the consecration of the matter +offered; and thirdly, its reception. + +In regard to the oblation, two things are done, namely, the people's +praise in singing the "offertory," expressing the joy of the +offerers, and the priest's prayer asking for the people's oblation to +be made acceptable to God. Hence David said (1 Para 29:17): "In the +simplicity of my heart, I have . . . offered all these things: and I +have seen with great joy Thy people which are here present, offer +Thee their offerings": and then he makes the following prayer: "O +Lord God . . . keep . . . this will." + +Then, regarding the consecration, performed by supernatural power, +the people are first of all excited to devotion in the "Preface," +hence they are admonished "to lift up their hearts to the Lord," and +therefore when the "Preface" is ended the people devoutly praise +Christ's Godhead, saying with the angels: "Holy, Holy, Holy"; and His +humanity, saying with the children: "Blessed is he that cometh." In +the next place the priest makes a "commemoration," first of those for +whom this sacrifice is offered, namely, for the whole Church, and +"for those set in high places" (1 Tim. 2:2), and, in a special +manner, of them "who offer, or for whom the mass is offered." +Secondly, he commemorates the saints, invoking their patronage for +those mentioned above, when he says: "Communicating with, and +honoring the memory," etc. Thirdly, he concludes the petition when he +says: "Wherefore that this oblation," etc., in order that the +oblation may be salutary to them for whom it is offered. + +Then he comes to the consecration itself. Here he asks first of all +for the effect of the consecration, when he says: "Which oblation do +Thou, O God," etc. Secondly, he performs the consecration using our +Saviour's words, when he says: "Who the day before," etc. Thirdly, he +makes excuse for his presumption in obeying Christ's command, saying: +"Wherefore, calling to mind," etc. Fourthly, he asks that the +sacrifice accomplished may find favor with God, when he says: "Look +down upon them with a propitious," etc. Fifthly, he begs for the +effect of this sacrifice and sacrament, first for the partakers, +saying: "We humbly beseech Thee"; then for the dead, who can no +longer receive it, saying: "Be mindful also, O Lord," etc.; thirdly, +for the priests themselves who offer, saying: "And to us sinners," +etc. + +Then follows the act of receiving the sacrament. First of all, the +people are prepared for Communion; first, by the common prayer of the +congregation, which is the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask for our +daily bread to be given us; and also by private prayer, which the +priest puts up specially for the people, when he says: "Deliver us, +we beseech Thee, O Lord," etc. Secondly, the people are prepared by +the "Pax" which is given with the words, "Lamb of God," etc., because +this is the sacrament of unity and peace, as stated above (Q. 73, A. +4; Q. 79, A. 1). But in masses for the dead, in which the sacrifice +is offered not for present peace, but for the repose of the dead, the +"Pax" is omitted. + +Then follows the reception of the sacrament, the priest receiving +first, and afterwards giving it to others, because, as Dionysius says +(Eccl. Hier. iii), he who gives Divine things to others, ought first +to partake thereof himself. + +Finally, the whole celebration of mass ends with the thanksgiving, +the people rejoicing for having received the mystery (and this is the +meaning of the singing after the Communion); and the priest returning +thanks by prayer, as Christ, at the close of the supper with His +disciples, "said a hymn" (Matt. 26:30). + +Reply Obj. 1: The consecration is accomplished by Christ's words +only; but the other words must be added to dispose the people for +receiving it, as stated above. + +Reply Obj. 2: As is stated in the last chapter of John (verse 25), +our Lord said and did many things which are not written down by the +Evangelists; and among them is the uplifting of His eyes to heaven at +the supper; nevertheless the Roman Church had it by tradition from +the apostles. For it seems reasonable that He Who lifted up His eyes +to the Father in raising Lazarus to life, as related in John 11:41, +and in the prayer which He made for the disciples (John 17:1), had +more reason to do so in instituting this sacrament, as being of +greater import. + +The use of the word _manducate_ instead of _comedite_ makes no +difference in the meaning, nor does the expression signify, +especially since those words are no part of the form, as stated above +(Q. 78, A. 1, ad 2, 4). + +The additional word "all" is understood in the Gospels, although not +expressed, because He had said (John 6:54): "Except you eat the flesh +of the Son of Man . . . you shall not have life in you." + +Reply Obj. 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the +whole Church: and therefore in this sacrament, more than in the +others, mention ought to be made of all that belongs to the salvation +of the entire Church. + +Reply Obj. 4: There is a twofold instruction in the Faith: the first +is for those receiving it for the first time, that is to say, for +catechumens, and such instruction is given in connection with +Baptism. The other is the instruction of the faithful who take part +in this sacrament; and such instruction is given in connection with +this sacrament. Nevertheless catechumens and unbelievers are not +excluded therefrom. Hence in De Consecr., dist. 1, it is laid down: +"Let the bishop hinder no one from entering the church, and hearing +the word of God, be they Gentiles, heretics, or Jews, until the mass +of the Catechumens begins," in which the instruction regarding the +Faith is contained. + +Reply Obj. 5: Greater devotion is required in this sacrament than in +the others, for the reason that the entire Christ is contained +therein. Moreover, this sacrament requires a more general devotion, +i.e. on the part of the whole people, since for them it is offered; +and not merely on the part of the recipients, as in the other +sacraments. Hence Cyprian observes (De Orat. Domin. 31), "The priest, +in saying the Preface, disposes the souls of the brethren by saying, +'Lift up your hearts,' and when the people answer--'We have lifted +them up to the Lord,' let them remember that they are to think of +nothing else but God." + +Reply Obj. 6: As was said above (ad 3), those things are mentioned in +this sacrament which belong to the entire Church; and consequently +some things which refer to the people are sung by the choir, and same +of these words are all sung by the choir, as though inspiring the +entire people with them; and there are other words which the priest +begins and the people take up, the priest then acting as in the +person of God; to show that the things they denote have come to the +people through Divine revelation, such as faith and heavenly glory; +and therefore the priest intones the "Creed" and the "Gloria in +excelsis Deo." Other words are uttered by the ministers, such as the +doctrine of the Old and New Testament, as a sign that this doctrine +was announced to the peoples through ministers sent by God. And there +are other words which the priest alone recites, namely, such as +belong to his personal office, "that he may offer up gifts and +prayers for the people" (Heb. 5:1). Some of these, however, he says +aloud, namely, such as are common to priest and people alike, such as +the "common prayers"; other words, however, belong to the priest +alone, such as the oblation and the consecration; consequently, the +prayers that are said in connection with these have to be said by the +priest in secret. Nevertheless, in both he calls the people to +attention by saying: "The Lord be with you," and he waits for them to +assent by saying "Amen." And therefore before the secret prayers he +says aloud, "The Lord be with you," and he concludes, "For ever and +ever." Or the priest secretly pronounces some of the words as a token +that regarding Christ's Passion the disciples acknowledged Him only +in secret. + +Reply Obj. 7: The efficacy of the sacramental words can be hindered +by the priest's intention. Nor is there anything unbecoming in our +asking of God for what we know He will do, just as Christ (John 17:1, +5) asked for His glorification. + +But the priest does not seem to pray there for the consecration to be +fulfilled, but that it may be fruitful in our regard, hence he says +expressively: "That it may become _to us_ the body and the blood." +Again, the words preceding these have that meaning, when he says: +"Vouchsafe to make this oblation blessed," i.e. according to +Augustine (Paschasius, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xii), "that we may +receive a blessing," namely, through grace; "'enrolled,' i.e. that we +may be enrolled in heaven; 'ratified,' i.e. that we may be +incorporated in Christ; 'reasonable,' i.e. that we may be stripped of +our animal sense; 'acceptable,' i.e. that we who in ourselves are +displeasing, may, by its means, be made acceptable to His only Son." + +Reply Obj. 8: Although this sacrament is of itself preferable to all +ancient sacrifices, yet the sacrifices of the men of old were most +acceptable to God on account of their devotion. Consequently the +priest asks that this sacrifice may be accepted by God through the +devotion of the offerers, just as the former sacrifices were accepted +by Him. + +Reply Obj. 9: The priest does not pray that the sacramental species +may be borne up to heaven; nor that Christ's true body may be borne +thither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer +for Christ's mystical body, which is signified in this sacrament, +that the angel standing by at the Divine mysteries may present to God +the prayers of both priest and people, according to Apoc. 8:4: "And +the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up +before God, from the hand of the angel." But God's "altar on high" +means either the Church triumphant, unto which we pray to be +translated, or else God Himself, in Whom we ask to share; because it +is said of this altar (Ex. 20:26): "Thou shalt not go up by steps +unto My altar, i.e. thou shalt make no steps towards the Trinity." Or +else by the angel we are to understand Christ Himself, Who is the +"Angel of great counsel" (Isa. 9:6: Septuagint), Who unites His +mystical body with God the Father and the Church triumphant. + +And from this the mass derives its name (_missa_); because the priest +sends (_mittit_) his prayers up to God through the angel, as the +people do through the priest, or else because Christ is the victim +sent (_missa_) to us: accordingly the deacon on festival days +"dismisses" the people at the end of the mass, by saying: "Ite, missa +est," that is, the victim has been sent (_missa est_) to God through +the angel, so that it may be accepted by God. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 5] + +Whether the Actions Performed in Celebrating This Sacrament Are +Becoming? + +Objection 1: It seems that the actions performed in celebrating this +mystery are not becoming. For, as is evident from its form, this +sacrament belongs to the New Testament. But under the New Testament +the ceremonies of the old are not to be observed, such as that the +priests and ministers were purified with water when they drew nigh to +offer up the sacrifice: for we read (Ex. 30:19, 20): "Aaron and his +sons shall wash their hands and feet . . . when they are going into +the tabernacle of the testimony . . . and when they are to come to +the altar." Therefore it is not fitting that the priest should wash +his hands when celebrating mass. + +Obj. 2: Further, (Ex. 30:7), the Lord commanded Aaron to "burn +sweet-smelling incense" upon the altar which was "before the +propitiatory": and the same action was part of the ceremonies of the +Old Law. Therefore it is not fitting for the priest to use incense +during mass. + +Obj. 3: Further, the ceremonies performed in the sacraments of the +Church ought not to be repeated. Consequently it is not proper for +the priest to repeat the sign of the cross many times over this +sacrament. + +Obj. 4: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 7:7): "And without all +contradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better." But +Christ, Who is in this sacrament after the consecration, is much +greater than the priest. Therefore quite unseemingly the priest, +after the consecration, blesses this sacrament, by signing it with +the cross. + +Obj. 5: Further, nothing which appears ridiculous ought to be done in +one of the Church's sacraments. But it seems ridiculous to perform +gestures, e.g. for the priest to stretch out his arms at times, to +join his hands, to join together his fingers, and to bow down. +Consequently, such things ought not to be done in this sacrament. + +Obj. 6: Further, it seems ridiculous for the priest to turn round +frequently towards the people, and often to greet the people. +Consequently, such things ought not to be done in the celebration of +this sacrament. + +Obj. 7: Further, the Apostle (1 Cor. 13) deems it improper for Christ +to be divided. But Christ is in this sacrament after the +consecration. Therefore it is not proper for the priest to divide the +host. + +Obj. 8: Further, the ceremonies performed in this sacrament represent +Christ's Passion. But during the Passion Christ's body was divided in +the places of the five wounds. Therefore Christ's body ought to be +broken into five parts rather than into three. + +Objection 9: Further, Christ's entire body is consecrated in this +sacrament apart from the blood. Consequently, it is not proper for a +particle of the body to be mixed with the blood. + +Objection 10: Further, just as, in this sacrament, Christ's body is +set before us as food, so is His blood, as drink. But in receiving +Christ's body no other bodily food is added in the celebration of the +mass. Therefore, it is out of place for the priest, after taking +Christ's blood, to receive other wine which is not consecrated. + +Objection 11: Further, the truth ought to be conformable with the +figure. But regarding the Paschal Lamb, which was a figure of this +sacrament, it was commanded that nothing of it should "remain until +the morning." It is improper therefore for consecrated hosts to be +reserved, and not consumed at once. + +Objection 12: Further, the priest addresses in the plural number +those who are hearing mass, when he says, "The Lord be with you": +and, "Let us return thanks." But it is out of keeping to address one +individual in the plural number, especially an inferior. Consequently +it seems unfitting for a priest to say mass with only a single server +present. Therefore in the celebration of this sacrament it seems that +some of the things done are out of place. + +_On the contrary,_ The custom of the Church stands for these things: +and the Church cannot err, since she is taught by the Holy Ghost. + +_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 60, A. 6), there is a twofold +manner of signification in the sacraments, by words, and by actions, +in order that the signification may thus be more perfect. Now, in the +celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify things +pertaining to Christ's Passion, which is represented in this +sacrament; or again, pertaining to Christ's mystical body, which is +signified therein; and again, things pertaining to the use of this +sacrament, which use ought to be devout and reverent. Consequently, +in the celebration of this mystery some things are done in order to +represent Christ's Passion, or the disposing of His mystical body, +and some others are done which pertain to the devotion and reverence +due to this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: The washing of the hands is done in the celebration of +mass out of reverence for this sacrament; and this for two reasons: +first, because we are not wont to handle precious objects except the +hands be washed; hence it seems indecent for anyone to approach so +great a sacrament with hands that are, even literally, unclean. +Secondly, on account of its signification, because, as Dionysius says +(Eccl. Hier. iii), the washing of the extremities of the limbs +denotes cleansing from even the smallest sins, according to John +13:10: "He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet." And such +cleansing is required of him who approaches this sacrament; and this +is denoted by the confession which is made before the "Introit" of +the mass. Moreover, this was signified by the washing of the priests +under the Old Law, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). However, the +Church observes this ceremony, not because it was prescribed under +the Old Law, but because it is becoming in itself, and therefore +instituted by the Church. Hence it is not observed in the same way as +it was then: because the washing of the feet is omitted, and the +washing of the hands is observed; for this can be done more readily, +and suffices for denoting perfect cleansing. For, since the hand is +the "organ of organs" (De Anima iii), all works are attributed to the +hands: hence it is said in Ps. 25:6: "I will wash my hands among the +innocent." + +Reply Obj. 2: We use incense, not as commanded by a ceremonial +precept of the Law, but as prescribed by the Church; accordingly we +do not use it in the same fashion as it was ordered under the Old +Law. It has reference to two things: first, to the reverence due to +this sacrament, i.e. in order by its good odor, to remove any +disagreeable smell that may be about the place; secondly, it serves +to show the effect of grace, wherewith Christ was filled as with a +good odor, according to Gen. 27:27: "Behold, the odor of my son is +like the odor of a ripe field"; and from Christ it spreads to the +faithful by the work of His ministers, according to 2 Cor. 2:14: "He +manifesteth the odor of his knowledge by us in every place"; and +therefore when the altar which represents Christ, has been incensed +on every side, then all are incensed in their proper order. + +Reply Obj. 3: The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes use of the +sign of the cross to signify Christ's Passion which was ended upon +the cross. Now, Christ's Passion was accomplished in certain stages. +First of all there was Christ's betrayal, which was the work of God, +of Judas, and of the Jews; and this is signified by the triple sign +of the cross at the words, "These gifts, these presents, these holy +unspotted sacrifices." + +Secondly, there was the selling of Christ. Now he was sold to the +Priests, to the Scribes, and to the Pharisees: and to signify this +the threefold sign of the cross is repeated, at the words, "blessed, +enrolled, ratified." Or again, to signify the price for which He was +sold, viz. thirty pence. And a double cross is added at the +words--"that it may become to us the Body and the Blood," etc., to +signify the person of Judas the seller, and of Christ Who was sold. + +Thirdly, there was the foreshadowing of the Passion at the last +supper. To denote this, in the third place, two crosses are made, one +in consecrating the body, the other in consecrating the blood; each +time while saying, "He blessed." + +Fourthly, there was Christ's Passion itself. And so in order to +represent His five wounds, in the fourth place, there is a fivefold +signing of the cross at the words, "a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a +spotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of +everlasting salvation." + +Fifthly, the outstretching of Christ's body, and the shedding of the +blood, and the fruits of the Passion, are signified by the triple +signing of the cross at the words, "as many as shall receive the body +and blood, may be filled with every blessing," etc. + +Sixthly, Christ's threefold prayer upon the cross is represented; one +for His persecutors when He said, "Father, forgive them"; the second +for deliverance from death, when He cried, "My God, My God, why hast +Thou forsaken Me?" the third referring to His entrance into glory, +when He said, "Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit"; and in +order to denote these there is a triple signing with the cross made +at the words, "Thou dost sanctify, quicken, bless." + +Seventhly, the three hours during which He hung upon the cross, that +is, from the sixth to the ninth hour, are represented; in +signification of which we make once more a triple sign of the cross +at the words, "Through Him, and with Him, and in Him." + +Eighthly, the separation of His soul from the body is signified by +the two subsequent crosses made over the chalice. + +Ninthly, the resurrection on the third day is represented by the +three crosses made at the words--"May the peace of the Lord be ever +with you." + +In short, we may say that the consecration of this sacrament, and the +acceptance of this sacrifice, and its fruits, proceed from the virtue +of the cross of Christ, and therefore wherever mention is made of +these, the priest makes use of the sign of the cross. + +Reply Obj. 4: After the consecration, the priest makes the sign of +the cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating, but only +for calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of +Christ's suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad 3). + +Reply Obj. 5: The actions performed by the priest in mass are not +ridiculous gestures, since they are done so as to represent something +else. The priest in extending his arms signifies the outstretching of +Christ's arms upon the cross. He also lifts up his hands as he prays, +to point out that his prayer is directed to God for the people, +according to Lam. 3:41: "Let us lift up our hearts with our hands to +the Lord in the heavens": and Ex. 17:11: "And when Moses lifted up +his hands Israel overcame." That at times he joins his hands, and +bows down, praying earnestly and humbly, denotes the humility and +obedience of Christ, out of which He suffered. He closes his fingers, +i.e. the thumb and first finger, after the consecration, because, +with them, he had touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if +any particle cling to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this +belongs to the reverence for this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 6: Five times does the priest turn round towards the +people, to denote that our Lord manifested Himself five times on the +day of His Resurrection, as stated above in the treatise on Christ's +Resurrection (Q. 55, A. 3, Obj. 3). But the priest greets the people +seven times, namely, five times, by turning round to the people, and +twice without turning round, namely, when he says, "The Lord be with +you" before the "Preface," and again when he says, "May the peace of +the Lord be ever with you": and this is to denote the sevenfold grace +of the Holy Ghost. But a bishop, when he celebrates on festival days, +in his first greeting says, "Peace be to you," which was our Lord's +greeting after Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly +represents. + +Reply Obj. 7: The breaking of the host denotes three things: first, +the rending of Christ's body, which took place in the Passion; +secondly, the distinction of His mystical body according to its +various states; and thirdly, the distribution of the graces which +flow from Christ's Passion, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii). +Hence this breaking does not imply severance in Christ. + +Reply Obj. 8: As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the +Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), "the Lord's body is threefold; the +part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ's risen body," +namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, +if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies. "The +part consumed denotes those still walking upon earth," because while +living upon earth they are united together by this sacrament; and are +bruised by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the +teeth. "The part reserved on the altar till the close of the mass, is +His body hidden in the sepulchre, because the bodies of the saints +will be in their graves until the end of the world": though their +souls are either in purgatory, or in heaven. However, this rite of +reserving one part on the altar till the close of the mass is no +longer observed, on account of the danger; nevertheless, the same +meaning of the parts continues, which some persons have expressed in +verse, thus: + +"The host being rent-- +What is dipped, means the blest; +What is dry, means the living; +What is kept, those at rest." + +Others, however, say that the part put into the chalice denotes those +still living in this world, while the part kept outside the chalice +denotes those fully blessed both in soul and body; while the part +consumed means the others. + +Reply Obj. 9: Two things can be signified by the chalice: first, the +Passion itself, which is represented in this sacrament, and according +to this, by the part put into the chalice are denoted those who are +still sharers of Christ's sufferings; secondly, the enjoyment of the +Blessed can be signified, which is likewise foreshadowed in this +sacrament; and therefore those whose bodies are already in full +beatitude, are denoted by the part put into the chalice. And it is to +be observed that the part put into the chalice ought not to be given +to the people to supplement the communion, because Christ gave dipped +bread only to Judas the betrayer. + +Reply Obj. 10: Wine, by reason of its humidity, is capable of +washing, consequently it is received in order to rinse the mouth +after receiving this sacrament, lest any particles remain: and this +belongs to reverence for the sacrament. Hence (Extra, De Celebratione +missae, chap. Ex parte), it is said: "The priest should always +cleanse his mouth with wine after receiving the entire sacrament of +Eucharist: except when he has to celebrate another mass on the same +day, lest from taking the ablution-wine he be prevented from +celebrating again"; and it is for the same reason that wine is poured +over the fingers with which he had touched the body of Christ. + +Reply Obj. 11: The truth ought to be conformable with the figure, in +some respect: namely, because a part of the host consecrated, of +which the priest and ministers or even the people communicate, ought +not to be reserved until the day following. Hence, as is laid down +(De Consecr., dist. ii), Pope Clement I ordered that "as many hosts +are to be offered on the altar as shall suffice for the people; +should any be left over, they are not to be reserved until the +morrow, but let the clergy carefully consume them with fear and +trembling." Nevertheless, since this sacrament is to be received +daily, whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it is therefore necessary +for other hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence we read in the +same distinction: "Let the priest always have the Eucharist ready, so +that, when anyone fall sick, he may take Communion to him at once, +lest he die without it." + +Reply Obj. 12: Several persons ought to be present at the solemn +celebration of the mass. Hence Pope Soter says (De Consecr., dist. +1): "It has also been ordained, that no priest is to presume to +celebrate solemn mass, unless two others be present answering him, +while he himself makes the third; because when he says in the plural, +'The Lord be with you,' and again in the Secrets, 'Pray ye for me,' +it is most becoming that they should answer his greeting." Hence it +is for the sake of greater solemnity that we find it decreed (De +Consecr. dist. 1) that a bishop is to solemnize mass with several +assistants. Nevertheless, in private masses it suffices to have one +server, who takes the place of the whole Catholic people, on whose +behalf he makes answer in the plural to the priest. