{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_19950/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_19950","id":"gutenberg_19950","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19950","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Doctrines -- Early works to 1800","Christianity","God -- Attributes -- Early works to 1800","God -- Omnipresence -- Early works to 1800","Theology, Doctrinal -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by Sandra K. Perry, with corrections and\nsupplementation by David McClamrock\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSUMMA THEOLOGICA\n\nTHIRD PART\n[\"III,\" \"Tertia Pars\"]\n\nTranslated by\nFathers of the English Dominican Province\n\nBENZIGER BROTHERS\nNEW YORK\n________________________\n\nDEDICATION\n\nTo the Blessed Virgin\nMary Immaculate\nSeat of Wisdom\n________________________\n\nNOTE TO THIS ELECTRONIC EDITION\n\nThe text of this electronic edition was originally produced by Sandra\nK. Perry, Perrysburg, Ohio, and made available through the Christian\nClassics Ethereal Library <http://www.ccel.org>. I have eliminated\nunnecessary formatting in the text, corrected some errors in\ntranscription, and added the dedication, tables of contents,\nPrologue, and the numbers of the questions and articles, as they\nappeared in the printed translation published by Benziger Brothers.\nEach article is now designated by part, question number, and article\nnumber in brackets, like this:\n\n> SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 49, Art. 2]\n\n> Whether the Supreme Good, God, Is the Cause of Evil?\n\nIn a few places, where obvious errors appeared in the Benziger\nBrothers edition, I have corrected them by reference to a Latin text\nof the _Summa._ These corrections are indicated by English text in\nbrackets. For example, in Part I, Question 45, Article 2, the first\nsentence in the Benziger Brothers edition begins: \"Not only is it\nimpossible that anything should be created by God....\" By reference\nto the Latin, \"non solum _non_ est impossibile a Deo aliquid creari\"\n(emphasis added), this has been corrected to \"Not only is it [not]\nimpossible that anything should be created by God....\"\n\nThis electronic edition also differs from the Benziger Brothers\nedition in the following details (as well as the obvious lack of the\noriginal page numbers and headers):\n\n* The repetitive expression \"We proceed thus to the [next] Article\"\ndoes not appear directly below the title of each article.\n\n* Italics are represented by underscores at the beginning and end,\n_like this._ Quotations and other \"quotable\" matter, however, are\nordinarily set off by quotation marks with no underscores in this\nedition, in accordance with common English usage, even where they\nwere set in italics with no quotation marks in the Benziger Brothers\nedition. Titles of books are set off by underscores when they appear\nin the text with no parentheses, but not when the books are cited in\nparentheses.\n\n* Bible chapters and verses are cited with arabic numerals separated\nby colons, like this: \"Dan. 7:10\"--not like this: \"Dan. vii. 10.\"\nSmall roman numerals have been retained where they appear in\ncitations to books other than the Bible.\n\n* Any matter that appeared in a footnote in the Benziger Brothers\nedition is presented in brackets at the point in the text where the\nfootnote mark appeared.\n\n* Greek words are presented in Roman transliteration.\n\n* Paragraphs are not indented and are separated by blank lines.\n\n* Numbered topics, set forth at the beginning of each question and\nat certain other places, are ordinarily presented on a separate line\nfor each topic.\n\n* Titles of questions are in all caps.\n\nAnything else in this electronic edition that does not correspond to\nthe content of the Benziger Brothers edition may be regarded as a\ndefect in this edition and attributed to me (David McClamrock).\n_______________________\n\nCONTENTS\n\nTHIRD PART (QQ. 1-90)\n\nQuestion\n\n1.   Of the Fitness of the Incarnation\n2.   Of the Mode of Union of the Word Incarnate\n3.   Of the Mode of Union on the Part of the Person Assuming\n4.   Of the Mode of Union on the Part of the Human Nature\n5.   Of the Parts of Human Nature Which Were Assumed\n6.   Of the Order of Assumption\n7.   Of the Grace of Christ as an Individual Man\n8.   Of the Grace of Christ as He Is the Head of the Church\n9.   Of Christ's Knowledge in General\n10.  Of the Beatific Knowledge of Christ's Soul\n11.  Of the Knowledge Imprinted or Infused on the Soul of Christ\n12.  Of the Acquired or Empiric Knowledge of Christ's Soul\n13.  Of the Power of Christ's Soul\n14.  