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.