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 6] + +Whether the Defects Occurring During the Celebration of This +Sacrament Can Be Sufficiently Met by Observing the Church's Statutes? + +Objection 1: It seems that the defects occurring during the +celebration of this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met by observing +the statutes of the Church. For it sometimes happens that before or +after the consecration the priest dies or goes mad, or is hindered by +some other infirmity from receiving the sacrament and completing the +mass. Consequently it seems impossible to observe the Church's +statute, whereby the priest consecrating must communicate of his own +sacrifice. + +Obj. 2: Further, it sometimes happens that, before the consecration, +the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk something, or that he +is in mortal sin, or under excommunication, which he did not remember +previously. Therefore, in such a dilemma a man must necessarily +commit mortal sin by acting against the Church's statute, whether he +receives or not. + +Obj. 3: Further, it sometimes happens that a fly or a spider, or some +other poisonous creature falls into the chalice after the +consecration. Or even that the priest comes to know that poison has +been put in by some evilly disposed person in order to kill him. Now +in this instance, if he takes it, he appears to sin by killing +himself, or by tempting God: also in like manner if he does not take +it, he sins by acting against the Church's statute. Consequently, he +seems to be perplexed, and under necessity of sinning, which is not +becoming. + +Obj. 4: Further, it sometimes happens from the server's want of heed +that water is not added to the chalice, or even the wine overlooked, +and that the priest discovers this. Therefore he seems to be +perplexed likewise in this case, whether he receives the body without +the blood, thus making the sacrifice to be incomplete, or whether he +receives neither the body nor the blood. + +Obj. 5: Further, it sometimes happens that the priest cannot remember +having said the words of consecration, or other words which are +uttered in the celebration of this sacrament. In this case he seems +to sin, whether he repeats the words over the same matter, which +words possibly he has said before, or whether he uses bread and wine +which are not consecrated, as if they were consecrated. + +Obj. 6: Further, it sometimes comes to pass owing to the cold that +the host will slip from the priest's hands into the chalice, either +before or after the breaking. In this case then the priest will not +be able to comply with the Church's rite, either as to the breaking, +or else as to this, that only a third part is put into the chalice. + +Obj. 7: Further, sometimes, too, it happens, owing to the priest's +want of care, that Christ's blood is spilled, or that he vomits the +sacrament received, or that the consecrated hosts are kept so long +that they become corrupt, or that they are nibbled by mice, or lost +in any manner whatsoever; in which cases it does not seem possible +for due reverence to be shown towards this sacrament, as the Church's +ordinances require. It does not seem then that such defects or +dangers can be met by keeping to the Church's statutes. + +_On the contrary,_ Just as God does not command an impossibility, so +neither does the Church. + +_I answer that,_ Dangers or defects happening to this sacrament can +be met in two ways: first, by preventing any such mishaps from +occurring: secondly, by dealing with them in such a way, that what +may have happened amiss is put right, either by employing a remedy, +or at least by repentance on his part who has acted negligently +regarding this sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: If the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness +before the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there is no +need for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after the +consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been +consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after +both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to +be finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii, q. +1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of Toledo: +"We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred mysteries are +consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness +supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot finish the mystery +begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the +consecration of the office thus begun. For nothing else is suitable +for completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be +completed either by the priest who began it, or by the one who +follows him: because they cannot be completed except they be +performed in perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the +change of persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures +the happy issue of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for +cases of natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no +minister or priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices +unfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented from continuing. If +anyone shall have rashly presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of +excommunication." + +Reply Obj. 2: Where difficulty arises, the less dangerous course +should always be followed. But the greatest danger regarding this +sacrament lies in whatever may prevent its completion, because this +is a heinous sacrilege; while that danger is of less account which +regards the condition of the receiver. Consequently, if after the +consecration has been begun the priest remembers that he has eaten or +drunk anything, he ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice and +receive the sacrament. Likewise, if he recalls a sin committed, he +ought to make an act of contrition, with the firm purpose of +confessing and making satisfaction for it: and thus he will not +receive the sacrament unworthily, but with profit. The same applies +if he calls to mind that he is under some excommunication; for he +ought to make the resolution of humbly seeking absolution; and so he +will receive absolution from the invisible High Priest Jesus Christ +for his act of completing the Divine mysteries. + +But if he calls to mind any of the above facts previous to the +consecration, I should deem it safer for him to interrupt the mass +begun, especially if he has broken his fast, or is under +excommunication, unless grave scandal were to be feared. + +Reply Obj. 3: If a fly or a spider falls into the chalice before +consecration, or if it be discovered that the wine is poisoned, it +ought to be poured out, and after purifying the chalice, fresh wine +should be served for consecration. But if anything of the sort happen +after the consecration, the insect should be caught carefully and +washed thoroughly, then burned, and the "ablution," together with the +ashes, thrown into the sacrarium. If it be discovered that the wine +has been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor +administer it to others on any account, lest the life-giving chalice +become one of death, but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel +with the relics: and in order that the sacrament may not remain +incomplete, he ought to put other wine into the chalice, resume the +mass from the consecration of the blood, and complete the sacrifice. + +Reply Obj. 4: If before the consecration of the blood, and after the +consecration of the body the priest detect that either the wine or +the water is absent, then he ought at once to add them and +consecrate. But if after the words of consecration he discover that +the water is absent, he ought notwithstanding to proceed straight on, +because the addition of the water is not necessary for the sacrament, +as stated above (Q. 74, A. 7): nevertheless the person responsible +for the neglect ought to be punished. And on no account should water +be mixed with the consecrated wine, because corruption of the +sacrament would ensue in part, as was said above (Q. 77, A. 8). But +if after the words of consecration the priest perceive that no wine +has been put in the chalice, and if he detect it before receiving the +body, then rejecting the water, he ought to pour in wine with water, +and begin over again the consecrating words of the blood. But if he +notice it after receiving the body, he ought to procure another host +which must be consecrated together with the blood; and I say so for +this reason, because if he were to say only the words of consecration +of the blood, the proper order of consecrating would not be observed; +and, as is laid down by the Council of Toledo, quoted above (ad 1), +sacrifices cannot be perfect, except they be performed in perfect +order. But if he were to begin from the consecration of the blood, +and were to repeat all the words which follow, it would not suffice, +unless there was a consecrated host present, since in those words +there are things to be said and done not only regarding the blood, +but also regarding the body; and at the close he ought once more to +receive the consecrated host and blood, even if he had already taken +the water which was in the chalice, because the precept of the +completing this sacrament is of greater weight than the precept of +receiving the sacrament while fasting, as stated above (Q. 80, A. 8). + +Reply Obj. 5: Although the priest may not recollect having said some +of the words he ought to say, he ought not to be disturbed mentally +on that account; for a man who utters many words cannot recall to +mind all that he has said; unless perchance in uttering them he +adverts to something connected with the consecration; for so it is +impressed on the memory. Hence, if a man pays attention to what he is +saying, but without adverting to the fact that he is saying these +particular words, he remembers soon after that he has said them; for, +a thing is presented to the memory under the formality of the past +(De Mem. et Remin. i). + +But if it seem to the priest that he has probably omitted some of the +words that are not necessary for the sacrament, I think that he ought +not to repeat them on that account, changing the order of the +sacrifice, but that he ought to proceed: but if he is certain that he +has left out any of those that are necessary for the sacrament, +namely, the form of the consecration, since the form of the +consecration is necessary for the sacrament, just as the matter is, +it seems that the same thing ought to be done as was stated above (ad +4) with regard to defect in the matter, namely, that he should begin +again with the form of the consecration, and repeat the other things +in order, lest the order of the sacrifice be altered. + +Reply Obj. 6: The breaking of the consecrated host, and the putting +of only one part into the chalice, regards the mystical body, just as +the mixing with water signifies the people, and therefore the +omission of either of them causes no such imperfection in the +sacrifice, as calls for repetition regarding the celebration of this +sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 7: According to the decree, _De Consecr.,_ dist. ii, +quoting a decree of Pope Pius I, "If from neglect any of the blood +falls upon a board which is fixed to the ground, let it be taken up +with the tongue, and let the board be scraped. But if it be not a +board, let the ground be scraped, and the scrapings burned, and the +ashes buried inside the altar and let the priest do penance for forty +days. But if a drop fall from the chalice on to the altar, let the +minister suck up the drop, and do penance during three days; if it +falls upon the altar cloth and penetrates to the second altar cloth, +let him do four days' penance; if it penetrates to the third, let him +do nine days' penance; if to the fourth, let him do twenty days' +penance; and let the altar linens which the drop touched be washed +three times by the priest, holding the chalice below, then let the +water be taken and put away nigh to the altar." It might even be +drunk by the minister, unless it might be rejected from nausea. Some +persons go further, and cut out that part of the linen, which they +burn, putting the ashes in the altar or down the sacrarium. And the +Decretal continues with a quotation from the Penitential of Bede the +Priest: "If, owing to drunkenness or gluttony, anyone vomits up the +Eucharist, let him do forty days' penance, if he be a layman; but let +clerics or monks, deacons and priests, do seventy days' penance; and +let a bishop do ninety days'. But if they vomit from sickness, let +them do penance for seven days." And in the same distinction, we read +a decree of the (Fourth) Council of Arles: "They who do not keep +proper custody over the sacrament, if a mouse or other animal consume +it, must do forty days' penance: he who loses it in a church, or if a +part fall and be not found, shall do thirty days' penance." And the +priest seems to deserve the same penance, who from neglect allows the +hosts to putrefy. And on those days the one doing penance ought to +fast, and abstain from Communion. However, after weighing the +circumstances of the fact and of the person, the said penances may be +lessened or increased. But it must be observed that wherever the +species are found to be entire, they must be preserved reverently, or +consumed; because Christ's body is there so long as the species last, +as stated above (Q. 77, AA. 4, 5). But if it can be done +conveniently, the things in which they are found are to be burned, +and the ashes put in the sacrarium, as was said of the scrapings of +the altar-table, here above. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 84 + +OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE +(In Ten Articles) + +We must now consider the Sacrament of Penance. We shall consider +(1)Penance itself; (2) Its effect; (3) Its Parts; (4) The recipients +of this sacrament; (5) The power of the ministers, which pertains to +the keys; (6) The solemnization of this sacrament. + +The first of these considerations will be twofold: (1) Penance as a +sacrament; (2) Penance as a virtue. + +Under the first head there are ten points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Penance is a sacrament? + +(2) Of its proper matter; + +(3) Of its form; + +(4) Whether imposition of hands is necessary for this sacrament? + +(5) Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation? + +(6) Of its relation to the other sacraments; + +(7) Of its institution; + +(8) Of its duration; + +(9) Of its continuance; + +(10) Whether it can be repeated? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 1] + +Whether Penance Is a Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a sacrament. For +Gregory [*Cf. Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19] says: "The sacraments are +Baptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Christ; which are called +sacraments because under the veil of corporeal things the Divine +power works out salvation in a hidden manner." But this does not +happen in Penance, because therein corporeal things are not employed +that, under them, the power of God may work our salvation. Therefore +Penance is not a sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, the sacraments of the Church are shown forth by the +ministers of Christ, according to 1 Cor. 4:1: "Let a man so account +of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the +mysteries of God." But Penance is not conferred by the ministers of +Christ, but is inspired inwardly into man by God, according to Jer. +31:19: "After Thou didst convert me, I did penance." Therefore it +seems that Penance is not a sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, in the sacraments of which we have already spoken +above, there is something that is sacrament only, something that is +both reality and sacrament, and something that is reality only, as is +clear from what has been stated (Q. 66, A. 1). But this does not +apply to Penance. Therefore Penance is not a sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ As Baptism is conferred that we may be cleansed +from sin, so also is Penance: wherefore Peter said to Simon Magus +(Acts 8:22): "Do penance . . . from this thy wickedness." But Baptism +is a sacrament as stated above (Q. 66, A. 1). Therefore for the same +reason Penance is also a sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ As Gregory says [*Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19], "a +sacrament consists in a solemn act, whereby something is so done that +we understand it to signify the holiness which it confers." Now it is +evident that in Penance something is done so that something holy is +signified both on the part of the penitent sinner, and on the part of +the priest absolving, because the penitent sinner, by deed and word, +shows his heart to have renounced sin, and in like manner the priest, +by his deed and word with regard to the penitent, signifies the work +of God Who forgives his sins. Therefore it is evident that Penance, +as practiced in the Church, is a sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: By corporeal things taken in a wide sense we may +understand also external sensible actions, which are to this +sacrament what water is to Baptism, or chrism to Confirmation. But it +is to be observed that in those sacraments, whereby an exceptional +grace surpassing altogether the proportion of a human act, is +conferred, some corporeal matter is employed externally, e.g. in +Baptism, which confers full remission of all sins, both as to guilt +and as to punishment, and in Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the +Holy Ghost is bestowed, and in Extreme Unction, which confers perfect +spiritual health derived from the virtue of Christ as from an +extrinsic principle. Wherefore, such human acts as are in these +sacraments, are not the essential matter of the sacrament, but are +dispositions thereto. On the other hand, in those sacraments whose +effect corresponds to that of some human act, the sensible human act +itself takes the place of matter, as in the case of Penance and +Matrimony, even as in bodily medicines, some are applied externally, +such as plasters and drugs, while others are acts of the person who +seeks to be cured, such as certain exercises. + +Reply Obj. 2: In those sacraments which have a corporeal matter, this +matter needs to be applied by a minister of the Church, who stands in +the place of Christ, which denotes that the excellence of the power +which operates in the sacraments is from Christ. But in the sacrament +of Penance, as stated above (ad 1), human actions take the place of +matter, and these actions proceed from internal inspiration, +wherefore the matter is not applied by the minister, but by God +working inwardly; while the minister furnishes the complement of the +sacrament, when he absolves the penitent. + +Reply Obj. 3: In Penance also, there is something which is sacrament +only, viz. the acts performed outwardly both by the repentant sinner, +and by the priest in giving absolution; that which is reality and +sacrament is the sinner's inward repentance; while that which is +reality, and not sacrament, is the forgiveness of sin. The first of +these taken altogether is the cause of the second; and the first and +second together are the cause of the third. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 2] + +Whether Sins Are the Proper Matter of This Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It would seem that sins are not the proper matter of +this sacrament. Because, in the other sacraments, the matter is +hallowed by the utterance of certain words, and being thus hallowed +produces the sacramental effect. Now sins cannot be hallowed, for +they are opposed to the effect of the sacrament, viz. grace which +blots out sin. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of this +sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says in his book _De Poenitentia_ [Cf. +Serm. cccli]: "No one can begin a new life, unless he repent of the +old." Now not only sins but also the penalties of the present life +belong to the old life. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of +Penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, sin is either original, mortal or venial. Now the +sacrament of Penance is not ordained against original sin, for this +is taken away by Baptism, [nor against mortal sin, for this is taken +away by the sinner's confession]*, nor against venial sin, which is +taken away by the beating of the breast and the sprinkling of holy +water and the like. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of +Penance. [*The words in brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition]. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:21): "(Who) have not +done penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness, +that they have committed." + +_I answer that,_ Matter is twofold, viz. proximate and remote: thus +the proximate matter of a statue is a metal, while the remote matter +is water. Now it has been stated (A. 1, ad 1, ad 2), that the +proximate matter of this sacrament consists in the acts of the +penitent, the matter of which acts are the sins over which he +grieves, which he confesses, and for which he satisfies. Hence it +follows that sins are the remote matter of Penance, as a matter, not +for approval, but for detestation, and destruction. + +Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers the proximate matter of a +sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: The old life that was subject to death is the object of +Penance, not as regards the punishment, but as regards the guilt +connected with it. + +Reply Obj. 3: Penance regards every kind of sin in a way, but not +each in the same way. Because Penance regards actual mortal sin +properly and chiefly; properly, since, properly speaking, we are said +to repent of what we have done of our own will; chiefly, since this +sacrament was instituted chiefly for the blotting out of mortal sin. +Penance regards venial sins, properly speaking indeed, in so far as +they are committed of our own will, but this was not the chief +purpose of its institution. But as to original sin, Penance regards +it neither chiefly, since Baptism, and not Penance, is ordained +against original sin, nor properly, because original sin is not done +of our own will, except in so far as Adam's will is looked upon as +ours, in which sense the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12): "In whom all have +sinned." Nevertheless, Penance may be said to regard original sin, if +we take it in a wide sense for any detestation of something past: in +which sense Augustine uses the term in his book _De Poenitentia_ +(Serm. cccli). +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 3] + +Whether the Form of This Sacrament Is: "I Absolve Thee"? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the form of this sacrament is not: "I +absolve thee." Because the forms of the sacraments are received from +Christ's institution and the Church's custom. But we do not read that +Christ instituted this form. Nor is it in common use; in fact in +certain absolutions which are given publicly in church (e.g. at Prime +and Compline and on Maundy Thursday), absolution is given not in the +indicative form by saying: "I absolve thee," but in the deprecatory +form, by saying: "May Almighty God have mercy on you," or: "May +Almighty God grant you absolution and forgiveness." Therefore the +form of this sacrament is not: "I absolve thee." + +Obj. 2: Further, Pope Leo says (Ep. cviii) that God's forgiveness +cannot be obtained without the priestly supplications: and he is +speaking there of God's forgiveness granted to the penitent. +Therefore the form of this sacrament should be deprecatory. + +Obj. 3: Further, to absolve from sin is the same as to remit sin. But +God alone remits sin, for He alone cleanses man inwardly from sin, as +Augustine says (Contra Donatist. v, 21). Therefore it seems that God +alone absolves from sin. Therefore the priest should say not: "I +absolve thee," as neither does he say: "I remit thy sins." + +Obj. 4: Further, just as our Lord gave His disciples the power to +absolve from sins, so also did He give them the power "to heal +infirmities," "to cast out devils," and "to cure diseases" (Matt. +10:1; Luke 9:1). Now the apostles, in healing the sick, did not use +the words: "I heal thee," but: "The Lord Jesus Christ heal [Vulg.: +'heals'] thee," as Peter said to the palsied man (Acts 9:34). +Therefore since priests have the power which Christ gave His +apostles, it seems that they should not use the form: "I absolve +thee," but: "May Christ absolve thee." + +Obj. 5: Further, some explain this form by stating that when they +say: "I absolve thee," they mean "I declare you to be absolved." But +neither can this be done by a priest unless it be revealed to him by +God, wherefore, as we read in Matt. 16:19 before it was said to +Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth," etc., it was said to +him (Matt. 16:17): "Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh +and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in +heaven." Therefore it seems presumptuous for a priest, who has +received no revelation on the matter, to say: "I absolve thee," even +if this be explained to mean: "I declare thee absolved." + +_On the contrary,_ As our Lord said to His disciples (Matt. 28:19): +"Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them," etc., so did He +say to Peter (Matt. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," +etc. Now the priest, relying on the authority of those words of +Christ, says: "I baptize thee." Therefore on the same authority he +should say in this sacrament: "I absolve thee." + +_I answer that,_ The perfection of a thing is ascribed to its form. +Now it has been stated above (A. 1, ad 2) that this sacrament is +perfected by that which is done by the priest. Wherefore the part +taken by the penitent, whether it consist of words or deeds, must +needs be the matter of this sacrament, while the part taken by the +priest, takes the place of the form. + +Now since the sacraments of the New Law accomplish what they signify, +as stated above (Q. 62, A. 1, ad 1), it behooves the sacramental form +to signify the sacramental effect in a manner that is in keeping with +the matter. Hence the form of Baptism is: "I baptize thee," and the +form of Confirmation is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and +I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation," because these +sacraments are perfected in the use of their matter: while in the +sacrament of the Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration +of the matter, the reality of the consecration is expressed in the +words: "This is My Body." + +Now this sacrament, namely the sacrament of Penance, consists not in +the consecration of a matter, nor in the use of a hallowed matter, +but rather in the removal of a certain matter, viz. sin, in so far as +sins are said to be the matter of Penance, as explained above (A. 2). +This removal is expressed by the priest saying: "I absolve thee": +because sins are fetters, according to Prov. 5:22. "His own +iniquities catch the wicked, and he is fast bound with the ropes of +his own sins." Wherefore it is evident that this is the most fitting +form of this sacrament: "I absolve thee." + +Reply Obj. 1: This form is taken from Christ's very words which He +addressed to Peter (Matt. 16:19): "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on +earth," etc., and such is the form employed by the Church in +sacramental absolution. But such absolutions as are given in public +are not sacramental, but are prayers for the remission of venial +sins. Wherefore in giving sacramental absolution it would not suffice +to say: "May Almighty God have mercy on thee," or: "May God grant +thee absolution and forgiveness," because by such words the priest +does not signify the giving of absolution, but prays that it may be +given. Nevertheless the above prayer is said before the sacramental +absolution is given, lest the sacramental effect be hindered on the +part of the penitent, whose acts are as matter in this sacrament, but +not in Baptism or Confirmation. + +Reply Obj. 2: The words of Leo are to be understood of the prayer +that precedes the absolution, and do not exclude the fact that the +priest pronounces absolution. + +Reply Obj. 3: God alone absolves from sin and forgives sins +authoritatively; yet priests do both ministerially, because the words +of the priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine +power, as in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power +that works inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or +words, as shown above (Q. 62, A. 4; Q. 64, AA. 1, 2). Wherefore our +Lord expressed both: for He said to Peter (Matt. 16:19): "Whatsoever +thou shalt loose on earth," etc., and to His disciples (John 20:23): +"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." Yet the +priest says: "I absolve thee," rather than: "I forgive thee thy +sins," because it is more in keeping with the words of our Lord, by +expressing the power of the keys whereby priests absolve. +Nevertheless, since the priest absolves ministerially, something is +suitably added in reference to the supreme authority of God, by the +priest saying: "I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the +Son, and of the Holy Ghost," or by the power of Christ's Passion, or +by the authority of God. However, as this is not defined by the words +of Christ, as it is for Baptism, this addition is left to the +discretion of the priest. + +Reply Obj. 4: Power was given to the apostles, not that they +themselves might heal the sick, but that the sick might be healed at +the prayer of the apostles: whereas power was given to them to work +instrumentally or ministerially in the sacraments; wherefore they +could express their own agency in the sacramental forms rather than +in the healing of infirmities. Nevertheless in the latter case they +did not always use the deprecatory form, but sometimes employed the +indicative or imperative: thus we read (Acts 3:6) that Peter said to +the lame man: "What I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ +of Nazareth, arise and walk." + +Reply Obj. 5: It is true in a sense that the words, "I absolve thee" +mean "I declare thee absolved," but this explanation is incomplete. +Because the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but effect +what they signify. Wherefore, just as the priest in baptizing anyone, +declares by deed and word that the person is washed inwardly, and +this not only significatively but also effectively, so also when he +says: "I absolve thee," he declares the man to be absolved not only +significatively but also effectively. And yet he does not speak as of +something uncertain, because just as the other sacraments of the New +Law have, of themselves, a sure effect through the power of Christ's +Passion, which effect, nevertheless, may be impeded on the part of +the recipient, so is it with this sacrament. Hence Augustine says (De +Adult. Conjug. ii): "There is nothing disgraceful or onerous in the +reconciliation of husband and wife, when adultery committed has been +washed away, since there is no doubt that remission of sins is +granted through the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Consequently +there is no need for a special revelation to be made to the priest, +but the general revelation of faith suffices, through which sins are +forgiven. Hence the revelation of faith is said to have been made to +Peter. + +It would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, "I +absolve thee" mean: "I grant thee the sacrament of absolution." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 4] + +Whether the Imposition of the Priest's Hands Is Necessary for This +Sacrament? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands +is necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (Mk. 16:18): "They +shall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover." Now sinners +are sick spiritually, and obtain recovery through this sacrament. +Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament. + +Obj. 2: Further, in this sacrament man regains the Holy Ghost Whom he +had lost, wherefore it is said in the person of the penitent (Ps. +1:14): "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me +with a perfect spirit." Now the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition +of hands; for we read (Acts 8:17) that the apostles "laid their hands +upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost"; and (Matt. 19:13) that +"little children were presented" to our Lord, "that He should impose +hands upon them." Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in +this sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, the priest's words are not more efficacious in this +than in the other sacraments. But in the other sacraments the words +of the minister do not suffice, unless he perform some action: thus, +in Baptism, the priest while saying: "I baptize thee," has to perform +a bodily washing. Therefore, also while saying: "I absolve thee," the +priest should perform some action in regard to the penitent, by +laying hands on him. + +_On the contrary,_ When our Lord said to Peter (Matt. 16:19): +"Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc., He made no mention of +an imposition of hands; nor did He when He said to all the apostles +(John 20:13): "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them." +Therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament. + +_I answer that,_ In the sacraments of the Church the imposition of +hands is made, to signify some abundant effect of grace, through +those on whom the hands are laid being, as it were, united to the +ministers in whom grace should be plentiful. Wherefore an imposition +of hands is made in the sacrament of Confirmation, wherein the +fulness of the Holy Ghost is conferred; and in the sacrament of +order, wherein is bestowed a certain excellence of power over the +Divine mysteries; hence it is written (2 Tim. 1:6): "Stir up the +grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands." + +Now the sacrament of Penance is ordained, not that man may receive +some abundance of grace, but that his sins may be taken away; and +therefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament, as +neither is there for Baptism, wherein nevertheless a fuller remission +of sins is bestowed. + +Reply Obj. 1: That imposition of hands is not sacramental, but is +intended for the working of miracles, namely, that by the contact of +a sanctified man's hand, even bodily infirmity might be removed; even +as we read of our Lord (Mk. 6:5) that He cured the sick, "laying His +hands upon them," and (Matt. 8:3) that He cleansed a leper by +touching him. + +Reply Obj. 2: It is not every reception of the Holy Ghost that +requires an imposition of hands, since even in Baptism man receives +the Holy Ghost, without any imposition of hands: it is at the +reception of the fulness of the Holy Ghost which belongs to +Confirmation that an imposition of hands is required. + +Reply Obj. 3: In those sacraments which are perfected in the use of +the matter, the minister has to perform some bodily action on the +recipient of the sacrament, e.g. in Baptism, Confirmation, and +Extreme Unction; whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use +of matter employed outwardly, the matter being supplied by the part +taken by the penitent: wherefore, just as in the Eucharist the priest +perfects the sacrament by merely pronouncing the words over the +matter, so the mere words which the priest while absolving pronounces +over the penitent perfect the sacrament of absolution. If, indeed, +any bodily act were necessary on the part of the priest, the sign of +the cross, which is employed in the Eucharist, would not be less +becoming than the imposition of hands, in token that sins are +forgiven through the blood of Christ crucified; and yet this is not +essential to this sacrament as neither is it to the Eucharist. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 5] + +Whether This Sacrament Is Necessary for Salvation? + +Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for +salvation. Because on Ps. 125:5, "They that sow in tears," etc., the +gloss says: "Be not sorrowful, if thou hast a good will, of which +peace is the meed." But sorrow is essential to Penance, according to +2 Cor. 7:10: "The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance +steadfast unto salvation." Therefore a good will without Penance +suffices for salvation. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Charity covereth all +sins," and further on (Prov. 15:27): "By mercy and faith sins are +purged away." But this sacrament is for nothing else but the purging +of sins. Therefore if one has charity, faith, and mercy, one can +obtain salvation, without the sacrament of Penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church take their origin from +the institution of Christ. But according to John 8 Christ absolved +the adulterous woman without Penance. Therefore it seems that Penance +is not necessary for salvation. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Luke 13:3): "Unless you shall do +penance, you shall all likewise perish." + +_I answer that,_ A thing is necessary for salvation in two ways: +first, absolutely; secondly, on a supposition. A thing is absolutely +necessary for salvation, if no one can obtain salvation without it, +as, for example, the grace of Christ, and the sacrament of Baptism, +whereby a man is born again in Christ. The sacrament of Penance is +necessary on a supposition, for it is necessary, not for all, but for +those who are in sin. For it is written (2 Paral. 37 [*The prayer of +Manasses, among the Apocrypha]), "Thou, Lord, God of the righteous, +hast not appointed repentance to the righteous, to Abraham, Isaac and +Jacob, nor to those who sinned not against Thee." But "sin, when it +is completed, begetteth death" (James 1:15). Consequently it is +necessary for the sinner's salvation that sin be taken away from him; +which cannot be done without the sacrament of Penance, wherein the +power of Christ's Passion operates through the priest's absolution +and the acts of the penitent, who co-operates with grace unto the +destruction of his sin. For as Augustine says (Tract. lxxii in Joan. +[*Implicitly in the passage referred to, but explicitly Serm. xv de +verb. Apost.]), "He Who created thee without thee, will not justify +thee without thee." Therefore it is evident that after sin the +sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation, even as bodily +medicine after man has contracted a dangerous disease. + +Reply Obj. 1: This gloss should apparently be understood as referring +to the man who has a good will unimpaired by sin, for such a man has +no cause for sorrow: but as soon as the good will is forfeited +through sin, it cannot be restored without that sorrow whereby a man +sorrows for his past sin, and which belongs to Penance. + +Reply Obj. 2: As soon as a man falls into sin, charity, faith, and +mercy do not deliver him from sin, without Penance. Because charity +demands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against +his friend, and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction to his +friend; faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his +sins through the power of Christ's Passion which operates in the +sacraments of the Church; and well-ordered pity necessitates that man +should succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into +which sin has brought him, according to Prov. 14:34: "Sin maketh +nations miserable"; wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 30:24): "Have +pity on thy own soul, pleasing God." + +Reply Obj. 3: It was due to His power of _excellence,_ which He alone +had, as stated above (Q. 64, A. 3), that Christ bestowed on the +adulterous woman the effect of the sacrament of Penance, viz. the +forgiveness of sins, without the sacrament of Penance, although not +without internal repentance, which He operated in her by grace. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 6] + +Whether Penance Is a Second Plank After Shipwreck? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a second plank after +shipwreck. Because on Isa. 3:9, "They have proclaimed abroad their +sin as Sodom," a gloss says: "The second plank after shipwreck is to +hide one's sins." Now Penance does not hide sins, but reveals them. +Therefore Penance is not a second plank. + +Obj. 2: Further, in a building the foundation takes the first, not +the second place. Now in the spiritual edifice, Penance is the +foundation, according to Heb. 6:1: "Not laying again the foundation +of Penance from dead works"; wherefore it precedes even Baptism, +according to Acts 2:38: "Do penance, and be baptized every one of +you." Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank. + +Obj. 3: Further, all the sacraments are planks, i.e. helps against +sin. Now Penance holds, not the second but the fourth, place among +the sacraments, as is clear from what has been said above (Q. 65, AA. +1, 2). Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank after +shipwreck. + +_On the contrary,_ Jerome says (Ep. cxxx) that "Penance is a second +plank after shipwreck." + +_I answer that,_ That which is of itself precedes naturally that +which is accidental, as substance precedes accident. Now some +sacraments are, of themselves, ordained to man's salvation, e.g. +Baptism, which is the spiritual birth, Confirmation which is the +spiritual growth, the Eucharist which is the spiritual food; whereas +Penance is ordained to man's salvation accidentally as it were, and +on something being supposed, viz. sin: for unless man were to sin +actually, he would not stand in need of Penance and yet he would need +Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; even as in the life of the +body, man would need no medical treatment, unless he were ill, and +yet life, birth, growth, and food are, of themselves, necessary to +man. + +Consequently Penance holds the second place with regard to the state +of integrity which is bestowed and safeguarded by the aforesaid +sacraments, so that it is called metaphorically "a second plank after +shipwreck." For just as the first help for those who cross the sea is +to be safeguarded in a whole ship, while the second help when the +ship is wrecked, is to cling to a plank; so too the first help in +this life's ocean is that man safeguard his integrity, while the +second help is, if he lose his integrity through sin, that he regain +it by means of Penance. + +Reply Obj. 1: To hide one's sins may happen in two ways: first, in +the very act of sinning. Now it is worse to sin in public than in +private, both because a public sinner seems to sin more from +contempt, and because by sinning he gives scandal to others. +Consequently in sin it is a kind of remedy to sin secretly, and it is +in this sense that the gloss says that "to hide one's sins is a +second plank after shipwreck"; not that it takes away sin, as Penance +does, but because it makes the sin less grievous. Secondly, one hides +one's sin previously committed, by neglecting to confess it: this is +opposed to Penance, and to hide one's sins thus is not a second +plank, but is the reverse, since it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He +that hideth his sins shall not prosper." + +Reply Obj. 2: Penance cannot be called the foundation of the +spiritual edifice simply, i.e. in the first building thereof; but it +is the foundation in the second building which is accomplished by +destroying sin, because man, on his return to God, needs Penance +first. However, the Apostle is speaking there of the foundation of +spiritual doctrine. Moreover, the penance which precedes Baptism is +not the sacrament of Penance. + +Reply Obj. 3: The three sacraments which precede Penance refer to the +ship in its integrity, i.e. to man's state of integrity, with regard +to which Penance is called a second plank. +_______________________ + +SEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 7] + +Whether This Sacrament Was Suitably Instituted in the New Law? + +Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament was unsuitably +instituted in the New Law. Because those things which belong to the +natural law need not to be instituted. Now it belongs to the natural +law that one should repent of the evil one has done: for it is +impossible to love good without grieving for its contrary. Therefore +Penance was unsuitably instituted in the New Law. + +Obj. 2: Further, that which existed in the Old Law had not to be +instituted in the New. Now there was Penance in the old Law wherefore +the Lord complains (Jer. 8:6) saying: "There is none that doth +penance for his sin, saying: What have I done?" Therefore Penance +should not have been instituted in the New Law. + +Obj. 3: Further, Penance comes after Baptism, since it is a second +plank, as stated above (A. 6). Now it seems that our Lord instituted +Penance before Baptism, because we read that at the beginning of His +preaching He said (Matt. 4:17): "Do penance, for the kingdom of +heaven is at hand." Therefore this sacrament was not suitably +instituted in the New Law. + +Obj. 4: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by +Christ, by Whose power they work, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5; Q. +64, A. 1). But Christ does not seem to have instituted this +sacrament, since He made no use of it, as of the other sacraments +which He instituted. Therefore this sacrament was unsuitably +instituted in the New Law. + +_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Luke 24:46, 47): "It behooved +Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day: and +that penance and remission of sins should be preached in His name +unto all nations." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 1, ad 2), in this +sacrament the acts of the penitent are as matter, while the part +taken by the priest, who works as Christ's minister, is the formal +and completive element of the sacrament. Now in the other sacraments +the matter pre-exists, being provided by nature, as water, or by art, +as bread: but that such and such a matter be employed for a sacrament +requires to be decided by the institution; while the sacrament +derives its form and power entirely from the institution of Christ, +from Whose Passion the power of the sacraments proceeds. + +Accordingly the matter of this sacrament pre-exists, being provided +by nature; since it is by a natural principle of reason that man is +moved to repent of the evil he has done: yet it is due to Divine +institution that man does penance in this or that way. Wherefore at +the outset of His preaching, our Lord admonished men, not only to +repent, but also to "do penance," thus pointing to the particular +manner of actions required for this sacrament. As to the part to be +taken by the ministers, this was fixed by our Lord when He said to +Peter (Matt. 16:19): "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of +heaven," etc.; but it was after His resurrection that He made known +the efficacy of this sacrament and the source of its power, when He +said (Luke 24:47) that "penance and remission of sins should be +preached in His name unto all nations," after speaking of His Passion +and resurrection. Because it is from the power of the name of Jesus +Christ suffering and rising again that this sacrament is efficacious +unto the remission of sins. + +It is therefore evident that this sacrament was suitably instituted +in the New Law. + +Reply Obj. 1: It is a natural law that one should repent of the evil +one has done, by grieving for having done it, and by seeking a remedy +for one's grief in some way or other, and also that one should show +some signs of grief, even as the Ninevites did, as we read in John 3. +And yet even in their case there was also something of faith which +they had received through Jonas' preaching, inasmuch as they did +these things in the hope that they would receive pardon from God, +according as we read (John 3:9): "Who can tell if God will turn and +forgive, and will turn away from His fierce anger, and we shall not +perish?" But just as other matters which are of the natural law were +fixed in detail by the institution of the Divine law, as we have +stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 91, A. 4; I-II, Q. 95, A. 2; Q. +99), so was it with Penance. + +Reply Obj. 2: Things which are of the natural law were determined in +various ways in the Old and in the New Law, in keeping with the +imperfection of the Old, and the perfection of the New. Wherefore +Penance was fixed in a certain way in the Old Law--with regard to +sorrow, that it should be in the heart rather than in external signs, +according to Joel 2:13: "Rend your hearts and not your garments"; and +with regard to seeking a remedy for sorrow, that they should in some +way confess their sins, at least in general, to God's ministers. +Wherefore the Lord said (Lev. 5:17, 18): "If anyone sin through +ignorance . . . he shall offer of the flocks a ram without blemish to +the priest, according to the measure and estimation of the sin, and +the priest shall pray for him, because he did it ignorantly, and it +shall be forgiven him"; since by the very fact of making an offering +for his sin, a man, in a fashion, confessed his sin to the priest. +And accordingly it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his +sins, shall not prosper: but he that shall confess, and forsake them, +shall obtain mercy." Not yet, however, was the power of the keys +instituted, which is derived from Christ's Passion, and consequently +it was not yet ordained that a man should grieve for his sin, with +the purpose of submitting himself by confession and satisfaction to +the keys of the Church, in the hope of receiving forgiveness through +the power of Christ's Passion. + +Reply Obj. 3: If we note carefully what our Lord said about the +necessity of Baptism (John 3:3, seqq.), we shall see that this was +said before His words about the necessity of Penance (Matt. 4:17); +because He spoke to Nicodemus about Baptism before the imprisonment +of John, of whom it is related afterwards (John 3:23, 24) that he +baptized, whereas His words about Penance were said after John was +cast into prison. + +If, however, He had admonished men to do penance before admonishing +them to be baptized, this would be because also before Baptism some +kind of penance is required, according to the words of Peter (Acts +2:38): "Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you." + +Reply Obj. 4: Christ did not use the Baptism which He instituted, but +was baptized with the baptism of John, as stated above (Q. 39, AA. 1, +2). Nor did He use it actively by administering it Himself, because +He "did not baptize" as a rule, "but His disciples" did, as related +in John 4:2, although it is to be believed that He baptized His +disciples, as Augustine asserts (Ep. cclxv, ad Seleuc.). But with +regard to His institution of this sacrament it was nowise fitting +that He should use it, neither by repenting Himself, in Whom there +was no sin, nor by administering the sacrament to others, since, in +order to show His mercy and power, He was wont to confer the effect +of this sacrament without the sacrament itself, as stated above (A. +5, ad 3). On the other hand, He both received and gave to others the +sacrament of the Eucharist, both in order to commend the excellence +of that sacrament, and because that sacrament is a memorial of His +Passion, in which Christ is both priest and victim. +_______________________ + +EIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 8] + +Whether Penance Should Last Till the End of Life? + +Objection 1: It would seem that Penance should not last till the end +of life. Because Penance is ordained for the blotting out of sin. Now +the penitent receives forgiveness of his sins at once, according to +Ezech. 18:21: "If the wicked do penance for all his sins which he +hath committed . . . he shall live and shall not die." Therefore +there is no need for Penance to be further prolonged. + +Obj. 2: Further, Penance belongs to the state of beginners. But man +ought to advance from that state to the state of the proficient, and, +from this, on to the state of the perfect. Therefore man need not do +Penance till the end of his life. + +Obj. 3: Further, man is bound to observe the laws of the Church in +this as in the other sacraments. But the duration of repentance is +fixed by the canons, so that, to wit, for such and such a sin one is +bound to do penance for so many years. Therefore it seems that +Penance should not be prolonged till the end of life. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book, _De Poenitentia_ [*De +vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "What +remains for us to do, save to sorrow ever in this life? For when +sorrow ceases, repentance fails; and if repentance fails, what +becomes of pardon?" + +_I answer that,_ Penance is twofold, internal and external. Internal +penance is that whereby one grieves for a sin one has committed, and +this penance should last until the end of life. Because man should +always be displeased at having sinned, for if he were to be pleased +thereat, he would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the +fruit of pardon. Now displeasure causes sorrow in one who is +susceptible to sorrow, as man is in this life; but after this life +the saints are not susceptible to sorrow, wherefore they will be +displeased at, without sorrowing for, their past sins, according to +Isa. 65:16. "The former distresses are forgotten." + +External penance is that whereby a man shows external signs of +sorrow, confesses his sins verbally to the priest who absolves him, +and makes satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the +priest. Such penance need not last until the end of life, but only +for a fixed time according to the measure of the sin. + +Reply Obj. 1: True penance not only removes past sins, but also +preserves man from future sins. Consequently, although a man receives +forgiveness of past sins in the first instant of his true penance, +nevertheless he must persevere in his penance, lest he fall again +into sin. + +Reply Obj. 2: To do penance both internal and external belongs to the +state of beginners, of those, to wit, who are making a fresh start +from the state of sin. But there is room for internal penance even in +the proficient and the perfect, according to Ps. 83:7: "In his heart +he hath disposed to ascend by steps, in the vale of tears." Wherefore +Paul says (1 Cor. 15:9): "I . . . am not worthy to be called an +apostle because I persecuted the Church of God." + +Reply Obj. 3: These durations of time are fixed for penitents as +regards the exercise of external penance. +_______________________ + +NINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 9] + +Whether Penance Can Be Continuous? + +Objection 1: It would seem that penance cannot be continuous. For it +is written (Jer. 31:16): "Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy +eyes from tears." But this would be impossible if penance were +continuous, for it consists in weeping and tears. Therefore penance +cannot be continuous. + +Obj. 2: Further, man ought to rejoice at every good work, according +to Ps. 99:1: "Serve ye the Lord with gladness." Now to do penance is +a good work. Therefore man should rejoice at it. But man cannot +rejoice and grieve at the same time, as the Philosopher declares +(Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually for +his past sins, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance +cannot be continuous. + +Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:7): "Comfort him," viz. +the penitent, "lest perhaps such an one be swallowed up with overmuch +sorrow." But comfort dispels grief, which is essential to penance. +Therefore penance need not be continuous. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book on Penance [*De vera et +falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "In doing +penance grief should be continual." + +_I answer that,_ One is said to repent in two ways, actually and +habitually. It is impossible for a man continually to repent +actually, for the acts, whether internal or external, of a penitent +must needs be interrupted by sleep and other things which the body +needs. Secondly, a man is said to repent habitually. And thus he +should repent continually, both by never doing anything contrary to +penance, so as to destroy the habitual disposition of the penitent, +and by being resolved that his past sins should always be displeasing +to him. + +Reply Obj. 1: Weeping and tears belong to the act of external +penance, and this act needs neither to be continuous, nor to last +until the end of life, as stated above (A. 8): wherefore it is +significantly added: "For there is a reward for thy work." Now the +reward of the penitent's work is the full remission of sin both as to +guilt and as to punishment; and after receiving this reward there is +no need for man to proceed to acts of external penance. This, +however, does not prevent penance being continual, as explained above. + +Reply Obj. 2: Of sorrow and joy we may speak in two ways: first, as +being passions of the sensitive appetite; and thus they can nowise +be together, since they are altogether contrary to one another, +either on the part of the object (as when they have the same object), +or at least on the part of the movement, for joy is with expansion +[*Cf. I-II, Q. 33, A. 1] of the heart, whereas sorrow is with +contraction; and it is in this sense that the Philosopher speaks in +_Ethic._ ix. Secondly, we may speak of joy and sorrow as being simple +acts of the will, to which something is pleasing or displeasing. +Accordingly, they cannot be contrary to one another, except on the +part of the object, as when they concern the same object in the same +respect, in which way joy and sorrow cannot be simultaneous, because +the same thing in the same respect cannot be pleasing and +displeasing. If, on the other hand, joy and sorrow, understood thus, +be not of the same object in the same respect, but either of +different objects, or of the same object in different respects, in +that case joy and sorrow are not contrary to one another, so that +nothing hinders a man from being joyful and sorrowful at the same +time--for instance, if we see a good man suffer, we both rejoice at +his goodness and at the same time grieve for his suffering. In this +way a man may be displeased at having sinned, and be pleased at his +displeasure together with his hope for pardon, so that his very +sorrow is a matter of joy. Hence Augustine says [*De vera et falsa +Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "The penitent +should ever grieve and rejoice at his grief." + +If, however, sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy, this would +prevent the continuance, not of habitual penance, but only of actual +penance. + +Reply Obj. 3: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3, 6, 7, 9) it +belongs to virtue to establish the mean in the passions. Now the +sorrow which, in the sensitive appetite of the penitent, arises from +the displeasure of his will, is a passion; wherefore it should be +moderated according to virtue, and if it be excessive it is sinful, +because it leads to despair, as the Apostle teaches (2 Cor. 2:7), +saying: "Lest such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." +Accordingly comfort, of which the Apostle speaks, moderates sorrow +but does not destroy it altogether. +_______________________ + +TENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 10] + +Whether the Sacrament of Penance May Be Repeated? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the sacrament of Penance should not +be repeated. For the Apostle says (Heb. 6:4, seqq.): "It is +impossible for those, who were once illuminated, have tasted also the +heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost . . . and +are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance." Now whosoever have +done penance, have been illuminated, and have received the gift of +the Holy Ghost. Therefore whosoever sin after doing penance, cannot +do penance again. + +Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Poenit. ii): "Some are to be found +who think they ought often to do penance, who take liberties with +Christ: for if they were truly penitent, they would not think of +doing penance over again, since there is but one Penance even as +there is but one Baptism." Now Baptism is not repeated. Neither, +therefore, is Penance to be repeated. + +Obj. 3: Further, the miracles whereby our Lord healed bodily +diseases, signify the healing of spiritual diseases, whereby men are +delivered from sins. Now we do not read that our Lord restored the +sight to any blind man twice, or that He cleansed any leper twice, or +twice raised any dead man to life. Therefore it seems that He does +not twice grant pardon to any sinner. + +Obj. 4: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.): "Penance +consists in deploring past sins, and in not committing again those we +have deplored": and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii): "He is a mocker +and no penitent who still does what he has repented of." If, +therefore, a man is truly penitent, he will not sin again. Therefore +Penance cannot be repeated. + +Obj. 5: Further, just as Baptism derives its efficacy from the +Passion of Christ, so does Penance. Now Baptism is not repeated, on +account of the unity of Christ's Passion and death. Therefore in like +manner Penance is not repeated. + +Obj. 6: Further, Ambrose says on Ps. 118:58, "I entreated Thy face," +etc., that "facility of obtaining pardon is an incentive to sin." If, +therefore, God frequently grants pardon through Penance, it seems +that He affords man an incentive to sin, and thus He seems to take +pleasure in sin, which is contrary to His goodness. Therefore Penance +cannot be repeated. + +_On the contrary,_ Man is induced to be merciful by the example of +Divine mercy, according to Luke 6:36: "Be ye . . . merciful, as your +Father also is merciful." Now our Lord commanded His disciples to be +merciful by frequently pardoning their brethren who had sinned +against them; wherefore, as related in Matt. 18:21, when Peter asked: +"How often shall my brother off end against me, and I forgive him? +till seven times?" Jesus answered: "I say not to thee, till seven +times, but till seventy times seven times." Therefore also God over +and over again, through Penance, grants pardon to sinners, especially +as He teaches us to pray (Matt. 6:12): "Forgive us our trespasses, as +we forgive them that trespass against us." + +_I answer that,_ As regards Penance, some have erred, saying that a +man cannot obtain pardon of his sins through Penance a second time. +Some of these, viz. the Novatians, went so far as to say that he who +sins after the first Penance which is done in Baptism, cannot be +restored again through Penance. There were also other heretics who, +as Augustine relates in _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et falsa +Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], said that, after +Baptism, Penance is useful, not many times, but only once. + +These errors seem to have arisen from a twofold source: first from +not knowing the nature of true Penance. For since true Penance +requires charity, without which sins are not taken away, they thought +that charity once possessed could not be lost, and that, +consequently, Penance, if true, could never be removed by sin, so +that it should be necessary to repeat it. But this was refuted in the +Second Part (II, Q. 24, A. 11), where it was shown that on account of +free-will charity, once possessed, can be lost, and that, +consequently, after true Penance, a man can sin mortally.--Secondly, +they erred in their estimation of the gravity of sin. For they deemed +a sin committed by a man after he had received pardon, to be so grave +that it could not be forgiven. In this they erred not only with +regard to sin which, even after a sin has been forgiven, can be +either more or less grievous than the first, which was forgiven, but +much more did they err against the infinity of Divine mercy, which +surpasses any number and magnitude of sins, according to Ps. 50:1, 2: +"Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy: and according +to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my iniquity." +Wherefore the words of Cain were reprehensible, when he said (Gen. +4:13): "My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon." And +so God's mercy, through Penance, grants pardon to sinners without any +end, wherefore it is written (2 Paralip. 37 [*Prayer of Manasses, +among the Apocrypha. St. Thomas is evidently quoting from memory, and +omits the words in brackets.]): "Thy merciful promise is unmeasurable +and unsearchable . . . (and Thou repentest) for the evil brought upon +man." It is therefore evident that Penance can be repeated many times. + +Reply Obj. 1: Some of the Jews thought that a man could be washed +several times in the laver of Baptism, because among them the Law +prescribed certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse +themselves repeatedly from their uncleannesses. In order to disprove +this the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews that "it is impossible for +those who were once illuminated," viz. through Baptism, "to be +renewed again to penance," viz. through Baptism, which is "the laver +of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost," as stated in +Titus 3:5: and he declares the reason to be that by Baptism man dies +with Christ, wherefore he adds (Heb. 6:6): "Crucifying again to +themselves the Son of God." + +Reply Obj. 2: Ambrose is speaking of solemn Penance, which is not +repeated in the Church, as we shall state further on (Suppl., Q. 28, +A. 2). + +Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the +authorship of which is unknown], "Our Lord gave sight to many blind +men at various times, and strength to many infirm, thereby showing, +in these different men, that the same sins are repeatedly forgiven, +at one time healing a man from leprosy and afterwards from blindness. +For this reason He healed so many stricken with fever, so many feeble +in body, so many lame, blind, and withered, that the sinner might not +despair; for this reason He is not described as healing anyone but +once, that every one might fear to link himself with sin; for this +reason He declares Himself to be the physician welcomed not of the +hale, but of the unhealthy. What sort of a physician is he who knows +not how to heal a recurring disease? For if a man ail a hundred times +it is for the physician to heal him a hundred times: and if he failed +where others succeed, he would be a poor physician in comparison with +them." + +Reply Obj. 4: Penance is to deplore past sins, and, _while deploring +them,_ not to commit again, either by act or by intention, those +which we have to deplore. Because a man is a mocker and not a +penitent, who, _while doing penance,_ does what he repents having +done, or intends to do again what he did before, or even commits +actually the same or another kind of sin. But if a man sin afterwards +either by act or intention, this does not destroy the fact that his +former penance was real, because the reality of a former act is never +destroyed by a subsequent contrary act: for even as he truly ran who +afterwards sits, so he truly repented who subsequently sins. + +Reply Obj. 5: Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a +spiritual regeneration, with a spiritual death, of a previous life. +Now "it is appointed unto man once to die" (Heb. 9:27), and to be +born once, wherefore man should be baptized but once. On the other +hand, Penance derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a spiritual +medicine, which can be repeated frequently. + +Reply Obj. 6: According to Augustine (De vera et falsa Poenitentia, +the authorship of which is unknown), "it is evident that sins +displease God exceedingly, for He is always ready to destroy them, +lest what He created should perish, and what He loved be lost," viz. +by despair. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 85 + +OF PENANCE AS A VIRTUE +(In Six Articles) + +We must now consider penance as a virtue, under which head there are +six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether penance is a virtue? + +(2) Whether it is a special virtue? + +(3) To what species of virtue does it belong? + +(4) Of its subject; + +(5) Of its cause; + +(6) Of its relation to the other virtues. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 1] + +Whether Penance Is a Virtue? + +Objection 1: It would seem that penance is not a virtue. For penance +is a sacrament numbered among the other sacraments, as was shown +above (Q. 84, A. 1; Q. 65, A. 1). Now no other sacrament is a virtue. +Therefore neither is penance a virtue. + +Obj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 9), "shame +is not a virtue," both because it is a passion accompanied by a +bodily alteration, and because it is not the disposition of a perfect +thing, since it is about an evil act, so that it has no place in a +virtuous man. Now, in like manner, penance is a passion accompanied +by a bodily alteration, viz. tears, according to Gregory, who says +(Hom. xxxiv in Evang.) that "penance consists in deploring past +sins": moreover it is about evil deeds, viz. sins, which have no +place in a virtuous man. Therefore penance is not a virtue. + +Obj. 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), "no +virtuous man is foolish." But it seems foolish to deplore what has +been done in the past, since it cannot be otherwise, and yet this is +what we understand by penance. Therefore penance is not a virtue. + +_On the contrary,_ The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue, +because "a lawgiver intends to make the citizens virtuous" (Ethic. +ii, 1). But there is a precept about penance in the Divine law, +according to Matt. 4:17: "Do penance," etc. Therefore penance is a +virtue. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Obj. 2; Q. 84, A. 10, ad 4), to +repent is to deplore something one has done. Now it has been stated +above (Q. 84, A. 9) that sorrow or sadness is twofold. First, it +denotes a passion of the sensitive appetite, and in this sense +penance is not a virtue, but a passion. Secondly, it denotes an act +of the will, and in this way it implies choice, and if this be right, +it must, of necessity, be an act of virtue. For it is stated in +_Ethic._ ii, 6 that virtue is a habit of choosing according to right +reason. Now it belongs to right reason than one should grieve for a +proper object of grief as one ought to grieve, and for an end for +which one ought to grieve. And this is observed in the penance of +which we are speaking now; since the penitent assumes a moderated +grief for his past sins, with the intention of removing them. Hence +it is evident that the penance of which we are speaking now, is +either a virtue or the act of a virtue. + +Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 84, A. 1, ad 1; AA. 2, 3), in the +sacrament of Penance, human acts take the place of matter, which is +not the case in Baptism and Confirmation. Wherefore, since virtue is +a principle of an act, penance is either a virtue or accompanies a +virtue, rather than Baptism or Confirmation. + +Reply Obj. 2: Penance, considered as a passion, is not a virtue, as +stated above, and it is thus that it is accompanied by a bodily +alteration. On the other hand, it is a virtue, according as it +includes a right choice on the part of the will; which, however, +applies to penance rather than to shame. Because shame regards the +evil deed as present, whereas penance regards the evil deed as past. +Now it is contrary to the perfection of virtue that one should have +an evil deed actually present, of which one ought to be ashamed; +whereas it is not contrary to the perfection of virtue that we should +have previously committed evil deeds, of which it behooves us to +repent, since a man from being wicked becomes virtuous. + +Reply Obj. 3: It would indeed be foolish to grieve for what has +already been done, with the intention of trying to make it not done. +But the penitent does not intend this: for his sorrow is displeasure +or disapproval with regard to the past deed, with the intention of +removing its result, viz. the anger of God and the debt of +punishment: and this is not foolish. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 2] + +Whether Penance Is a Special Virtue? + +Objection 1: It would seem that penance is not a special virtue. For +it seems that to rejoice at the good one has done, and to grieve for +the evil one has done are acts of the same nature. But joy for the +good one has done is not a special virtue, but is a praiseworthy +emotion proceeding from charity, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei +xiv, 7, 8, 9): wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:6) that charity +"rejoiceth not at iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth." Therefore, +in like manner, neither is penance, which is sorrow for past sins, a +special virtue, but an emotion resulting from charity. + +Obj. 2: Further, every special virtue has its special matter, because +habits are distinguished by their acts, and acts by their objects. +But penance has no special matter, because its matter is past sins in +any matter whatever. Therefore penance is not a special virtue. + +Obj. 3: Further, nothing is removed except by its contrary. But +penance removes all sins. Therefore it is contrary to all sins, and +consequently is not a special virtue. + +_On the contrary,_ The Law has a special precept about penance, as +stated above (Q. 84, AA. 5, 7). + +_I answer that,_ As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 54, A. 1, ad +1, A. 2), habits are specifically distinguished according to the +species of their acts, so that whenever an act has a special reason +for being praiseworthy, there must needs be a special habit. Now it +is evident that there is a special reason for praising the act of +penance, because it aims at the destruction of past sin, considered +as an offense against God, which does not apply to any other virtue. +We must therefore conclude that penance is a special virtue. + +Reply Obj. 1: An act springs from charity in two ways: first as being +elicited by charity, and a like virtuous act requires no other virtue +than charity, e.g. to love the good, to rejoice therein, and to +grieve for what is opposed to it. Secondly, an act springs from +charity, being, so to speak, commanded by charity; and thus, since +charity commands all the virtues, inasmuch as it directs them to its +own end, an act springing from charity may belong even to another +special virtue. Accordingly, if in the act of the penitent we +consider the mere displeasure in the past sin, it belongs to charity +immediately, in the same way as joy for past good acts; but the +intention to aim at the destruction of past sin requires a special +virtue subordinate to charity. + +Reply Obj. 2: In point of fact, penance has indeed a general matter, +inasmuch as it regards all sins; but it does so under a special +aspect, inasmuch as they can be remedied by an act of man in +co-operating with God for his justification. + +Reply Obj. 3: Every special virtue removes formally the habit of the +opposite vice, just as whiteness removes blackness from the same +subject: but penance removes every sin effectively, inasmuch as it +works for the destruction of sins, according as they are pardonable +through the grace of God if man co-operate therewith. Wherefore it +does not follow that it is a general virtue. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 3] + +Whether the Virtue of Penance Is a Species of Justice? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the virtue of penance is not a +species of justice. For justice is not a theological but a moral +virtue, as was shown in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 62, A. 3). But +penance seems to be a theological virtue, since God is its object, +for it makes satisfaction to God, to Whom, moreover, it reconciles +the sinner. Therefore it seems that penance is not a species of +justice. + +Obj. 2: Further, since justice is a moral virtue it observes the +mean. Now penance does not observe the mean, but rather goes to the +extreme, according to Jer. 6:26: "Make thee mourning as for an only +son, a bitter lamentation." Therefore penance is not a species of +justice. + +Obj. 3: Further, there are two species of justice, as stated in +_Ethic._ v, 4, viz. "distributive" and "commutative." But penance +does not seem to be contained under either of them. Therefore it +seems that penance is not a species of justice. + +Obj. 4: Further, a gloss on Luke 6:21, "Blessed are ye that weep +now," says: "It is prudence that teaches us the unhappiness of +earthly things and the happiness of heavenly things." But weeping is +an act of penance. Therefore penance is a species of prudence rather +than of justice. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et +falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "Penance is +the vengeance of the sorrowful, ever punishing in them what they are +sorry for having done." But to take vengeance is an act of justice, +wherefore Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that one kind of justice is +called vindictive. Therefore it seems that penance is a species of +justice. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 2) penance is a special +virtue not merely because it sorrows for evil done (since charity +would suffice for that), but also because the penitent grieves for +the sin he has committed, inasmuch as it is an offense against God, +and purposes to amend. Now amendment for an offense committed against +anyone is not made by merely ceasing to offend, but it is necessary +to make some kind of compensation, which obtains in offenses +committed against another, just as retribution does, only that +compensation is on the part of the offender, as when he makes +satisfaction, whereas retribution is on the part of the person +offended against. Each of these belongs to the matter of justice, +because each is a kind of commutation. Wherefore it is evident that +penance, as a virtue, is a part of justice. + +It must be observed, however, that according to the Philosopher +(Ethic. v, 6) a thing is said to be just in two ways, simply and +relatively. A thing is just simply when it is between equals, since +justice is a kind of equality, and he calls this the politic or +civil just, because all citizens are equal, in the point of being +immediately under the ruler, retaining their freedom. But a thing is +just relatively when it is between parties of whom one is subject to +the other, as a servant under his master, a son under his father, a +wife under her husband. It is this kind of just that we consider in +penance. Wherefore the penitent has recourse to God with a purpose +of amendment, as a servant to his master, according to Ps. 122:2: +"Behold, as the eyes of servants are on the hands of their +masters . . . so are our eyes unto the Lord our God, until He have +mercy on us"; and as a son to his father, according to Luke 15:21: +"Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee"; and as a wife +to her husband, according to Jer. 3:1: "Thou hast prostituted thyself +to many lovers; nevertheless return to Me, saith the Lord." + +Reply Obj. 1: As stated in _Ethic._ v, 1, justice is a virtue towards +another person, and the matter of justice is not so much the person +to whom justice is due as the thing which is the subject of +distribution or commutation. Hence the matter of penance is not God, +but human acts, whereby God is offended or appeased; whereas God is +as one to whom justice is due. Wherefore it is evident that penance +is not a theological virtue, because God is not its matter or object. + +Reply Obj. 2: The mean of justice is the equality that is established +between those between whom justice is, as stated in _Ethic._ v. But +in certain cases perfect equality cannot be established, on account +of the excellence of one, as between father and son, God and man, as +the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14), wherefore in such cases, he +that falls short of the other must do whatever he can. Yet this will +not be sufficient simply, but only according to the acceptance of the +higher one; and this is what is meant by ascribing excess to penance. + +Reply Obj. 3: As there is a kind of commutation in favors, when, to +wit, a man gives thanks for a favor received, so also is there +commutation in the matter of offenses, when, on account of an offense +committed against another, a man is either punished against his will, +which pertains to vindictive justice, or makes amends of his own +accord, which belongs to penance, which regards the person of the +sinner, just as vindictive justice regards the person of the judge. +Therefore it is evident that both are comprised under commutative +justice. + +Reply Obj. 4: Although penance is directly a species of justice, yet, +in a fashion, it comprises things pertaining to all the virtues; for +inasmuch as there is a justice of man towards God, it must have a +share in matter pertaining to the theological virtues, the object of +which is God. Consequently penance comprises faith in Christ's +Passion, whereby we are cleansed of our sins, hope for pardon, and +hatred of vice, which pertains to charity. Inasmuch as it is a moral +virtue, it has a share of prudence, which directs all the moral +virtues: but from the very nature of justice, it has not only +something belonging to justice, but also something belonging to +temperance and fortitude, inasmuch as those things which cause +pleasure, and which pertain to temperance, and those which cause +terror, which fortitude moderates, are objects of commutative +justice. Accordingly it belongs to justice both to abstain from +pleasure, which belongs to temperance, and to bear with hardships, +which belongs to fortitude. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 4] + +Whether the Will Is Properly the Subject of Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the subject of penance is not +properly the will. For penance is a species of sorrow. But sorrow is +in the concupiscible part, even as joy is. Therefore penance is in +the concupiscible faculty. + +Obj. 2: Further, penance is a kind of vengeance, as Augustine states +in _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of +which is unknown]. But vengeance seems to regard the irascible +faculty, since anger is the desire for vengeance. Therefore it seems +that penance is in the irascible part. + +Obj. 3: Further, the past is the proper object of the memory, +according to the Philosopher (De Memoria i). Now penance regards the +past, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2, ad 3). Therefore penance is +subjected in the memory. + +Obj. 4: Further, nothing acts where it is not. Now penance removes +sin from all the powers of the soul. Therefore penance is in every +power of the soul, and not only in the will. + +_On the contrary,_ Penance is a kind of sacrifice, according to Ps. +50:19: "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit." But to offer a +sacrifice is an act of the will, according to Ps. 53:8: "I will +freely sacrifice to Thee." Therefore penance is in the will. + +_I answer that,_ We can speak of penance in two ways: first, in so +far as it is a passion, and thus, since it is a kind of sorrow, it is +in the concupiscible part as its subject; secondly, in so far as it +is a virtue, and thus, as stated above (A. 3), it is a species of +justice. Now justice, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 56, A. +6), is subjected in the rational appetite which is the will. +Therefore it is evident that penance, in so far as it is a virtue, is +subjected in the will, and its proper act is the purpose of amending +what was committed against God. + +Reply Obj. 1: This argument considers penance as a passion. + +Reply Obj. 2: To desire vengeance on another, through passion, +belongs to the irascible appetite, but to desire or take vengeance on +oneself or on another, through reason, belongs to the will. + +Reply Obj. 3: The memory is a power that apprehends the past. But +penance belongs not to the apprehensive but to the appetitive power, +which presupposes an act of the apprehension. Wherefore penance is +not in the memory, but presupposes it. + +Reply Obj. 4: The will, as stated above (I, Q. 82, A. 4; I-II, Q. 9, +A. 1), moves all the other powers of the soul; so that it is not +unreasonable for penance to be subjected in the will, and to produce +an effect in each power of the soul. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 5] + +Whether Penance Originates from Fear? + +Objection 1: It would seem that penance does not originate from fear. +For penance originates in displeasure at sin. But this belongs to +charity, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore penance originates from +love rather than fear. + +Obj. 2: Further, men are induced to do penance, through the +expectation of the heavenly kingdom, according to Matt. 3:2 and Matt. +4:17: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Now the +kingdom of heaven is the object of hope. Therefore penance results +from hope rather than from fear. + +Obj. 3: Further, fear is an internal act of man. But penance does not +seem to arise in us through any work of man, but through the +operation of God, according to Jer. 31:19: "After Thou didst convert +me I did penance." Therefore penance does not result from fear. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 26:17): "As a woman with +child, when she draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, +and crieth out in her pangs, so ere we become," by penance, to wit; +and according to another [*The Septuagint] version the text +continues: "Through fear of Thee, O Lord, we have conceived, and been +as it were in labor, and have brought forth the spirit of salvation," +i.e. of salutary penance, as is clear from what precedes. Therefore +penance results from fear. + +_I answer that,_ We may speak of penance in two ways: first, as to +the habit, and then it is infused by God immediately without our +operating as principal agents, but not without our co-operating +dispositively by certain acts. Secondly, we may speak of penance, +with regard to the acts whereby in penance we co-operate with God +operating, the first principle [*Cf. I-II, Q. 113] of which acts is +the operation of God in turning the heart, according to Lam. 5:21: +"Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted"; the second, +an act of faith; the third, a movement of servile fear, whereby a man +is withdrawn from sin through fear of punishment; the fourth, a +movement of hope, whereby a man makes a purpose of amendment, in the +hope of obtaining pardon; the fifth, a movement of charity, whereby +sin is displeasing to man for its own sake and no longer for the sake +of the punishment; the sixth, a movement of filial fear whereby a +man, of his own accord, offers to make amends to God through fear of +Him. + +Accordingly it is evident that the act of penance results from +servile fear as from the first movement of the appetite in this +direction and from filial fear as from its immediate and proper +principle. + +Reply Obj. 1: Sin begins to displease a man, especially a sinner, on +account of the punishments which servile fear regards, before it +displeases him on account of its being an offense against God, or on +account of its wickedness, which pertains to charity. + +Reply Obj. 2: When the kingdom of heaven is said to be at hand, we +are to understand that the king is on his way, not only to reward but +also to punish. Wherefore John the Baptist said (Matt. 3:7): "Ye +brood of vipers, who hath showed you to flee from the wrath to come?" + +Reply Obj. 3: Even the movement of fear proceeds from God's act in +turning the heart; wherefore it is written (Deut. 5:29): "Who shall +give them to have such a mind, to fear Me?" And so the fact that +penance results from fear does not hinder its resulting from the act +of God in turning the heart. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 6] + +Whether Penance Is the First of the Virtues? + +Objection 1: It would seem that penance is the first of the virtues. +Because, on Matt. 3:2, "Do penance," etc., a gloss says: "The first +virtue is to destroy the old man, and hate sin by means of penance." + +Obj. 2: Further, withdrawal from one extreme seems to precede +approach to the other. Now all the other virtues seem to regard +approach to a term, because they all direct man to do good; whereas +penance seems to direct him to withdraw from evil. Therefore it seems +that penance precedes all the other virtues. + +Obj. 3: Further, before penance, there is sin in the soul. Now no +virtue is compatible with sin in the soul. Therefore no virtue +precedes penance, which is itself the first of all and opens the door +to the others by expelling sin. + +_On the contrary,_ Penance results from faith, hope, and charity, as +already stated (AA. 2, 5). Therefore penance is not the first of the +virtues. + +_I answer that,_ In speaking of the virtues, we do not consider the +order of time with regard to the habits, because, since the virtues +are connected with one another, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, +Q. 65, A. 1), they all begin at the same time to be in the soul; but +one is said to precede the other in the order of nature, which order +depends on the order of their acts, in so far as the act of one +virtue presupposes the act of another. Accordingly, then, one must +say that, even in the order of time, certain praiseworthy acts can +precede the act and the habit of penance, e.g. acts of dead faith and +hope, and an act of servile fear; while the act and habit of charity +are, in point of time, simultaneous with the act and habit of +penance, and with the habits of the other virtues. For, as was stated +in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 113, AA. 7, 8), in the justification of +the ungodly, the movement of the free-will towards God, which is an +act of faith quickened by charity, and the movement of the free-will +towards sin, which is the act of penance, are simultaneous. Yet of +these two acts, the former naturally precedes the latter, because the +act of the virtue of penance is directed against sin, through love of +God; where the first-mentioned act is the reason and cause of the +second. + +Consequently penance is not simply the first of the virtues, either +in the order of time, or in the order of nature, because, in the +order of nature, the theological virtues precede it simply. +Nevertheless, in a certain respect, it is the first of the other +virtues in the order of time, as regards its act, because this act is +the first in the justification of the ungodly; whereas in the order +of nature, the other virtues seem to precede, as that which is +natural precedes that which is accidental; because the other virtues +seem to be necessary for man's good, by reason of their very nature, +whereas penance is only necessary if something, viz. sin, be +presupposed, as stated above (Q. 55, A. 2), when we spoke of the +relation of the sacrament of penance to the other sacraments +aforesaid. + +Reply Obj. 1: This gloss is to be taken as meaning that the act of +penance is the first in point of time, in comparison with the acts of +the other virtues. + +Reply Obj. 2: In successive movements withdrawal from one extreme +precedes approach to the other, in point of time; and also in the +order of nature, if we consider the subject, i.e. the order of the +material cause; but if we consider the order of the efficient and +final causes, approach to the end is first, for it is this that the +efficient cause intends first of all: and it is this order which we +consider chiefly in the acts of the soul, as stated in _Phys._ ii. + +Reply Obj. 3: Penance opens the door to the other virtues, because it +expels sin by the virtues of faith, hope and charity, which precede +it in the order of nature; yet it so opens the door to them that they +enter at the same time as it: because, in the justification of the +ungodly, at the same time as the free-will is moved towards God and +against sin, the sin is pardoned and grace infused, and with grace +all the virtues, as stated in the I-II, Q. 65, AA. 3, 5. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 86 + +OF THE EFFECT OF PENANCE, AS REGARDS THE PARDON OF MORTAL SIN +(In Six Articles) + +We must now consider the effect of Penance; and (1) as regards the +pardon of mortal sins; (2) as regards the pardon of venial sins; +(3) as regards the return of sins which have been pardoned; (4) as +regards the recovery of the virtues. + +Under the first head there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether all mortal sins are taken away by Penance? + +(2) Whether they can be taken away without Penance? + +(3) Whether one can be taken away without the other? + +(4) Whether Penance takes away the guilt while the debt remains? + +(5) Whether any remnants of sin remain? + +(6) Whether the removal of sin is the effect of Penance as a virtue, +or as a sacrament? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 1] + +Whether All Sins Are Taken Away by Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that not all sins are taken away by +Penance. For the Apostle says (Heb. 12:17) that Esau "found no place +of repentance, although with tears he had sought it," which a gloss +explains as meaning that "he found no place of pardon and blessing +through Penance": and it is related (2 Macc. 9:13) of Antiochus, that +"this wicked man prayed to the Lord, of Whom he was not to obtain +mercy." Therefore it does not seem that all sins are taken away by +Penance. + +Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i) that "so +great is the stain of that sin (namely, when a man, after coming to +the knowledge of God through the grace of Christ, resists fraternal +charity, and by the brands of envy combats grace itself) that he is +unable to humble himself in prayer, although he is forced by his +wicked conscience to acknowledge and confess his sin." Therefore not +every sin can be taken away by Penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 12:32): "He that shall speak +against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this +world nor in the world to come." Therefore not every sin can be +pardoned through Penance. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 18:22): "I will not +remember" any more "all his iniquities that he hath done." + +_I answer that,_ The fact that a sin cannot be taken away by Penance +may happen in two ways: first, because of the impossibility of +repenting of sin; secondly, because of Penance being unable to blot +out a sin. In the first way the sins of the demons and of men who are +lost, cannot be blotted out by Penance, because their will is +confirmed in evil, so that sin cannot displease them as to its guilt, +but only as to the punishment which they suffer, by reason of which +they have a kind of repentance, which yet is fruitless, according to +Wis. 5:3: "Repenting, and groaning for anguish of spirit." +Consequently such Penance brings no hope of pardon, but only despair. +Nevertheless no sin of a wayfarer can be such as that, because his +will is flexible to good and evil. Wherefore to say that in this life +there is any sin of which one cannot repent, is erroneous, first, +because this would destroy free-will, secondly, because this would be +derogatory to the power of grace, whereby the heart of any sinner +whatsoever can be moved to repent, according to Prov. 21:1: "The +heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever He will +He shall turn it." + +It is also erroneous to say that any sin cannot be pardoned through +true Penance. First, because this is contrary to Divine mercy, of +which it is written (Joel 2:13) that God is "gracious and merciful, +patient, and rich in mercy, and ready to repent of the evil"; for, in +a manner, God would be overcome by man, if man wished a sin to be +blotted out, which God were unwilling to blot out. Secondly, because +this would be derogatory to the power of Christ's Passion, through +which Penance produces its effect, as do the other sacraments, since +it is written (1 John 2:2): "He is the propitiation for our sins, and +not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." + +Therefore we must say simply that, in this life, every sin can be +blotted out by true Penance. + +Reply Obj. 1: Esau did not truly repent. This is evident from his +saying (Gen. 27:41): "The days will come of the mourning of my +father, and I will kill my brother Jacob." Likewise neither did +Antiochus repent truly; since he grieved for his past sin, not +because he had offended God thereby, but on account of the sickness +which he suffered in his body. + +Reply Obj. 2: These words of Augustine should be understood thus: "So +great is the stain of that sin, that man is unable to humble himself +in prayer," i.e. it is not easy for him to do so; in which sense we +say that a man cannot be healed, when it is difficult to heal him. +Yet this is possible by the power of God's grace, which sometimes +turns men even "into the depths of the sea" (Ps. 67:23). + +Reply Obj. 3: The word or blasphemy spoken against the Holy Ghost is +final impenitence, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xi), which is +altogether unpardonable, because after this life is ended, there is +no pardon of sins. Or, if by the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, we +understand sin committed through certain malice, this means either +that the blasphemy itself against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable, +i.e. not easily pardonable, or that such a sin does not contain in +itself any motive for pardon, or that for such a sin a man is +punished both in this and in the next world, as we explained in the +Second Part (III, Q. 14, A. 3). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 2] + +Whether Sin Can Be Pardoned Without Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that sin can be pardoned without Penance. +For the power of God is no less with regard to adults than with +regard to children. But He pardons the sins of children without +Penance. Therefore He also pardons adults without penance. + +Obj. 2: Further, God did not bind His power to the sacraments. But +Penance is a sacrament. Therefore by God's power sin can be pardoned +without Penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, God's mercy is greater than man's. Now man sometimes +forgives another for offending him, without his repenting: wherefore +our Lord commanded us (Matt. 5:44): "Love your enemies, do good to +them that hate you." Much more, therefore, does God pardon men for +offending him, without their repenting. + +_On the contrary,_ The Lord said (Jer. 18:8): "If that nation . . . +shall repent of their evil" which they have done, "I also will repent +of the evil that I have thought to do them," so that, on the other +hand, if man "do not penance," it seems that God will not pardon him +his sin. + +_I answer that,_ It is impossible for a mortal actual sin to be +pardoned without penance, if we speak of penance as a virtue. For, as +sin is an offense against God, He pardons sin in the same way as he +pardons an offense committed against Him. Now an offense is directly +opposed to grace, since one man is said to be offended with another, +because he excludes him from his grace. Now, as stated in the Second +Part (I-II, Q. 110, A. 1), the difference between the grace of God +and the grace of man, is that the latter does not cause, but +presupposes true or apparent goodness in him who is graced, whereas +the grace of God causes goodness in the man who is graced, because +the good-will of God, which is denoted by the word "grace," is the +cause of all created good. Hence it is possible for a man to pardon +an offense, for which he is offended with someone, without any change +in the latter's will; but it is impossible that God pardon a man for +an offense, without his will being changed. Now the offense of mortal +sin is due to man's will being turned away from God, through being +turned to some mutable good. Consequently, for the pardon of this +offense against God, it is necessary for man's will to be so changed +as to turn to God and to renounce having turned to something else in +the aforesaid manner, together with a purpose of amendment; all of +which belongs to the nature of penance as a virtue. Therefore it is +impossible for a sin to be pardoned anyone without penance as a +virtue. + +But the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (Q. 88, A. 3), is +perfected by the priestly office of binding and loosing, without +which God can forgive sins, even as Christ pardoned the adulterous +woman, as related in John 8, and the woman that was a sinner, as +related in Luke vii, whose sins, however, He did not forgive without +the virtue of penance: for as Gregory states (Hom. xxxiii in Evang.), +"He drew inwardly by grace," i.e. by penance, "her whom He received +outwardly by His mercy." + +Reply Obj. 1: In children there is none but original sin, which +consists, not in an actual disorder of the will, but in a habitual +disorder of nature, as explained in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 82, A. +1), and so in them the forgiveness of sin is accompanied by a +habitual change resulting from the infusion of grace and virtues, but +not by an actual change. On the other hand, in the case of an adult, +in whom there are actual sins, which consist in an actual disorder of +the will, there is no remission of sins, even in Baptism, without an +actual change of the will, which is the effect of Penance. + +Reply Obj. 2: This argument takes Penance as a sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 3: God's mercy is more powerful than man's, in that it +moves man's will to repent, which man's mercy cannot do. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 3] + +Whether by Penance One Sin Can Be Pardoned Without Another? + +Objection 1: It would seem that by Penance one sin can be pardoned +without another. For it is written (Amos 4:7): "I caused it to rain +upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece +was rained upon: and the piece whereupon I rained not, withered." +These words are expounded by Gregory, who says (Hom. x super Ezech.): +"When a man who hates his neighbor, breaks himself of other vices, +rain falls on one part of the city, leaving the other part withered, +for there are some men who, when they prune some vices, become much +more rooted in others." Therefore one sin can be forgiven by Penance, +without another. + +Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose in commenting on Ps. 118, "Blessed are the +undefiled in the way," after expounding verse 136 ("My eyes have sent +forth springs of water"), says that "the first consolation is that +God is mindful to have mercy; and the second, that He punishes, for +although faith be wanting, punishment makes satisfaction and raises +us up." Therefore a man can be raised up from one sin, while the sin +of unbelief remains. + +Obj. 3: Further, when several things are not necessarily together, +one can be removed without the other. Now it was stated in the Second +Part (I-II, Q. 73, A. 1) that sins are not connected together, so +that one sin can be without another. Therefore also one sin can be +taken away by Penance without another being taken away. + +Obj. 4: Further, sins are the debts, for which we pray for pardon +when we say in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses," etc. +Now man sometimes forgives one debt without forgiving another. +Therefore God also, by Penance, forgives one sin without another. + +Obj. 5: Further, man's sins are forgiven him through the love of God, +according to Jer. 31:3: "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, +therefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee." Now there is +nothing to hinder God from loving a man in one respect, while being +offended with him in another, even as He loves the sinner as regards +his nature, while hating him for his sin. Therefore it seems possible +for God, by Penance, to pardon one sin without another. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et +falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "There are +many who repent having sinned, but not completely; for they except +certain things which give them pleasure, forgetting that our Lord +delivered from the devil the man who was both dumb and deaf, whereby +He shows us that we are never healed unless it be from all sins." + +_I answer that,_ It is impossible for Penance to take one sin away +without another. First because sin is taken away by grace removing +the offense against God. Wherefore it was stated in the Second Part +(I-II, Q. 109, A. 7; Q. 113, A. 2) that without grace no sin can be +forgiven. Now every mortal sin is opposed to grace and excludes it. +Therefore it is impossible for one sin to be pardoned without +another. Secondly, because, as shown above (A. 2) mortal sin cannot +be forgiven without true Penance, to which it belongs to renounce +sin, by reason of its being against God, which is common to all +mortal sins: and where the same reason applies, the result will be +the same. Consequently a man cannot be truly penitent, if he repent +of one sin and not of another. For if one particular sin were +displeasing to him, because it is against the love of God above all +things (which motive is necessary for true repentance), it follows +that he would repent of all. Whence it follows that it is impossible +for one sin to be pardoned through Penance, without another. Thirdly, +because this would be contrary to the perfection of God's mercy, +since His works are perfect, as stated in Deut. 32:4; wherefore +whomsoever He pardons, He pardons altogether. Hence Augustine says +[*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], +that "it is irreverent and heretical to expect half a pardon from Him +Who is just and justice itself." + +Reply Obj. 1: These words of Gregory do not refer to the forgiveness +of the guilt, but to the cessation from act, because sometimes a man +who has been wont to commit several kinds of sin, renounces one and +not the other; which is indeed due to God's assistance, but does not +reach to the pardon of the sin. + +Reply Obj. 2: In this saying of Ambrose "faith" cannot denote the +faith whereby we believe in Christ, because, as Augustine says on +John 15:22, "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not +have sin" (viz. unbelief): "for this is the sin which contains all +others": but it stands for consciousness, because sometimes a man +receives pardon for a sin of which he is not conscious, through the +punishment which he bears patiently. + +Reply Obj. 3: Although sins are not connected in so far as they turn +towards a mutable good, yet they are connected in so far as they turn +away from the immutable Good, which applies to all mortal sins in +common; and it is thus that they have the character of an offense +which needs to be removed by Penance. + +Reply Obj. 4: Debt as regards external things, e.g. money, is not +opposed to friendship through which the debt is pardoned; hence one +debt can be condoned without another. On the other hand, the debt of +sin is opposed to friendship, and so one sin or offense is not +pardoned without another; for it would seem absurd for anyone to ask +even a man to forgive him one offense and not another. + +Reply Obj. 5: The love whereby God loves man's nature, does not +ordain man to the good of glory from which man is excluded by any +mortal sin; but the love of grace, whereby mortal sin is forgiven, +ordains man to eternal life, according to Rom. 6:23: "The grace of +God (is) life everlasting." Hence there is no comparison. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 4] + +Whether the Debt of Punishment Remains After the Guilt Has Been +Forgiven Through Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that no debt of punishment remains after +the guilt has been forgiven through Penance. For when the cause is +removed, the effect is removed. But the guilt is the cause of the +debt of punishment: since a man deserves to be punished because he +has been guilty of a sin. Therefore when the sin has been forgiven, +no debt of punishment can remain. + +Obj. 2: Further, according to the Apostle (Rom. 5) the gift of Christ +is more effective than the sin of Adam. Now, by sinning, man incurs +at the same time guilt and the debt of punishment. Much more +therefore, by the gift of grace, is the guilt forgiven and at the +same time the debt of punishment remitted. + +Obj. 3: Further, the forgiveness of sins is effected in Penance +through the power of Christ's Passion, according to Rom. 3:25: +"Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His +Blood . . . for the remission of former sins." Now Christ's Passion +made satisfaction sufficient for all sins, as stated above (QQ. 48, +49, 79, A. 5). Therefore after the guilt has been pardoned, no debt +of punishment remains. + +_On the contrary,_ It is related (2 Kings 12:13) that when David +penitent had said to Nathan: "I have sinned against the Lord," Nathan +said to him: "The Lord also hath taken away thy sin, thou shalt not +die. Nevertheless . . . the child that is born to thee shall surely +die," which was to punish him for the sin he had committed, as stated +in the same place. Therefore a debt of some punishment remains after +the guilt has been forgiven. + +_I answer that,_ As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 87, A. 4), in +mortal sin there are two things, namely, a turning from the immutable +Good, and an inordinate turning to mutable good. Accordingly, in so +far as mortal sin turns away from the immutable Good, it induces a +debt of eternal punishment, so that whosoever sins against the +eternal Good should be punished eternally. Again, in so far as mortal +sin turns inordinately to a mutable good, it gives rise to a debt of +some punishment, because the disorder of guilt is not brought back to +the order of justice, except by punishment: since it is just that he +who has been too indulgent to his will, should suffer something +against his will, for thus will equality be restored. Hence it is +written (Apoc. 18:7): "As much as she hath glorified herself, and +lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her." + +Since, however, the turning to mutable good is finite, sin does not, +in this respect, induce a debt of eternal punishment. Wherefore, if +man turns inordinately to a mutable good, without turning from God, +as happens in venial sins, he incurs a debt, not of eternal but of +temporal punishment. Consequently when guilt is pardoned through +grace, the soul ceases to be turned away from God, through being +united to God by grace: so that at the same time, the debt of +punishment is taken away, albeit a debt of some temporal punishment +may yet remain. + +Reply Obj. 1: Mortal sin both turns away from God and turns to a +created good. But, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 71, A. 6), +the turning away from God is as its form while the turning to created +good is as its matter. Now if the formal element of anything be +removed, the species is taken away: thus, if you take away rational, +you take away the human species. Consequently mortal sin is said to +be pardoned from the very fact that, by means of grace, the aversion +of the mind from God is taken away together with the debt of eternal +punishment: and yet the material element remains, viz. the inordinate +turning to a created good, for which a debt of temporal punishment is +due. + +Reply Obj. 2: As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 109, AA. 7, 8; +Q. 111, A. 2), it belongs to grace to operate in man by justifying +him from sin, and to co-operate with man that his work may be rightly +done. Consequently the forgiveness of guilt and of the debt of +eternal punishment belongs to operating grace, while the remission of +the debt of temporal punishment belongs to co-operating grace, in so +far as man, by bearing punishment patiently with the help of Divine +grace, is released also from the debt of temporal punishment. +Consequently just as the effect of operating grace precedes the +effect of co-operating grace, so too, the remission of guilt and of +eternal punishment precedes the complete release from temporal +punishment, since both are from grace, but the former, from grace +alone, the latter, from grace and free-will. + +Reply Obj. 3: Christ's Passion is of itself sufficient to remove all +debt of punishment, not only eternal, but also temporal; and man is +released from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his +share in the power of Christ's Passion. Now in Baptism man shares the +Power of Christ's Passion fully, since by water and the Spirit of +Christ, he dies with Him to sin, and is born again in Him to a new +life, so that, in Baptism, man receives the remission of all debt of +punishment. In Penance, on the other hand, man shares in the power of +Christ's Passion according to the measure of his own acts, which are +the matter of Penance, as water is of Baptism, as stated above (Q. +84, AA. 1, 3). Wherefore the entire debt of punishment is not +remitted at once after the first act of Penance, by which act the +guilt is remitted, but only when all the acts of Penance have been +completed. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 5] + +Whether the Remnants of Sin Are Removed When a Mortal Sin Is Forgiven? + +Objection 1: It would seem that all the remnants of sin are removed +when a mortal sin is forgiven. For Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ +[*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: +"Our Lord never healed anyone without delivering him wholly; for He +wholly healed the man on the Sabbath, since He delivered his body +from all disease, and his soul from all taint." Now the remnants of +sin belong to the disease of sin. Therefore it does not seem possible +for any remnants of sin to remain when the guilt has been pardoned. + +Obj. 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), "good is more +efficacious than evil, since evil does not act save in virtue of some +good." Now, by sinning, man incurs the taint of sin all at once. Much +more, therefore, by repenting, is he delivered also from all remnants +of sin. + +Obj. 3: Further, God's work is more efficacious than man's. Now by +the exercise of good human works the remnants of contrary sins are +removed. Much more, therefore, are they taken away by the remission +of guilt, which is a work of God. + +_On the contrary,_ We read (Mk. 8) that the blind man whom our Lord +enlightened, was restored first of all to imperfect sight, wherefore +he said (Mk. 8:24): "I see men, as it were trees, walking"; and +afterwards he was restored perfectly, "so that he saw all things +clearly." Now the enlightenment of the blind man signifies the +delivery of the sinner. Therefore after the first remission of sin, +whereby the sinner is restored to spiritual sight, there still remain +in him some remnants of his past sin. + +_I answer that,_ Mortal sin, in so far as it turns inordinately to a +mutable good, produces in the soul a certain disposition, or even a +habit, if the acts be repeated frequently. Now it has been said above +(A. 4) that the guilt of mortal sin is pardoned through grace +removing the aversion of the mind from God. Nevertheless when that +which is on the part of the aversion has been taken away by grace, +that which is on the part of the inordinate turning to a mutable good +can remain, since this may happen to be without the other, as stated +above (A. 4). Consequently, there is no reason why, after the guilt +has been forgiven, the dispositions caused by preceding acts should +not remain, which are called the remnants of sin. Yet they remain +weakened and diminished, so as not to domineer over man, and they are +after the manner of dispositions rather than of habits, like the +_fomes_ which remains after Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 1: God heals the whole man perfectly; but sometimes +suddenly, as Peter's mother-in-law was restored at once to perfect +health, so that "rising she ministered to them" (Luke 4:39), and +sometimes by degrees, as we said above (Q. 44, A. 3, ad 2) about the +blind man who was restored to sight (Matt. 8). And so too, He +sometimes turns the heart of man with such power, that it receives at +once perfect spiritual health, not only the guilt being pardoned, but +all remnants of sin being removed as was the case with Magdalen (Luke +7); whereas at other times He sometimes first pardons the guilt by +operating grace, and afterwards, by co-operating grace, removes the +remnants of sin by degrees. + +Reply Obj. 2: Sin too, sometimes induces at once a weak disposition, +such as is the result of one act, and sometimes a stronger +disposition, the result of many acts. + +Reply Obj. 3: One human act does not remove all the remnants of sin, +because, as stated in the _Predicaments_ (Categor. viii) "a vicious +man by doing good works will make but little progress so as to be any +better, but if he continue in good practice, he will end in being +good as to acquired virtue." But God's grace does this much more +effectively, whether by one or by several acts. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 6] + +Whether the Forgiveness of Guilt Is an Effect of Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the forgiveness of guilt is not an +effect of penance as a virtue. For penance is said to be a virtue, in +so far as it is a principle of a human action. But human action does +nothing towards the remission of guilt, since this is an effect of +operating grace. Therefore the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect +of penance as a virtue. + +Obj. 2: Further, certain other virtues are more excellent than +penance. But the forgiveness of sin is not said to be the effect of +any other virtue. Neither, therefore, is it the effect of penance as +a virtue. + +Obj. 3: Further, there is no forgiveness of sin except through the +power of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 9:22: "Without shedding +of blood there is no remission." Now Penance, as a sacrament, +produces its effect through the power of Christ's Passion, even as +the other sacraments do, as was shown above (Q. 62, AA. 4, 5). +Therefore the forgiveness of sin is the effect of Penance, not as a +virtue, but as a sacrament. + +_On the contrary,_ Properly speaking, the cause of a thing is that +without which it cannot be, since every defect depends on its cause. +Now forgiveness of sin can come from God without the sacrament of +Penance, but not without the virtue of penance, as stated above (Q. +84, A. 5, ad 3; Q. 85, A. 2); so that, even before the sacraments of +the New Law were instituted, God pardoned the sins of the penitent. +Therefore the forgiveness of sin is chiefly the effect of penance as +a virtue. + +_I answer that,_ Penance is a virtue in so far as it is a principle +of certain human acts. Now the human acts, which are performed by the +sinner, are the material element in the sacrament of Penance. +Moreover every sacrament produces its effect, in virtue not only of +its form, but also of its matter; because both these together make +the one sacrament, as stated above (Q. 60, A. 6, ad 2, A. 7). Hence +in Baptism forgiveness of sin is effected, in virtue not only of the +form (but also of the matter, viz. water, albeit chiefly in virtue of +the form) [*The words in brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition] +from which the water receives its power--and, similarly, the +forgiveness of sin is the effect of Penance, chiefly by the power of +the keys, which is vested in the ministers, who furnish the formal +part of the sacrament, as stated above (Q. 84, A. 3), and secondarily +by the instrumentality of those acts of the penitent which pertain to +the virtue of penance, but only in so far as such acts are, in some +way, subordinate to the keys of the Church. Accordingly it is evident +that the forgiveness of sin is the effect of penance as a virtue, but +still more of Penance as a sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 1: The effect of operating grace is the justification of +the ungodly (as stated in the Second Part, I-II, Q. 113), wherein +there is, as was there stated (AA. 1, 2, 3), not only infusion of +grace and forgiveness of sin, but also a movement of the free-will +towards God, which is an act of faith quickened by charity, and a +movement of the free-will against sin, which is the act of penance. +Yet these human acts are there as the effects of operating grace, and +are produced at the same time as the forgiveness of sin. Consequently +the forgiveness of sin does not take place without an act of the +virtue of penance, although it is the effect of operating grace. + +Reply Obj. 2: In the justification of the ungodly there is not only +an act of penance, but also an act of faith, as stated above (ad 1: +I-II, Q. 113, A. 4). Wherefore the forgiveness of sin is accounted +the effect not only of the virtue of penance, but also, and that +chiefly, of faith and charity. + +Reply Obj. 3: The act of the virtue of penance is subordinate to +Christ's Passion both by faith, and by its relation to the keys of +the Church; and so, in both ways, it causes the forgiveness of sin, +by the power of Christ's Passion. + +To the argument advanced in the contrary sense we reply that the act +of the virtue of penance is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, +through being an inseparable effect of grace, whereby chiefly is sin +pardoned, and which produces its effect in all the sacraments. +Consequently it only follows that grace is a higher cause of the +forgiveness of sin than the sacrament of Penance. Moreover, it must +be observed that, under the Old Law and the law of nature, there was +a sacrament of Penance after a fashion, as stated above (Q. 84, A. 7, +ad 2). +_______________________ + +QUESTION 87 + +OF THE REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider the forgiveness of venial sins, under which head +there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether venial sin can be forgiven without Penance? + +(2) Whether it can be forgiven without the infusion of grace? + +(3) Whether venial sins are forgiven by the sprinkling of holy water, +a bishop's blessing, the beating of the breast, the Lord's Prayer, +and the like? + +(4) Whether a venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 87, Art. 1] + +Whether Venial Sin Can Be Forgiven Without Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that venial sin can be forgiven without +penance. For, as stated above (Q. 84, A. 10, ad 4), it is essential +to true penance that man should not only sorrow for his past sins, +but also that he should purpose to avoid them for the future. Now +venial sins are forgiven without any such purpose, for it is certain +that man cannot lead the present life without committing venial sins. +Therefore venial sins can be forgiven without penance. + +Obj. 2: Further, there is no penance without actual displeasure at +one's sins. But venial sins can be taken away without any actual +displeasure at them, as would be the case if a man were to be killed +in his sleep, for Christ's sake, since he would go to heaven at once, +which would not happen if his venial sins remained. Therefore venial +sins can be forgiven without penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, venial sins are contrary to the fervor of charity, +as stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Now one contrary +is removed by another. Therefore forgiveness of venial sins is caused +by the fervor of charity, which may be without actual displeasure at +venial sin. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et +falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], that "there +is a penance which is done for venial sins in the Church every day" +which would be useless if venial sins could be forgiven without +Penance. + +_I answer that,_ Forgiveness of sin, as stated above (Q. 86, A. 2), +is effected by man being united to God from Whom sin separates him in +some way. Now this separation is made complete by mortal sin, and +incomplete by venial sin: because, by mortal sin, the mind through +acting against charity is altogether turned away from God; whereas by +venial sin man's affections are clogged, so that they are slow in +tending towards God. Consequently both kinds of sin are taken away by +penance, because by both of them man's will is disordered through +turning inordinately to a created good; for just as mortal sin cannot +be forgiven so long as the will is attached to sin, so neither can +venial sin, because while the cause remains, the effect remains. + +Yet a more perfect penance is requisite for the forgiveness of mortal +sin, namely that man should detest actually the mortal sin which he +committed, so far as lies in his power, that is to say, he should +endeavor to remember each single mortal sin, in order to detest each +one. But this is, not required for the forgiveness of venial sins; +although it does not suffice to have habitual displeasure, which is +included in the habit of charity or of penance as a virtue, since +then venial sin would be incompatible with charity, which is +evidently untrue. Consequently it is necessary to have a certain +virtual displeasure, so that, for instance, a man's affections so +tend to God and Divine things, that whatever might happen to him to +hamper that tendency would be displeasing to him, and would grieve +him, were he to commit it, even though he were not to think of it +actually: and this is not sufficient for the remission of mortal sin, +except as regards those sins which he fails to remember after a +careful examination. + +Reply Obj. 1: When man is in a state of grace, he can avoid all +mortal sins, and each single one; and he can avoid each single venial +sin, but not all, as was explained in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 74, +A. 8, ad 2; Q. 109, A. 8). Consequently penance for mortal sins +requires man to purpose abstaining from mortal sins, all and each; +whereas penance for venial sins requires man to purpose abstaining +from each, but not from all, because the weakness of this life does +not allow of this. Nevertheless he needs to have the purpose of +taking steps to commit fewer venial sins, else he would be in danger +of falling back, if he gave up the desire of going forward, or of +removing the obstacles to spiritual progress, such as venial sins are. + +Reply Obj. 2: Death for Christ's sake, as stated above (Q. 66, A. +11), obtains the power of Baptism, wherefore it washes away all sin, +both venial and mortal, unless it find the will attached to sin. + +Reply Obj. 3: The fervor of charity implies virtual displeasure at +venial sins, as stated above (Q. 79, A. 4). +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 87, Art. 2] + +Whether Infusion of Grace Is Necessary for the Remission of Venial Sins? + +Objection 1: It would seem that infusion of grace is necessary for +the remission of venial sins. Because an effect is not produced +without its proper cause. Now the proper cause of the remission of +sins is grace; for man's sins are not forgiven through his own +merits; wherefore it is written (Eph. 2:4, 5): "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, by Whose +grace you are saved." Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without +infusion of grace. + +Obj. 2: Further, venial sins are not forgiven without Penance. Now +grace is infused, in Penance as in the other sacraments of the New +Law. Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace. + +Obj. 3: Further, venial sin produces a stain on the soul. Now a stain +is not removed save by grace which is the spiritual beauty of the +soul. Therefore it seems that venial sins are not forgiven without +infusion of grace. + +_On the contrary,_ The advent of venial sin neither destroys nor +diminishes grace, as stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). +Therefore, in like manner, an infusion of grace is not necessary in +order to remove venial sin. + +_I answer that,_ Each thing is removed by its contrary. But venial +sin is not contrary to habitual grace or charity, but hampers its +act, through man being too much attached to a created good, albeit +not in opposition to God, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 88, +A. 1; II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Therefore, in order that venial sin be +removed, it is not necessary that habitual grace be infused, but a +movement of grace or charity suffices for its forgiveness. + +Nevertheless, since in those who have the use of free-will (in whom +alone can there be venial sins), there can be no infusion of grace +without an actual movement of the free-will towards God and against +sin, consequently whenever grace is infused anew, venial sins are +forgiven. + +Reply Obj. 1: Even the forgiveness of venial sins is an effect of +grace, in virtue of the act which grace produces anew, but not +through any habit infused anew into the soul. + +Reply Obj. 2: Venial sin is never forgiven without some act, explicit +or implicit, of the virtue of penance, as stated above (A. 1): it +can, however, be forgiven without the sacrament of Penance, which is +formally perfected by the priestly absolution, as stated above (Q. +87, A. 2). Hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is +required for the forgiveness of venial sin, for although this +infusion takes place in every sacrament, it does not occur in every +act of virtue. + +Reply Obj. 3: Just as there are two kinds of bodily stain, one +consisting in the privation of something required for beauty, e.g. +the right color or the due proportion of members, and another by the +introduction of some hindrance to beauty, e.g. mud or dust; so too, a +stain is put on the soul, in one way, by the privation of the beauty +of grace through mortal sin, in another, by the inordinate +inclination of the affections to some temporal thing, and this is the +result of venial sin. Consequently, an infusion of grace is necessary +for the removal of mortal sin, but in order to remove venial sin, it +is necessary to have a movement proceeding from grace, removing the +inordinate attachment to the temporal thing. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 87, Art. 3] + +Whether Venial Sins Are Removed by the Sprinkling of Holy Water and +the Like? + +Objection 1: It would seem that venial sins are not removed by the +sprinkling of holy water, a bishop's blessing, and the like. For +venial sins are not forgiven without Penance, as stated above (A. 1). +But Penance suffices by itself for the remission of venial sins. +Therefore the above have nothing to do with the remission of venial +sins. + +Obj. 2: Further, each of the above bears the same relation to one +venial sin as to all. If therefore, by means of one of them, some +venial sin is remitted, it follows that in like manner all are +remitted, so that by beating his breast once, or by being sprinkled +once with holy water, a man would be delivered from all his venial +sins, which seems unreasonable. + +Obj. 3: Further, venial sins occasion a debt of some punishment, +albeit temporal; for it is written (1 Cor. 3:12, 15) of him that +builds up "wood, hay, stubble" that "he shall be saved, yet so as by +fire." Now the above things whereby venial sins are said to be taken +away, contain either no punishment at all, or very little. Therefore +they do not suffice for the full remission of venial sins. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*Hom. 30 inter +1; Ep. cclxv] that "for our slight sins we strike our breasts, and +say: Forgive us our trespasses," and so it seems that striking one's +breast, and the Lord's Prayer cause the remission of venial sins: and +the same seems to apply to the other things. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), no infusion of fresh grace +is required for the forgiveness of a venial sin, but it is enough to +have an act proceeding from grace, in detestation of that venial sin, +either explicit or at least implicit, as when one is moved fervently +to God. Hence, for three reasons, certain things cause the remission +of venial sins: first, because they imply the infusion of grace, +since the infusion of grace removes venial sins, as stated above (A. +2); and so, by the Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and by all the +sacraments of the New Law without exception, wherein grace is +conferred, venial sins are remitted. Secondly, because they imply a +movement of detestation for sin, and in this way the general +confession [*i.e. the recital of the Confiteor or of an act of +contrition], the beating of one's breast, and the Lord's Prayer +conduce to the remission of venial sins, for we ask in the Lord's +Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses." Thirdly, because they include a +movement of reverence for God and Divine things; and in this way a +bishop's blessing, the sprinkling of holy water, any sacramental +anointing, a prayer said in a dedicated church, and anything else of +the kind, conduce to the remission of venial sins. + +Reply Obj. 1: All these things cause the remission of venial sins, in +so far as they incline the soul to the movement of penance, viz., the +implicit or explicit detestation of one's sins. + +Reply Obj. 2: All these things, so far as they are concerned, conduce +to the remission of all venial sins: but the remission may be +hindered as regards certain venial sins, to which the mind is still +actually attached, even as insincerity sometimes impedes the effect +of Baptism. + +Reply Obj. 3: By the above things, venial sins are indeed taken away +as regards the guilt, both because those things are a kind of +satisfaction, and through the virtue of charity whose movement is +aroused by such things. + +Yet it does not always happen that, by means of each one, the whole +guilt of punishment is taken away, because, in that case, whoever +was entirely free from mortal sin, would go straight to heaven if +sprinkled with holy water: but the debt of punishment is remitted by +means of the above, according to the movement of fervor towards God, +which fervor is aroused by such things, sometimes more, sometimes +less. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 87, Art. 4] + +Whether Venial Sin Can Be Taken Away Without Mortal Sin? + +Objection 1: It would seem that venial sin can be taken away without +mortal sin. For, on John 8:7: "He that is without sin among you, let +him first cast a stone at her," a gloss says that "all those men were +in a state of mortal sin: for venial offenses were forgiven them +through the legal ceremonies." Therefore venial sin can be taken away +without mortal sin. + +Obj. 2: Further, no infusion of grace is required for the remission +of venial sin, but it is required for the forgiveness of mortal sin. +Therefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin. + +Obj. 3: Further, a venial sin differs from a mortal sin more than +from another venial sin. But one venial sin can be pardoned without +another, as stated above (A. 3, ad 2; Q. 87, A. 3). Therefore a +venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 5:26): "Amen I say to thee, +thou shalt not go out from thence," viz., from the prison, into which +a man is cast for mortal sin, "till thou repay the last farthing," by +which venial sin is denoted. Therefore a venial sin is not forgiven +without mortal sin. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 87, A. 3), there is no remission +of any sin whatever except by the power of grace, because, as the +Apostle declares (Rom. 4:8), it is owing to God's grace that He does +not impute sin to a man, which a gloss on that passage expounds as +referring to venial sin. Now he that is in a state of mortal sin is +without the grace of God. Therefore no venial sin is forgiven him. + +Reply Obj. 1: Venial offenses, in the passage quoted, denote the +irregularities or uncleannesses which men contracted in accordance +with the Law. + +Reply Obj. 2: Although no new infusion of habitual grace is requisite +for the remission of venial sin, yet it is necessary to exercise some +act of grace, which cannot be in one who is a subject of mortal sin. + +Reply Obj. 3: Venial sin does not preclude every act of grace whereby +all venial sins can be removed; whereas mortal sin excludes +altogether the habit of grace, without which no sin, either mortal or +venial, is remitted. Hence the comparison fails. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 88 + +OF THE RETURN OF SINS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY PENANCE +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider the return of sins which have been taken away by +Penance: under which head there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether sins which have been taken away by Penance return simply +through a subsequent sin? + +(2) Whether more specially as regards certain sins they return, in a +way, on account of ingratitude? + +(3) Whether the debt of punishment remains the same for sins thus +returned? + +(4) Whether this ingratitude, on account of which sins return, is a +special sin? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 88, Art. 1] + +Whether Sins Once Forgiven Return Through a Subsequent Sin? + +Objection 1: It would seem that sins once forgiven return through a +subsequent sin. For Augustine says (De Bapt. contra Donat. i, 12): +"Our Lord teaches most explicitly in the Gospel that sins which have +been forgiven return, when fraternal charity ceases, in the example +of the servant from whom his master exacted the payment of the debt +already forgiven, because he had refused to forgive the debt of his +fellow-servant." Now fraternal charity is destroyed through each +mortal sin. Therefore sins already taken away through Penance, return +through each subsequent mortal sin. + +Obj. 2: Further, on Luke 11:24, "I will return into my house, whence +I came out," Bede says: "This verse should make us tremble, we should +not endeavor to explain it away lest through carelessness we give +place to the sin which we thought to have been taken away, and become +its slave once more." Now this would not be so unless it returned. +Therefore a sin returns after once being taken away by Penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, the Lord said (Ezech. 18:24): "If the just man turn +himself away from his justice, and do iniquity . . . all his justices +which he hath done, shall not be remembered." Now among the other +"justices" which he had done, is also his previous penance, since it +was said above (Q. 85, A. 3) that penance is a part of justice. +Therefore when one who has done penance, sins, his previous penance, +whereby he received forgiveness of his sins, is not imputed to him. +Therefore his sins return. + +Obj. 4: Further, past sins are covered by grace, as the Apostle +declares (Rom. 4:7) where he quotes Ps. 31:1: "Blessed are they whose +iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." But a +subsequent mortal sin takes away grace. Therefore the sins committed +previously, become uncovered: and so, seemingly, they return. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 11:29): "The gifts and the +calling of God are without repentance." Now the penitent's sins are +taken away by a gift of God. Therefore the sins which have been taken +away do not return through a subsequent sin, as though God repented +His gift of forgiveness. + +Moreover, Augustine says (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf. Prosper, +Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii]): "When he that turns away from +Christ, comes to the end of this life a stranger to grace, whither +does he go, except to perdition? Yet he does not fall back into that +which had been forgiven, nor will he be condemned for original sin." + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 86, A. 4), mortal sin contains +two things, aversion from God and adherence to a created good. Now, +in mortal sin, whatever attaches to the aversion, is, considered in +itself, common to all mortal sins, since man turns away from God by +every mortal sin, so that, in consequence, the stain resulting from +the privation of grace, and the debt of everlasting punishment are +common to all mortal sins. This is what is meant by what is written +(James 2:10): "Whosoever . . . shall offend in one point, is become +guilty of all." On the other hand, as regards their adherence they +are different from, and sometimes contrary to one another. Hence it +is evident, that on the part of the adherence, a subsequent mortal +sin does not cause the return of mortal sins previously dispelled, +else it would follow that by a sin of wastefulness a man would be +brought back to the habit or disposition of avarice previously +dispelled, so that one contrary would be the cause of another, which +is impossible. But if in mortal sins we consider that which attaches +to the aversion absolutely, then a subsequent mortal sin [causes the +return of that which was comprised in the mortal sins before they +were pardoned, in so far as the subsequent mortal sin] [*The words in +brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition.] deprives man of grace, +and makes him deserving of everlasting punishment, just as he was +before. Nevertheless, since the aversion of mortal sin is [in a way, +caused by the adherence, those things which attach to the aversion +are*] diversified somewhat in relation to various adherences, as it +were to various causes, so that there will be a different aversion, a +different stain, a different debt of punishment, according to the +different acts of mortal sin from which they arise; hence the +question is moved whether the stain and the debt of eternal +punishment, as caused by acts of sins previously pardoned, return +through a subsequent mortal sin. + +Accordingly some have maintained that they return simply even in this +way. But this is impossible, because what God has done cannot be +undone by the work of man. Now the pardon of the previous sins was a +work of Divine mercy, so that it cannot be undone by man's subsequent +sin, according to Rom. 3:3: "Shall their unbelief make the faith of +God without effect?" + +Wherefore others who maintained the possibility of sins returning, +said that God pardons the sins of a penitent who will afterwards sin +again, not according to His foreknowledge, but only according to His +present justice: since He foresees that He will punish such a man +eternally for his sins, and yet, by His grace, He makes him righteous +for the present. But this cannot stand: because if a cause be placed +absolutely, its effect is placed absolutely; so that if the remission +of sins were effected by grace and the sacraments of grace, not +absolutely but under some condition dependent on some future event, +it would follow that grace and the sacraments of grace are not the +sufficient causes of the remission of sins, which is erroneous, as +being derogatory to God's grace. + +Consequently it is in no way possible for the stain of past sins and +the debt of punishment incurred thereby, to return, as caused by +those acts. Yet it may happen that a subsequent sinful act virtually +contains the debt of punishment due to the previous sin, in so far as +when a man sins a second time, for this very reason he seems to sin +more grievously than before, as stated in Rom. 2:5: "According to thy +hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath +against the day of wrath," from the mere fact, namely, that God's +goodness, which waits for us to repent, is despised. And so much the +more is God's goodness despised, if the first sin is committed a +second time after having been forgiven, as it is a greater favor for +the sin to be forgiven than for the sinner to be endured. + +Accordingly the sin which follows repentance brings back, in a sense, +the debt of punishment due to the sins previously forgiven, not as +caused by those sins already forgiven but as caused by this last sin +being committed, on account of its being aggravated in view of those +previous sins. This means that those sins return, not simply, but in +a restricted sense, viz., in so far as they are virtually contained +in the subsequent sin. + +Reply Obj. 1: This saying of Augustine seems to refer to the return +of sins as to the debt of eternal punishment considered in itself, +namely, that he who sins after doing penance incurs a debt of eternal +punishment, just as before, but not altogether for the same _reason._ +Wherefore Augustine, after saying (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf. +Prosper, Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii]) that "he does not +fall back into that which was forgiven, nor will he be condemned for +original sin," adds: "Nevertheless, for these last sins he will be +condemned to the same death, which he deserved to suffer for the +former," because he incurs the punishment of eternal death which he +deserved for his previous sins. + +Reply Obj. 2: By these words Bede means that the guilt already +forgiven enslaves man, not by the return of his former debt of +punishment, but by the repetition of his act. + +Reply Obj. 3: The effect of a subsequent sin is that the former +"justices" are not remembered, in so far as they were deserving of +eternal life, but not in so far as they were a hindrance to sin. +Consequently if a man sins mortally after making restitution, he does +not become guilty as though he had not paid back what he owed; and +much less is penance previously done forgotten as to the pardon of +the guilt, since this is the work of God rather than of man. + +Reply Obj. 4: Grace removes the stain and the debt of eternal +punishment simply; but it covers the past sinful acts, lest, on their +account, God deprive man of grace, and judge him deserving of eternal +punishment; and what grace has once done, endures for ever. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 88, Art. 2] + +Whether Sins That Have Been Forgiven, Return Through Ingratitude +Which Is Shown Especially in Four Kinds of Sin? + +Objection 1: It would seem that sins do not return through +ingratitude, which is shown especially in four kinds of sin, viz., +hatred of one's neighbor, apostasy from faith, contempt of confession +and regret for past repentance, and which have been expressed in the +following verse: + +"Fratres odit, apostata fit, spernitque, fateri, +Poenituisse piget, pristina culpa redit." + +For the more grievous the sin committed against God after one has +received the grace of pardon, the greater the ingratitude. But there +are sins more grievous than these, such as blasphemy against God, and +the sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that sins already +pardoned do not return through ingratitude as manifested in these +sins, any more than as shown in other sins. + +Obj. 2: Further, Rabanus says: "God delivered the wicked servant to +the torturers, until he should pay the whole debt, because a man will +be deemed punishable not only for the sins he commits after Baptism, +but also for original sin which was taken away when he was baptized." +Now venial sins are reckoned among our debts, since we pray in their +regard: "Forgive us our trespasses (_debita_)." Therefore they too +return through ingratitude; and, in like manner seemingly, sins +already pardoned return through venial sins, and not only through +those sins mentioned above. + +Obj. 3: Further, ingratitude is all the greater, according as one +sins after receiving a greater favor. Now innocence whereby one +avoids sin is a Divine favor, for Augustine says (Confess. ii): +"Whatever sins I have avoided committing, I owe it to Thy grace." Now +innocence is a greater gift, than even the forgiveness of all sins. +Therefore the first sin committed after innocence is no less an +ingratitude to God, than a sin committed after repentance, so that +seemingly ingratitude in respect of the aforesaid sins is not the +chief cause of sins returning. + +_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xviii [*Cf. Dial. iv]): "It +is evident from the words of the Gospel that if we do not forgive +from our hearts the offenses committed against us, we become once +more accountable for what we rejoiced in as forgiven through +Penance": so that ingratitude implied in the hatred of one's brother +is a special cause of the return of sins already forgiven: and the +same seems to apply to the others. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), sins pardoned through +Penance are said to return, in so far as their debt of punishment, by +reason of ingratitude, is virtually contained in the subsequent sin. +Now one may be guilty of ingratitude in two ways: first by doing +something against the favor received, and, in this way, man is +ungrateful to God in every mortal sin whereby he offends God Who +forgave his sins, so that by every subsequent mortal sin, the sins +previously pardoned return, on account of the ingratitude. Secondly, +one is guilty of ingratitude, by doing something not only against the +favor itself, but also against the form of the favor received. If +this form be considered on the part of the benefactor, it is the +remission of something due to him; wherefore he who does not forgive +his brother when he asks pardon, and persists in his hatred, acts +against this form. If, however, this form be taken in regard to the +penitent who receives this favor, we find on his part a twofold +movement of the free-will. The first is the movement of the free-will +towards God, and is an act of faith quickened by charity; and against +this a man acts by apostatizing from the faith. The second is a +movement of the free-will against sin, and is the act of penance. +This act consists first, as we have stated above (Q. 85, AA. 2, 5) in +man's detestation of his past sins; and against this a man acts when +he regrets having done penance. Secondly, the act of penance consists +in the penitent purposing to subject himself to the keys of the +Church by confession, according to Ps. 31:5: "I said: I will confess +against myself my injustice to the Lord: and Thou hast forgiven the +wickedness of my sin": and against this a man acts when he scorns to +confess as he had purposed to do. + +Accordingly it is said that the ingratitude of sinners is a special +cause of the return of sins previously forgiven. + +Reply Obj. 1: This is not said of these sins as though they were more +grievous than others, but because they are more directly opposed to +the favor of the forgiveness of sin. + +Reply Obj. 2: Even venial sins and original sin return in the way +explained above, just as mortal sins do, in so far as the favor +conferred by God in forgiving those sins is despised. A man does not, +however, incur ingratitude by committing a venial sin, because by +sinning venially man does not act against God, but apart from Him, +wherefore venial sins nowise cause the return of sins already +forgiven. + +Reply Obj. 3: A favor can be weighed in two ways. First by the +quantity of the favor itself, and in this way innocence is a greater +favor from God than penance, which is called the second plank after +shipwreck (cf. Q. 84, A. 6). Secondly, a favor may be weighed with +regard to the recipient, who is less worthy, wherefore a greater +favor is bestowed on him, so that he is the more ungrateful if he +scorns it. In this way the favor of the pardon of sins is greater +when bestowed on one who is altogether unworthy, so that the +ingratitude which follows is all the greater. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 88, Art. 3] + +Whether the Debt of Punishment That Arises Through Ingratitude in +Respect of a Subsequent Sin Is As Great As That of the Sins +Previously Pardoned? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the debt of punishment arising +through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as +that of the sins previously pardoned. Because the greatness of the +favor of the pardon of sins is according to the greatness of the sin +pardoned, and so too, in consequence, is the greatness of the +ingratitude whereby this favor is scorned. But the greatness of the +consequent debt of punishment is in accord with the greatness of the +ingratitude. Therefore the debt of punishment arising through +ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as the debt of +punishment due for all the previous sins. + +Obj. 2: Further, it is a greater sin to offend God than to offend +man. But a slave who is freed by his master returns to the same state +of slavery from which he was freed, or even to a worse state. Much +more therefore he that sins against God after being freed from sin, +returns to the debt of as great a punishment as he had incurred +before. + +Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 18:34) that "his lord being +angry, delivered him" (whose sins returned to him on account of his +ingratitude) "to the torturers, until he paid all the debt." But this +would not be so unless the debt of punishment incurred through +ingratitude were as great as that incurred through all previous sins. +Therefore an equal debt of punishment returns through ingratitude. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 25:2): "According to the +measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be," whence +it is evident that a great debt of punishment does not arise from a +slight sin. But sometimes a subsequent mortal sin is much less +grievous than any one of those previously pardoned. Therefore the +debt of punishment incurred through subsequent sins is not equal to +that of sins previously forgiven. + +_I answer that,_ Some have maintained that the debt of punishment +incurred through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is equal +to that of the sins previously pardoned, in addition to the debt +proper to this subsequent sin. But there is no need for this, +because, as stated above (A. 1), the debt of punishment incurred by +previous sins does not return on account of a subsequent sin, as +resulting from the acts of the subsequent sin. Wherefore the amount +of the debt that returns must be according to the gravity of the +subsequent sin. + +It is possible, however, for the gravity of the subsequent sin to +equal the gravity of all previous sins. But it need not always be so, +whether we speak of the gravity which a sin has from its species +(since the subsequent sin may be one of simple fornication, while the +previous sins were adulteries, murders, or sacrileges); or of the +gravity which it incurs through the ingratitude connected with it. +For it is not necessary that the measure of ingratitude should be +exactly equal to the measure of the favor received, which latter is +measured according to the greatness of the sins previously pardoned. +Because it may happen that in respect of the same favor, one man is +very ungrateful, either on account of the intensity of his scorn for +the favor received, or on account of the gravity of the offense +committed against the benefactor, while another man is slightly +ungrateful, either because his scorn is less intense, or because his +offense against the benefactor is less grave. But the measure of +ingratitude is proportionately equal to the measure of the favor +received: for supposing an equal contempt of the favor, or an equal +offense against the benefactor, the ingratitude will be so much the +greater, as the favor received is greater. + +Hence it is evident that the debt of punishment incurred by a +subsequent sin need not always be equal to that of previous sins; but +it must be in proportion thereto, so that the more numerous or the +greater the sins previously pardoned, the greater must be the debt of +punishment incurred by any subsequent mortal sin whatever. + +Reply Obj. 1: The favor of the pardon of sins takes its absolute +quantity from the quantity of the sins previously pardoned: but the +sin of ingratitude does not take its absolute quantity from the +measure of the favor bestowed, but from the measure of the contempt +or of the offense, as stated above: and so the objection does not +prove. + +Reply Obj. 2: A slave who has been given his freedom is not brought +back to his previous state of slavery for any kind of ingratitude, +but only when this is grave. + +Reply Obj. 3: He whose forgiven sins return to him on account of +subsequent ingratitude, incurs the debt for all, in so far as the +measure of his previous sins is contained proportionally in his +subsequent ingratitude, but not absolutely, as stated above. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 88, Art. 4] + +Whether the Ingratitude Whereby a Subsequent Sin Causes the Return of +Previous Sins, Is a Special Sin? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the ingratitude, whereby a subsequent +sin causes the return of sins previously forgiven, is a special sin. +For the giving of thanks belongs to counterpassion which is a +necessary condition of justice, as the Philosopher shows (Ethic. v, +5). But justice is a special virtue. Therefore this ingratitude is a +special sin. + +Obj. 2: Further, Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that thanksgiving is a +special virtue. But ingratitude is opposed to thanksgiving. Therefore +ingratitude is a special sin. + +Obj. 3: Further, a special effect proceeds from a special cause. Now +ingratitude has a special effect, viz. the return, after a fashion, +of sins already forgiven. Therefore ingratitude is a special sin. + +_On the contrary,_ That which is a sequel to every sin is not a +special sin. Now by any mortal sin whatever, a man becomes ungrateful +to God, as evidenced from what has been said (A. 1). Therefore +ingratitude is not a special sin. + +_I answer that,_ The ingratitude of the sinner is sometimes a special +sin; and sometimes it is not, but a circumstance arising from all +mortal sins in common committed against God. For a sin takes its +species according to the sinner's intention, wherefore the +Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that "he who commits adultery in order +to steal is a thief rather than an adulterer." + +If, therefore, a sinner commits a sin in contempt of God and of the +favor received from Him, that sin is drawn to the species of +ingratitude, and in this way a sinner's ingratitude is a special sin. +If, however, a man, while intending to commit a sin, e.g. murder or +adultery, is not withheld from it on account of its implying contempt +of God, his ingratitude will not be a special sin, but will be drawn +to the species of the other sin, as a circumstance thereof. And, as +Augustine observes (De Nat. et Grat. xxix), not every sin implies +contempt of God in His commandments. Therefore it is evident that the +sinner's ingratitude is sometimes a special sin, sometimes not. + +This suffices for the Replies to the Objections: for the first +(three) objections prove that ingratitude is in itself a special sin; +while the last objection proves that ingratitude, as included in +every sin, is not a special sin. +_______________________ + +QUESTION 89 + +OF THE RECOVERY OF VIRTUE BY MEANS OF PENANCE +(In Six Articles) + +We must now consider the recovery of virtues by means of Penance, +under which head there are six points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether virtues are restored through Penance? + +(2) Whether they are restored in equal measure? + +(3) Whether equal dignity is restored to the penitent? + +(4) Whether works of virtue are deadened by subsequent sin? + +(5) Whether works deadened by sin revive through Penance? + +(6) Whether dead works, i.e. works that are done without charity, are +quickened by Penance? +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 1] + +Whether the Virtues Are Restored Through Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the virtues are not restored through +penance. Because lost virtue cannot be restored by penance, unless +penance be the cause of virtue. But, since penance is itself a +virtue, it cannot be the cause of all the virtues, and all the more, +since some virtues naturally precede penance, viz., faith, hope, and +charity, as stated above (Q. 85, A. 6). Therefore the virtues are not +restored through penance. + +Obj. 2: Further, Penance consists in certain acts of the penitent. +But the gratuitous virtues are not caused through any act of ours: +for Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18: In Ps. 118) that "God forms +the virtues in us without us." Therefore it seems that the virtues +are not restored through Penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, he that has virtue performs works of virtue with +ease and pleasure: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8) that +"a man is not just if he does not rejoice in just deeds." Now many +penitents find difficulty in performing deeds of virtue. Therefore +the virtues are not restored through Penance. + +_On the contrary,_ We read (Luke 15:22) that the father commanded his +penitent son to be clothed in "the first robe," which, according to +Ambrose (Expos. in Luc. vii), is the "mantle of wisdom," from which +all the virtues flow together, according to Wis. 8:7: "She teacheth +temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such +things as men can have nothing more profitable in life." Therefore +all the virtues are restored through Penance. + +_I answer that,_ Sins are pardoned through Penance, as stated above +(Q. 86, A. 1). But there can be no remission of sins except through +the infusion of grace. Wherefore it follows that grace is infused +into man through Penance. Now all the gratuitous virtues flow from +grace, even as all the powers result from the essence of the soul; as +stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 110, A. 4, ad 1). Therefore all +the virtues are restored through Penance. + +Reply Obj. 1: Penance restores the virtues in the same way as it +causes grace, as stated above (Q. 86, A. 1). Now it is a cause of +grace, in so far as it is a sacrament, because, in so far as it is a +virtue, it is rather an effect of grace. Consequently it does not +follow that penance, as a virtue, needs to be the cause of all the +other virtues, but that the habit of penance together with the habits +of the other virtues is caused through the sacrament of Penance. + +Reply Obj. 2: In the sacrament of Penance human acts stand as matter, +while the formal power of this sacrament is derived from the power of +the keys. Consequently the power of the keys causes grace and virtue +effectively indeed, but instrumentally; and the first act of the +penitent, viz., contrition, stands as ultimate disposition to the +reception of grace, while the subsequent acts of Penance proceed from +the grace and virtues which are already there. + +Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 86, A. 5), sometimes after the +first act of Penance, which is contrition, certain remnants of sin +remain, viz. dispositions caused by previous acts, the result being +that the penitent finds difficulty in doing deeds of virtue. +Nevertheless, so far as the inclination itself of charity and of the +other virtues is concerned, the penitent performs works of virtue +with pleasure and ease, even as a virtuous man may accidentally find +it hard to do an act of virtue, on account of sleepiness or some +indisposition of the body. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 2] + +Whether, After Penance, Man Rises Again to Equal Virtue? + +Objection 1: It would seem that, after Penance, man rises again to +equal virtue. For the Apostle says (Rom. 8:28): "To them that love +God all things work together unto good," whereupon a gloss of +Augustine says that "this is so true that, if any such man goes +astray and wanders from the path, God makes even this conduce to his +good." But this would not be true if he rose again to lesser virtue. +Therefore it seems that a penitent never rises again to lesser virtue. + +Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose says [*Cf. Hypognosticon iii, an anonymous +work falsely ascribed to St. Augustine] that "Penance is a very good +thing, for it restores every defect to a state of perfection." But +this would not be true unless virtues were recovered in equal +measure. Therefore equal virtue is always recovered through Penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, on Gen. 1:5: "There was evening and morning, one +day," a gloss says: "The evening light is that from which we fall; +the morning light is that to which we rise again." Now the morning +light is greater than the evening light. Therefore a man rises to +greater grace or charity than that which he had before; which is +confirmed by the Apostle's words (Rom. 5:20): "Where sin abounded, +grace did more abound." + +_On the contrary,_ Charity whether proficient or perfect is greater +than incipient charity. But sometimes a man falls from proficient +charity, and rises again to incipient charity. Therefore man always +rises again to less virtue. + +_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 86, A. 6, ad 3; Q. 89, A. 1, ad +2), the movement of the free-will, in the justification of the +ungodly, is the ultimate disposition to grace; so that in the same +instant there is infusion of grace together with the aforesaid +movement of the free-will, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. +113, AA. 5, 7), which movement includes an act of penance, as stated +above (Q. 86, A. 2). But it is evident that forms which admit of +being more or less, become intense or remiss, according to the +different dispositions of the subject, as stated in the Second Part +(I-II, Q. 52, AA. 1, 2; Q. 66, A. 1). Hence it is that, in Penance, +according to the degree of intensity or remissness in the movement of +the free-will, the penitent receives greater or lesser grace. Now the +intensity of the penitent's movement may be proportionate sometimes +to a greater grace than that from which man fell by sinning, +sometimes to an equal grace, sometimes to a lesser. Wherefore the +penitent sometimes arises to a greater grace than that which he had +before, sometimes to an equal, sometimes to a lesser grace: and the +same applies to the virtues, which flow from grace. + +Reply Obj. 1: The very fact of falling away from the love of God by +sin, does not work unto the good of all those who love God, which is +evident in the case of those who fall and never rise again, or who +rise and fall yet again; but only to the good of "such as according +to His purpose are called to be saints," viz. the predestined, who, +however often they may fall, yet rise again finally. Consequently +good comes of their falling, not that they always rise again to +greater grace, but that they rise to more abiding grace, not indeed +on the part of grace itself, because the greater the grace, the more +abiding it is, but on the part of man, who, the more careful and +humble he is, abides the more steadfastly in grace. Hence the same +gloss adds that "their fall conduces to their good, because they rise +more humble and more enlightened." + +Reply Obj. 2: Penance, considered in itself, has the power to bring +all defects back to perfection, and even to advance man to a higher +state; but this is sometimes hindered on the part of man, whose +movement towards God and in detestation of sin is too remiss, just as +in Baptism adults receive a greater or a lesser grace, according to +the various ways in which they prepare themselves. + +Reply Obj. 3: This comparison of the two graces to the evening and +morning light is made on account of a likeness of order, since the +darkness of night follows after the evening light, and the light of +day after the light of morning, but not on account of a likeness of +greater or lesser quantity. Again, this saying of the Apostle refers +to the grace of Christ, which abounds more than any number of man's +sins. Nor is it true of all, that the more their sins abound, the +more abundant grace they receive, if we measure habitual grace by the +quantity. Grace is, however, more abundant, as regards the very +notion of grace, because to him who sins more a more _gratuitous_ +favor is vouchsafed by his pardon; although sometimes those whose +sins abound, abound also in sorrow, so that they receive a more +abundant habit of grace and virtue, as was the case with Magdalen. + +To the argument advanced in the contrary sense it must be replied +that in one and the same man proficient grace is greater than +incipient grace, but this is not necessarily the case in different +men, for one begins with a greater grace than another has in the +state of proficiency: thus Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1): "Let all, both +now and hereafter, acknowledge how perfectly the boy Benedict turned +to the life of grace from the very beginning." +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 3] + +Whether, by Penance, Man Is Restored to His Former Dignity? + +Objection 1: It would seem that man is not restored by Penance to his +former dignity: because a gloss on Amos 5:2, "The virgin of Israel is +cast down," observes: "It is not said that she cannot rise up, but +that the virgin of Israel shall not rise; because the sheep that has +once strayed, although the shepherd bring it back on his shoulder, +has not the same glory as if it had never strayed." Therefore man +does not, through Penance, recover his former dignity. + +Obj. 2: Further, Jerome says: "Whoever fail to preserve the dignity +of the sacred order, must be content with saving their souls; for it +is a difficult thing to return to their former degree." Again, Pope +Innocent I says (Ep. vi ad Agapit.) that "the canons framed at the +council of Nicaea exclude penitents from even the lowest orders of +clerics." Therefore man does not, through Penance, recover his former +dignity. + +Obj. 3: Further, before sinning a man can advance to a higher sacred +order. But this is not permitted to a penitent after his sin, for it +is written (Ezech. 