Of the Defects of Body Assumed by the Son of God\n15.  Of the Defects of Soul Assumed by Christ\n16.  Of Those Things Which Are Applicable to Christ in His Being\n       and Becoming\n17.  Of Christ's Unity of Being\n18.  Of Christ's Unity of Will\n19.  Of the Unity of Christ's Operation\n20.  Of Christ's Subjection to the Father\n21.  Of Christ's Prayer\n22.  Of the Priesthood of Christ\n23.  Of Adoption as Befitting to Christ\n24.  Of the Predestination of Christ\n25.  Of the Adoration of Christ\n26.  Of Christ as Called the Mediator of God and Man\n--   Editorial Note: St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception\n27.  Of the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin\n28.  Of the Virginity of the Mother of God\n29.  Of the Espousals of the Mother of God\n30.  Of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin\n31.  Of the Matter From Which the Saviour's Body Was Conceived\n32.  Of the Active Principle in Christ's Conception\n33.  Of the Mode and Order of Christ's Conception\n34.  Of the Perfection of the Child Conceived\n35.  Of Christ's Nativity\n36.  Of the Manifestation of the Newly Born Christ\n37.  Of Christ's Circumcision, and of the Other Legal Observances\n       Accomplished in Regard to the Child Christ\n38.  Of the Baptism of John\n39.  Of the Baptizing of Christ\n40.  Of Christ's Manner of Life\n41.  Of Christ's Temptation\n42.  Of Christ's Doctrine\n43.  Of the Miracles Worked by Christ, in General\n44.  Of Christ's Miracles Considered Specifically\n45.  Of Christ's Transfiguration\n46.  The Passion of Christ\n47.  Of the Efficient Cause of Christ's Passion\n48.  Of the Efficiency of Christ's Passion\n49.  Of the Effects of Christ's Passion\n50.  Of the Death of Christ\n51.  Of Christ's Burial\n52.  Of Christ's Descent into Hell\n53.  Of Christ's Resurrection\n54.  Of the Quality of Christ Rising Again\n55.  Of the Manifestation of the Resurrection\n56.  Of the Causality of Christ's Resurrection\n57.  Of the Ascension of Christ\n58.  Of Christ's Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father\n59.  Of Christ's Judiciary Power\n60.  What Is a Sacrament?\n61.  Of the Necessity of the Sacraments\n62.  Of the Sacraments' Principal Effect, Which Is Grace\n63.  Of the Other Effect of the Sacraments, Which Is a Character\n64.  Of the Causes of the Sacraments\n65.  Of the Number of the Sacraments\n66.  Of the Sacrament of Baptism\n67.  Of the Ministers by Whom the Sacrament of Baptism Is Conferred\n68.  Of Those Who Receive Baptism\n69.  Of the Effects of Baptism\n70.  Of Circumcision\n71.  Of the Preparations That Accompany Baptism\n72.  Of the Sacrament of Confirmation\n73.  Of the Sacrament of the Eucharist\n74.  Of the Matter of This Sacrament\n75.  Of the Change of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ\n76.  Of the Way in Which Christ Is in This Sacrament\n77.  Of the Accidents Which Remain in This Sacrament\n78.  Of the Form of This Sacrament\n79.  Of the Effects of This Sacrament\n80.  Of the Use or Receiving of This Sacrament in General\n81.  Of the Use Which Christ Made of This Sacrament at Its Institution\n82.  Of the Minister of This Sacrament\n83.  Of the Rite of This Sacrament\n84.  Of the Sacrament of Penance\n85.  Of Penance as a Virtue\n86.  Of the Effect of Penance, As Regards the Pardon of Mortal Sin\n87.  Of the Remission of Venial Sin\n88.  Of the Return of Sins Which Have Been Taken Away by Penance\n89.  Of the Recovery of Virtue by Means of Penance\n90.  Of the Parts of Penance, in General\n________________________\n\nSUMMA THEOLOGICA\n\nTHIRD PART\n[\"III,\" \"Tertia Pars\"]\n_______________________\n\nPROLOGUE\n\nForasmuch as our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, in order to \"save His\npeople from their sins\" (Matt. 1:21), as the angel announced, showed\nunto us in His own Person the way of truth, whereby we may attain to\nthe bliss of eternal life by rising again, it is necessary, in order\nto complete the work of theology, that after considering the last end\nof human life, and the virtues and vices, there should follow the\nconsideration of the Saviour of all, and of the benefits bestowed by\nHim on the human race.\n\nConcerning this we must consider (1) the Saviour Himself; (2) the\nsacraments by which we attain to our salvation; (3) the end of\nimmortal life to which we attain by the resurrection.\n\nConcerning the first, a double consideration occurs: the first, about\nthe mystery of the Incarnation itself, whereby God was made man for\nour salvation; the second, about such things as were done and\nsuffered by our Saviour--i.e. God incarnate.\n_______________________\n\nTREATISE ON THE INCARNATION (QQ. 1-59)\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 1\n\nOF THE FITNESS OF THE INCARNATION\n(In Six Articles)\n\nConcerning the first, three things occur to be considered: first, the\nfitness of the Incarnation; secondly, the mode of union of the Word\nIncarnate; thirdly, what follows this union.\n\nUnder the first head there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it was fitting for God to become incarnate?\n\n(2) Whether it was necessary for the restoration of the human race?\n\n(3) Whether if there had been no sin God would have become incarnate?\n\n(4) Whether He became incarnate to take away original sin rather than\nactual?\n\n(5) Whether it was fitting for God to become incarnate from the\nbeginning of the world?\n\n(6) Whether His Incarnation ought to have been deferred to the end of\nthe world?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That God Should Become Incarnate?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for God to become\nincarnate. Since God from all eternity is the very essence of\ngoodness, it was best for Him to be as He had been from all eternity.\nBut from all eternity He had been without flesh. Therefore it was\nmost fitting for Him not to be united to flesh. Therefore it was not\nfitting for God to become incarnate.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is not fitting to unite things that are\ninfinitely apart, even as it would not be a fitting union if one were\n\"to paint a figure in which the neck of a horse was joined to the\nhead of a man\" [*Horace, Ars. Poet., line 1]. But God and flesh are\ninfinitely apart; since God is most simple, and flesh is most\ncomposite--especially human flesh. Therefore it was not fitting that\nGod should be united to human flesh.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a body is as distant from the highest spirit as evil\nis from the highest good. But it was wholly unfitting that God, Who\nis the highest good, should assume evil. Therefore it was not fitting\nthat the highest uncreated spirit should assume a body.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it is not becoming that He Who surpassed the\ngreatest things should be contained in the least, and He upon Whom\nrests the care of great things should leave them for lesser things.\nBut God--Who takes care of the whole world--the whole universe of\nthings cannot contain. Therefore it would seem unfitting that \"He\nshould be hid under the frail body of a babe in swathing bands, in\ncomparison with Whom the whole universe is accounted as little; and\nthat this Prince should quit His throne for so long, and transfer the\ngovernment of the whole world to so frail a body,\" as Volusianus\nwrites to Augustine (Ep. cxxxv).\n\n_On the contrary,_ It would seem most fitting that by visible things\nthe invisible things of God should be made known; for to this end was\nthe whole world made, as is clear from the word of the Apostle (Rom.\n1:20): \"For the invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being\nunderstood by the things that are made.\" But, as Damascene says (De\nFide Orth. iii, 1), by the mystery of the Incarnation are made known\nat once the goodness, the wisdom, the justice, and the power or might\nof God--\"His goodness, for He did not despise the weakness of His own\nhandiwork; His justice, since, on man's defeat, He caused the tyrant\nto be overcome by none other than man, and yet He did not snatch men\nforcibly from death; His wisdom, for He found a suitable discharge\nfor a most heavy debt; His power, or infinite might, for there is\nnothing greater than for God to become incarnate . . .\"\n\n_I answer that,_ To each thing, that is befitting which belongs to it\nby reason of its very nature; thus, to reason befits man, since this\nbelongs to him because he is of a rational nature. But the very\nnature of God is goodness, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i).\nHence, what belongs to the essence of goodness befits God. But it\nbelongs to the essence of goodness to communicate itself to others,\nas is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Hence it belongs to the\nessence of the highest good to communicate itself in the highest\nmanner to the creature, and this is brought about chiefly by \"His so\njoining created nature to Himself that one Person is made up of these\nthree--the Word, a soul and flesh,\" as Augustine says (De Trin.\nxiii). Hence it is manifest that it was fitting that God should\nbecome incarnate.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The mystery of the Incarnation was not completed\nthrough God being changed in any way from the state in which He had\nbeen from eternity, but through His having united Himself to the\ncreature in a new way, or rather through having united it to Himself.