44:10, 13): "The Levites that went away . . . from +Me . . . shall never [Vulg.: 'not'] come near to Me, to do the office +of priest": and as laid down in the Decretals (Dist. 1, ch. 52), and +taken from the council of Lerida: "If those who serve at the Holy +Altar fall suddenly into some deplorable weakness of the flesh, and +by God's mercy do proper penance, let them return to their duties, +yet so as not to receive further promotion." Therefore Penance does +not restore man to his former dignity. + +_On the contrary,_ As we read in the same Distinction, Gregory +writing to Secundinus (Regist. vii) says: "We consider that when a +man has made proper satisfaction, he may return to his honorable +position": and moreover we read in the acts of the council of Agde: +"Contumacious clerics, so far as their position allows, should be +corrected by their bishops, so that when Penance has reformed them, +they may recover their degree and dignity." + +_I answer that,_ By sin, man loses a twofold dignity, one in respect +of God, the other in respect of the Church. In respect of God he +again loses a twofold dignity. One is his principal dignity, whereby +he was counted among the children of God, and this he recovers by +Penance, which is signified (Luke 15) in the prodigal son, for when +he repented, his father commanded that the first garment should be +restored to him, together with a ring and shoes. The other is his +secondary dignity, viz. innocence, of which, as we read in the same +chapter, the elder son boasted saying (Luke 15:29): "Behold, for so +many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy +commandments": and this dignity the penitent cannot recover. +Nevertheless he recovers something greater sometimes; because as +Gregory says (Hom. de centum Ovibus, 34 in Evang.), "those who +acknowledge themselves to have strayed away from God, make up for +their past losses, by subsequent gains: so that there is more joy in +heaven on their account, even as in battle, the commanding officer +thinks more of the soldier who, after running away, returns and +bravely attacks the foe, than of one who has never turned his back, +but has done nothing brave." + +By sin man loses his ecclesiastical dignity, because thereby he +becomes unworthy of those things which appertain to the exercise of +the ecclesiastical dignity. This he is debarred from recovering: +first, because he fails to repent; wherefore Isidore wrote to the +bishop Masso, and as we read in the Distinction quoted above (Obj. +3): "The canons order those to be restored to their former degree, +who by repentance have made satisfaction for their sins, or have made +worthy confession of them. On the other hand, those who do not mend +their corrupt and wicked ways are neither allowed to exercise their +order, nor received to the grace of communion." + +Secondly, because he does penance negligently, wherefore it is +written in the same Distinction (Obj. 3): "We can be sure that those +who show no signs of humble compunction, or of earnest prayer, who +avoid fasting or study, would exercise their former duties with great +negligence if they were restored to them." + +Thirdly, if he has committed a sin to which an irregularity is +attached; wherefore it is said in the same Distinction (Obj. 3), +quoting the council of Pope Martin [*Martin, bishop of Braga]: "If a +man marry a widow or the relict of another, he must not be admitted +to the ranks of the clergy: and if he has succeeded in creeping in, +he must be turned out. In like manner, if anyone after Baptism be +guilty of homicide, whether by deed, or by command, or by counsel, or +in self-defense." But this is in consequence not of sin, but of +irregularity. + +Fourthly, on account of scandal, wherefore it is said in the same +Distinction (Obj. 3): "Those who have been publicly convicted or +caught in the act of perjury, robbery, fornication, and of such like +crimes, according to the prescription of the sacred canons must be +deprived of the exercise of their respective orders, because it is a +scandal to God's people that such persons should be placed over them. +But those who commit such sins occultly and confess them secretly to +a priest, may be retained in the exercise of their respective orders, +with the assurance of God's merciful forgiveness, provided they be +careful to expiate their sins by fasts and alms, vigils and holy +deeds." The same is expressed (Extra, De Qual. Ordinand.): "If the +aforesaid crimes are not proved by a judicial process, or in some +other way made notorious, those who are guilty of them must not be +hindered, after they have done penance, from exercising the orders +they have received, or from receiving further orders, except in cases +of homicide." + +Reply Obj. 1: The same is to be said of the recovery of virginity as +of the recovery of innocence which belongs to man's secondary dignity +in the sight of God. + +Reply Obj. 2: In these words Jerome does not say that it is +impossible, but that it is difficult, for man to recover his former +dignity after having sinned, because this is allowed to none but +those who repent perfectly, as stated above. To those canonical +statutes, which seem to forbid this, Augustine replies in his letter +to Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): "If the law of the Church forbids anyone, +after doing penance for a crime, to become a cleric, or to return to +his clerical duties, or to retain them the intention was not to +deprive him of the hope of pardon, but to preserve the rigor of +discipline; else we should have to deny the keys given to the Church, +of which it was said: 'Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be +loosed in heaven.'" And further on he adds: "For holy David did +penance for his deadly crimes, and yet he retained his dignity; and +Blessed Peter by shedding most bitter tears did indeed repent him of +having denied his Lord, and yet he remained an apostle. Nevertheless +we must not deem the care of later teachers excessive, who without +endangering a man's salvation, exacted more from his humility, +having, in my opinion, found by experience, that some assumed a +pretended repentance through hankering after honors and power." + +Reply Obj. 3: This statute is to be understood as applying to those +who do public penance, for these cannot be promoted to a higher +order. For Peter, after his denial, was made shepherd of Christ's +sheep, as appears from John 21:21, where Chrysostom comments as +follows: "After his denial and repentance Peter gives proof of +greater confidence in Christ: for whereas, at the supper, he durst +not ask Him, but deputed John to ask in his stead, afterwards he was +placed at the head of his brethren, and not only did not depute +another to ask for him, what concerned him, but henceforth asks the +Master instead of John." +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 4] + +Whether Virtuous Deeds Done in Charity Can Be Deadened? + +Objection 1: It would seem that virtuous deeds done in charity cannot +be deadened. For that which is not cannot be changed. But to be +deadened is to be changed from life to death. Since therefore +virtuous deeds, after being done, are no more, it seems that they +cannot afterwards be deadened. + +Obj. 2: Further, by virtuous deeds done in charity, man merits +eternal life. But to take away the reward from one who has merited it +is an injustice, which cannot be ascribed to God. Therefore it is not +possible for virtuous deeds done in charity to be deadened by a +subsequent sin. + +Obj. 3: Further, the strong is not corrupted by the weak. Now works +of charity are stronger than any sins, because, as it is written +(Prov. 10:12), "charity covereth all sins." Therefore it seems that +deeds done in charity cannot be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin. + +_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 18:24): "If the just man +turn himself away from his justice . . . all his justices which he +hath done shall not be remembered." + +_I answer that,_ A living thing, by dying, ceases to have vital +operations: for which reason, by a kind of metaphor, a thing is said +to be deadened when it is hindered from producing its proper effect +or operation. + +Now the effect of virtuous works, which are done in charity, is to +bring man to eternal life; and this is hindered by a subsequent +mortal sin, inasmuch as it takes away grace. Wherefore deeds done in +charity are said to be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin. + +Reply Obj. 1: Just as sinful deeds pass as to the act but remain as +to guilt, so deeds done in charity, after passing, as to the act, +remain as to merit, in so far as they are acceptable to God. It is in +this respect that they are deadened, inasmuch as man is hindered from +receiving his reward. + +Reply Obj. 2: There is no injustice in withdrawing the reward from +him who has deserved it, if he has made himself unworthy by his +subsequent fault, since at times a man justly forfeits through his +own fault, even that which he has already received. + +Reply Obj. 3: It is not on account of the strength of sinful deeds +that deeds, previously done in charity, are deadened, but on account +of the freedom of the will which can be turned away from good to evil. +_______________________ + +FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 5] + +Whether Deeds Deadened by Sin, Are Revived by Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that deeds deadened by sin are not revived +by Penance. Because just as past sins are remitted by subsequent +Penance, so are deeds previously done in charity, deadened by +subsequent sin. But sins remitted by Penance do not return, as stated +above (Q. 88, AA. 1, 2). Therefore it seems that neither are dead +deeds revived by charity. + +Obj. 2: Further, deeds are said to be deadened by comparison with +animals who die, as stated above (A. 4). But a dead animal cannot be +revived. Therefore neither can dead works be revived by Penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, deeds done in charity are deserving of glory +according to the quantity of grace or charity. But sometimes man +arises through Penance to lesser grace or charity. Therefore he does +not receive glory according to the merit of his previous works; so +that it seems that deeds deadened by sin are not revived. + +_On the contrary,_ on Joel 2:25, "I will restore to you the years, +which the locust . . . hath eaten," a gloss says: "I will not suffer +to perish the fruit which you lost when your soul was disturbed." But +this fruit is the merit of good works which was lost through sin. +Therefore meritorious deeds done before are revived by Penance. + +_I answer that,_ Some have said that meritorious works deadened by +subsequent sin are not revived by the ensuing Penance, because they +deemed such works to have passed away, so that they could not be +revived. But that is no reason why they should not be revived: +because they are conducive to eternal life (wherein their life +consists) not only as actually existing, but also after they cease to +exist actually, and as abiding in the Divine acceptance. Now, they +abide thus, so far as they are concerned, even after they have been +deadened by sin, because those works, according as they were done, +will ever be acceptable to God and give joy to the saints, according +to Apoc. 3:11: "Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy +crown." That they fail in their efficacy to bring the man, who did +them, to eternal life, is due to the impediment of the supervening +sin whereby he is become unworthy of eternal life. But this +impediment is removed by Penance, inasmuch as sins are taken away +thereby. Hence it follows that deeds previously deadened, recover, +through Penance, their efficacy in bringing him, who did them, to +eternal life, and, in other words, they are revived. It is therefore +evident that deadened works are revived by Penance. + +Reply Obj. 1: The very works themselves of sin are removed by +Penance, so that, by God's mercy, no further stain or debt of +punishment is incurred on their account: on the other hand, works +done in charity are not removed by God, since they abide in His +acceptance, but they are hindered on the part of the man who does +them; wherefore if this hindrance, on the part of the man who does +those works, be removed, God on His side fulfills what those works +deserved. + +Reply Obj. 2: Deeds done in charity are not in themselves deadened, +as explained above, but only with regard to a supervening impediment +on the part of the man who does them. On the other hand, an animal +dies in itself, through being deprived of the principle of life: so +that the comparison fails. + +Reply Obj. 3: He who, through Penance, arises to lesser charity, will +receive the essential reward according to the degree of charity in +which he is found. Yet he will have greater joy for the works he had +done in his former charity, than for those which he did in his +subsequent charity: and this joy belongs to the accidental reward. +_______________________ + +SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 6] + +Whether the Effect of Subsequent Penance Is to Quicken Even Dead +Works? + +Objection 1: It would seem that the effect of subsequent Penance is +to quicken even dead works, those, namely, that were not done in +charity. For it seems more difficult to bring to life that which has +been deadened, since this is never done naturally, than to quicken +that which never had life, since certain living things are engendered +naturally from things without life. Now deadened works are revived by +Penance, as stated above (A. 5). Much more, therefore, are dead works +revived. + +Obj. 2: Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But +the cause of the lack of life in works generically good done without +charity, was the lack of charity and grace, which lack is removed by +Penance. Therefore dead works are quickened by charity. + +Obj. 3: Further, Jerome in commenting on Agg. i, 6: "You have sowed +much," says: "If at any time you find a sinner, among his many evil +deeds, doing that which is right, God is not so unjust as to forget +the few good deeds on account of his many evil deeds." Now this seems +to be the case chiefly when past evil deeds are removed by Penance. +Therefore it seems that through Penance, God rewards the former deeds +done in the state of sin, which implies that they are quickened. + +_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:3): "If I should +distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my +body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." +But this would not be true, if, at least by subsequent Penance, they +were quickened. Therefore Penance does not quicken works which before +were dead. + +_I answer that,_ A work is said to be dead in two ways: first, +effectively, because, to wit, it is a cause of death, in which sense +sinful works are said to be dead, according to Heb. 9:14: "The blood +of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works." These +dead works are not quickened but removed by Penance, according to +Heb. 6:1: "Not laying again the foundation of Penance from dead +works." Secondly, works are said to be dead privatively, because, to +wit, they lack spiritual life, which is founded on charity, whereby +the soul is united to God, the result being that it is quickened as +the body by the soul: in which sense too, faith, if it lack charity, +is said to be dead, according to James 2:20: "Faith without works is +dead." In this way also, all works that are generically good, are +said to be dead, if they be done without charity, inasmuch as they +fail to proceed from the principle of life; even as we might call the +sound of a harp, a dead voice. Accordingly, the difference of life +and death in works is in relation to the principle from which they +proceed. But works cannot proceed a second time from a principle, +because they are transitory, and the same identical deed cannot be +resumed. Therefore it is impossible for dead works to be quickened by +Penance. + +Reply Obj. 1: In the physical order things whether dead or deadened +lack the principle of life. But works are said to be deadened, not in +relation to the principle whence they proceeded, but in relation to +an extrinsic impediment; while they are said to be dead in relation +to a principle. Consequently there is no comparison. + +Reply Obj. 2: Works generically good done without charity are said to +be dead on account of the lack of grace and charity, as principles. +Now the subsequent Penance does not supply that want, so as to make +them proceed from such a principle. Hence the argument does not prove. + +Reply Obj. 3: God remembers the good deeds a man does when in a state +of sin, not by rewarding them in eternal life, which is due only to +living works, i.e. those done from charity, but by a temporal reward: +thus Gregory declares (Hom. de Divite et Lazaro, 41 in Evang.) that +"unless that rich man had done some good deed, and had received his +reward in this world, Abraham would certainly not have said to him: +'Thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime.'" Or again, this may +mean that he will be judged less severely: wherefore Augustine says +(De Patientia xxvi): "We cannot say that it would be better for the +schismatic that by denying Christ he should suffer none of those +things which he suffered by confessing Him; but we must believe that +he will be judged with less severity, than if by denying Christ, he +had suffered none of those things. Thus the words of the Apostle, 'If +I should deliver my body to be burned and have not charity, it +profiteth me nothing,' refer to the obtaining of the kingdom of +heaven, and do not exclude the possibility of being sentenced with +less severity at the last judgment." +_______________________ + +QUESTION 90 + +OF THE PARTS OF PENANCE, IN GENERAL +(In Four Articles) + +We must now consider the parts of Penance: (1) in general; +(2) each one in particular. + +Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: + +(1) Whether Penance has any parts? + +(2) Of the number of its parts; + +(3) What kind of parts are they? + +(4) Of its division into subjective parts. +_______________________ + +FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 90, Art. 1] + +Whether Penance Should Be Assigned Any Parts? + +Objection 1: It would seem that parts should not be assigned to +Penance. For it is the Divine power that works our salvation most +secretly in the sacraments. Now the Divine power is one and simple. +Therefore Penance, being a sacrament, should have no parts assigned +to it. + +Obj. 2: Further, Penance is both a virtue and a sacrament. Now no +parts are assigned to it as a virtue, since virtue is a habit, which +is a simple quality of the mind. In like manner, it seems that parts +should not be assigned to Penance as a sacrament, because no parts +are assigned to Baptism and the other sacraments. Therefore no parts +at all should be assigned to Penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, the matter of Penance is sin, as stated above (Q. +84, A. 2). But no parts are assigned to sin. Neither, therefore, +should parts be assigned to Penance. + +_On the contrary,_ The parts of a thing are those out of which the +whole is composed. Now the perfection of Penance is composed of +several things, viz. contrition, confession, and satisfaction. +Therefore Penance has parts. + +_I answer that,_ The parts of a thing are those into which the whole +is divided materially, for the parts of a thing are to the whole, +what matter is to the form; wherefore the parts are reckoned as a +kind of material cause, and the whole as a kind of formal cause +(Phys. ii). Accordingly wherever, on the part of matter, we find a +kind of plurality, there we shall find a reason for assigning parts. + +Now it has been stated above (Q. 84, AA. 2, 3), that, in the +sacrament of Penance, human actions stand as matter: and so, since +several actions are requisite for the perfection of Penance, viz., +contrition, confession, and satisfaction, as we shall show further on +(A. 2), it follows that the sacrament of Penance has parts. + +Reply Obj. 1: Every sacrament is something simple by reason of the +Divine power, which operates therein: but the Divine power is so +great that it can operate both through one and through many, and by +reason of these many, parts may be assigned to a particular sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: Parts are not assigned to penance as a virtue: because +the human acts of which there are several in penance, are related to +the habit of virtue, not as its parts, but as its effects. It +follows, therefore, that parts are assigned to Penance as a +sacrament, to which the human acts are related as matter: whereas in +the other sacraments the matter does not consist of human acts, but +of some one external thing, either simple, as water or oil, or +compound, as chrism, and so parts are not assigned to the other +sacraments. + +Reply Obj. 3: Sins are the remote matter of Penance, inasmuch, to +wit, as they are the matter or object of the human acts, which are +the proper matter of Penance as a sacrament. +_______________________ + +SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 90, Art. 2] + +Whether Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction Are Fittingly +Assigned As Parts of Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that contrition, confession, and +satisfaction are not fittingly assigned as parts of Penance. For +contrition is in the heart, and so belongs to interior penance; while +confession consists of words, and satisfaction in deeds; so that the +two latter belong to interior penance. Now interior penance is not a +sacrament, but only exterior penance which is perceptible by the +senses. Therefore these three parts are not fittingly assigned to the +sacrament of Penance. + +Obj. 2: Further, grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Law, +as stated above (Q. 62, AA. 1, 3). But no grace is conferred in +satisfaction. Therefore satisfaction is not part of a sacrament. + +Obj. 3: Further, the fruit of a thing is not the same as its part. +But satisfaction is a fruit of penance, according to Luke 3:8: "Bring +forth . . . fruits worthy of penance." Therefore it is not a part of +Penance. + +Obj. 4: Further, Penance is ordained against sin. But sin can be +completed merely in the thought by consent, as stated in the Second +Part (I-II, Q. 72, A. 7): therefore Penance can also. Therefore +confession in word and satisfaction in deed should not be reckoned as +parts of Penance. + +_On the contrary,_ It seems that yet more parts should be assigned to +Penance. For not only is the body assigned as a part of man, as being +the matter, but also the soul, which is his form. But the aforesaid +three, being the acts of the penitent, stand as matter, while the +priestly absolution stands as form. Therefore the priestly absolution +should be assigned as a fourth part of Penance. + +_I answer that,_ A part is twofold, essential and quantitative. The +essential parts are naturally the form and the matter, and logically +the genus and the difference. In this way, each sacrament is divided +into matter and form as its essential parts. Hence it has been said +above (Q. 60, AA. 5, 6) that sacraments consist of things and words. +But since quantity is on the part of matter, quantitative parts are +parts of matter: and, in this way, as stated above (A. 1), parts are +assigned specially to the sacrament of Penance, as regards the acts +of the penitent, which are the matter of this sacrament. + +Now it has been said above (Q. 85, A. 3, ad 3) that an offense is +atoned otherwise in Penance than in vindictive justice. Because, in +vindictive justice the atonement is made according to the judge's +decision, and not according to the discretion of the offender or of +the person offended; whereas, in Penance, the offense is atoned +according to the will of the sinner, and the judgment of God against +Whom the sin was committed, because in the latter case we seek not +only the restoration of the equality of justice, as in vindictive +justice, but also and still more the reconciliation of friendship, +which is accomplished by the offender making atonement according to +the will of the person offended. Accordingly the first requisite on +the part of the penitent is the will to atone, and this is done by +contrition; the second is that he submit to the judgment of the +priest standing in God's place, and this is done in confession; and +the third is that he atone according to the decision of God's +minister, and this is done in satisfaction: and so contrition, +confession, and satisfaction are assigned as parts of Penance. + +Reply Obj. 1: Contrition, as to its essence, is in the heart, and +belongs to interior penance; yet, virtually, it belongs to exterior +penance, inasmuch as it implies the purpose of confessing and making +satisfaction. + +Reply Obj. 2: Satisfaction confers grace, in so far as it is in man's +purpose, and it increases grace, according as it is accomplished, +just as Baptism does in adults, as stated above (Q. 68, A. 2; Q. 69, +A. 8). + +Reply Obj. 3: Satisfaction is a part of Penance as a sacrament, and a +fruit of penance as a virtue. + +Reply Obj. 4: More things are required for good, "which proceeds from +a cause that is entire," than for evil, "which results from each +single defect," as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). And thus, +although sin is completed in the consent of the heart, yet the +perfection of Penance requires contrition of the heart, together with +confession in word and satisfaction in deed. + +The Reply to the Fifth Objection is clear from what has been said. +_______________________ + +THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 90, Art. 3] + +Whether These Three Are Integral Parts of Penance? + +Objection 1: It would seem that these three are not integral parts of +Penance. For, as stated above (Q. 84, A. 3), Penance is ordained +against sin. But sins of thought, word, and deed are the subjective +and not integral parts of sin, because sin is predicated of each one +of them. Therefore in Penance also, contrition in thought, confession +in word, and satisfaction in deed are not integral parts. + +Obj. 2: Further, no integral part includes within itself another that +is condivided with it. But contrition includes both confession and +satisfaction in the purpose of amendment. Therefore they are not +integral parts. + +Obj. 3: Further, a whole is composed of its integral parts, taken at +the same time and equally, just as a line is made up of its parts. +But such is not the case here. Therefore these are not integral parts +of Penance. + +_On the contrary,_ Integral parts are those by which the perfection +of the whole is integrated. But the perfection of Penance is +integrated by these three. Therefore they are integral parts of +Penance. + +_I answer that,_ Some have said that these three are subjective parts +of Penance. But this is impossible, because the entire power of the +whole is present in each subjective part at the same time and +equally, just as the entire power of an animal, as such, is assured +to each animal species, all of which species divide the animal genus +at the same time and equally: which does not apply to the point in +question. Wherefore others have said that these are potential parts: +yet neither can this be true, since the whole is present, as to the +entire essence, in each potential part, just as the entire essence of +the soul is present in each of its powers: which does not apply to +the case in point. Therefore it follows that these three are integral +parts of Penance, the nature of which is that the whole is not +present in each of the parts, either as to its entire power, or as to +its entire essence, but that it is present to all of them together at +the same time. + +Reply Obj. 1: Sin forasmuch as it is an evil, can be completed in one +single point, as stated above (A. 2, ad 4); and so the sin which is +completed in thought alone, is a special kind of sin. Another species +is the sin that is completed in thought and word: and yet a third +species is the sin that is completed in thought, word, and deed; and +the quasi-integral parts of this last sin, are that which is in +thought, that which is in word, and that which is in deed. Wherefore +these three are the integral parts of Penance, which is completed in +them. + +Reply Obj. 2: One integral part can include the whole, though not as +to its essence: because the foundation, in a way, contains virtually +the whole building. In this way contrition includes virtually the +whole of Penance. + +Reply Obj. 3: All integral parts have a certain relation of order to +one another: but some are only related as to position, whether in +sequence as the parts of an army, or by contact, as the parts of a +heap, or by being fitted together, as the parts of a house, or by +continuation, as the parts of a line; while some are related, in +addition, as to power, as the parts of an animal, the first of which +is the heart, the others in a certain order being dependent on one +another: and thirdly some are related in the order of time: as the +parts of time and movement. Accordingly the parts of Penance are +related to one another in the order of power and time, since they are +actions, but not in the order of position, since they do not occupy a +place. +_______________________ + +FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 90, Art. 4] + +Whether Penance Is Fittingly Divided into Penance Before Baptism, +Penance for Mortal Sins, and Penance for Venial Sins? + +Objection 1: It would seem that penance is unfittingly divided into +penance before Baptism, penance for mortal, and penance for venial +sins. For Penance is the second plank after shipwreck, as stated +above (Q. 84, A. 6), while Baptism is the first. Therefore that which +precedes Baptism should not be called a species of penance. + +Obj. 2: Further, that which can destroy the greater, can destroy the +lesser. Now mortal sin is greater than venial; and penance which +regards mortal sins regards also venial sins. Therefore they should +not be considered as different species of penance. + +Obj. 3: Further, just as after Baptism man commits venial and mortal +sins, so does he before Baptism. If therefore penance for venial sins +is distinct from penance for mortal sins after Baptism, in like +manner they should be distinguished before Baptism. Therefore penance +is not fittingly divided into these species. + +_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*Cf. Hom. 30 +inter 1] that these three are species of Penance. + +_I answer that,_ This is a division of penance as a virtue. Now it +must be observed that every virtue acts in accordance with the time +being, as also in keeping with other due circumstances, wherefore the +virtue of penance has its act at this time, according to the +requirements of the New Law. + +Now it belongs to penance to detest one's past sins, and to purpose, +at the same time, to change one's life for the better, which is the +end, so to speak, of penance. And since moral matters take their +species from the end, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 1, A. 3; +Q. 18, AA. 4, 6), it is reasonable to distinguish various species of +penance, according to the various changes intended by the penitent. + +Accordingly there is a threefold change intended by the penitent. The +first is by regeneration unto a new life, and this belongs to that +penance which precedes Baptism. The second is by reforming one's past +life after it has been already destroyed, and this belongs to penance +for mortal sins committed after Baptism. The third is by changing to +a more perfect operation of life, and this belongs to penance for +venial sins, which are remitted through a fervent act of charity, as +stated above (Q. 87, AA. 2, 3). + +Reply Obj. 1: The penance which precedes Baptism is not a sacrament, +but an act of virtue disposing one to that sacrament. + +Reply Obj. 2: The penance which washes away mortal sins, washes away +venial sins also, but the converse does not hold. Wherefore these two +species of penance are related to one another as perfect and +imperfect. + +Reply Obj. 3: Before Baptism there are no venial sins without mortal +sins. And since a venial sin cannot be remitted without mortal sin, +as stated above (Q. 87, A. 4), before Baptism, penance for mortal +sins is not distinct from penance for venial sins. + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia +Pars), by Thomas Aquinas + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SUMMA THEOLOGICA, PART III *** + +***** This file should be named 19950.txt or 19950.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/9/9/5/19950/ + +Produced by Sandra K. Perry, with corrections and +supplementation by David McClamrock + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/19950.zip b/19950.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..36c9ef2 --- /dev/null +++ b/19950.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fa0cb71 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #19950 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19950) |