\nBut it is fitting that a creature which by nature is mutable, should\nnot always be in one way. And therefore, as the creature began to be,\nalthough it had not been before, so likewise, not having been\npreviously united to God in Person, it was afterwards united to Him.\n\nReply Obj. 2: To be united to God in unity of person was not fitting\nto human flesh, according to its natural endowments, since it was\nabove its dignity; nevertheless, it was fitting that God, by reason\nof His infinite goodness, should unite it to Himself for man's\nsalvation.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Every mode of being wherein any creature whatsoever\ndiffers from the Creator has been established by God's wisdom, and is\nordained to God's goodness. For God, Who is uncreated, immutable, and\nincorporeal, produced mutable and corporeal creatures for His own\ngoodness. And so also the evil of punishment was established by God's\njustice for God's glory. But evil of fault is committed by\nwithdrawing from the art of the Divine wisdom and from the order of\nthe Divine goodness. And therefore it could be fitting to God to\nassume a nature created, mutable, corporeal, and subject to penalty,\nbut it did not become Him to assume the evil of fault.\n\nReply Obj. 4: As Augustine replies (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): \"The\nChristian doctrine nowhere holds that God was so joined to human\nflesh as either to desert or lose, or to transfer and as it were,\ncontract within this frail body, the care of governing the universe.\nThis is the thought of men unable to see anything but corporeal\nthings . . . God is great not in mass, but in might. Hence the\ngreatness of His might feels no straits in narrow surroundings. Nor,\nif the passing word of a man is heard at once by many, and wholly by\neach, is it incredible that the abiding Word of God should be\neverywhere at once?\" Hence nothing unfitting arises from God becoming\nincarnate.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Was Necessary for the Restoration of the Human Race That\nthe Word of God Should Become Incarnate?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for the\nreparation of the human race that the Word of God should become\nincarnate. For since the Word of God is perfect God, as has been said\n(I, Q. 4, AA. 1, 2), no power was added to Him by the assumption of\nflesh. Therefore, if the incarnate Word of God restored human nature.\nHe could also have restored it without assuming flesh.\n\nObj. 2: Further, for the restoration of human nature, which had\nfallen through sin, nothing more is required than that man should\nsatisfy for sin. Now man can satisfy, as it would seem, for sin; for\nGod cannot require from man more than man can do, and since He is\nmore inclined to be merciful than to punish, as He lays the act of\nsin to man's charge, so He ought to credit him with the contrary act.\nTherefore it was not necessary for the restoration of human nature\nthat the Word of God should become incarnate.\n\nObj. 3: Further, to revere God pertains especially to man's\nsalvation; hence it is written (Mal. 1:6): \"If, then, I be a father,\nwhere is my honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear?\" But men\nrevere God the more by considering Him as elevated above all, and far\nbeyond man's senses, hence (Ps. 112:4) it is written: \"The Lord is\nhigh above all nations, and His glory above the heavens\"; and farther\non: \"Who is as the Lord our God?\" which pertains to reverence.\nTherefore it would seem unfitting to man's salvation that God should\nbe made like unto us by assuming flesh.\n\n_On the contrary,_ What frees the human race from perdition is\nnecessary for the salvation of man. But the mystery of the\nIncarnation is such; according to John 3:16: \"God so loved the world\nas to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him may\nnot perish, but may have life everlasting.\" Therefore it was\nnecessary for man's salvation that God should become incarnate.\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in\ntwo ways. First, when the end cannot be without it; as food is\nnecessary for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the end\nis attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for\na journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should\nbecome incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God with\nHis omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other\nways. But in the second way it was necessary that God should become\nincarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine says\n(De Trin. xii, 10): \"We shall also show that other ways were not\nwanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject; but\nthat there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery.\"\n\nNow this may be viewed with respect to our \"furtherance in good.\"\nFirst, with regard to faith, which is made more certain by believing\nGod Himself Who speaks; hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 2): \"In\norder that man might journey more trustfully toward the truth, the\nTruth itself, the Son of God, having assumed human nature,\nestablished and founded faith.\" Secondly, with regard to hope, which\nis thereby greatly strengthened; hence Augustine says (De Trin.\nxiii): \"Nothing was so necessary for raising our hope as to show us\nhow deeply God loved us. And what could afford us a stronger proof of\nthis than that the Son of God should become a partner with us of\nhuman nature?\" Thirdly, with regard to charity, which is greatly\nenkindled by this; hence Augustine says (De Catech. Rudib. iv): \"What\ngreater cause is there of the Lord's coming than to show God's love\nfor us?\" And he afterwards adds: \"If we have been slow to love, at\nleast let us hasten to love in return.\" Fourthly, with regard to\nwell-doing, in which He set us an example; hence Augustine says in a\nsermon (xxii de Temp.): \"Man who might be seen was not to be\nfollowed; but God was to be followed, Who could not be seen. And\ntherefore God was made man, that He Who might be seen by man, and\nWhom man might follow, might be shown to man.\" Fifthly, with regard\nto the full participation of the Divinity, which is the true bliss of\nman and end of human life; and this is bestowed upon us by Christ's\nhumanity; for Augustine says in a sermon (xiii de Temp.): \"God was\nmade man, that man might be made God.\"\n\nSo also was this useful for our _withdrawal from evil._ First,\nbecause man is taught by it not to prefer the devil to himself, nor\nto honor him who is the author of sin; hence Augustine says (De Trin.\nxiii, 17): \"Since human nature is so united to God as to become one\nperson, let not these proud spirits dare to prefer themselves to man,\nbecause they have no bodies.\" Secondly, because we are thereby taught\nhow great is man's dignity, lest we should sully it with sin; hence\nAugustine says (De Vera Relig. xvi): \"God has proved to us how high a\nplace human nature holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He appeared\nto men as a true man.\" And Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Nativity\n(xxi): \"Learn, O Christian, thy worth; and being made a partner of\nthe Divine nature, refuse to return by evil deeds to your former\nworthlessness.\" Thirdly, because, \"in order to do away with man's\npresumption, the grace of God is commended in Jesus Christ, though no\nmerits of ours went before,\" as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17).\nFourthly, because \"man's pride, which is the greatest stumbling-block\nto our clinging to God, can be convinced and cured by humility so\ngreat,\" as Augustine says in the same place. Fifthly, in order to\nfree man from the thraldom of sin, which, as Augustine says (De Trin.\nxiii, 13), \"ought to be done in such a way that the devil should be\novercome by the justice of the man Jesus Christ,\" and this was done\nby Christ satisfying for us. Now a mere man could not have satisfied\nfor the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it\nbehooved Jesus Christ to be both God and man. Hence Pope Leo says in\nthe same sermon: \"Weakness is assumed by strength, lowliness by\nmajesty, mortality by eternity, in order that one and the same\nMediator of God and men might die in one and rise in the other--for\nthis was our fitting remedy. Unless He was God, He would not have\nbrought a remedy; and unless He was man, He would not have set an\nexample.\"\n\nAnd there are very many other advantages which accrued, above man's\napprehension.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This reason has to do with the first kind of necessity,\nwithout which we cannot attain to the end.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Satisfaction may be said to be sufficient in two\nways--first, perfectly, inasmuch as it is condign, being adequate to\nmake good the fault committed, and in this way the satisfaction of a\nmere man cannot be sufficient for sin, both because the whole of\nhuman nature has been corrupted by sin, whereas the goodness of any\nperson or persons could not be made up adequately for the harm done\nto the whole of the nature; and also because a sin committed against\nGod has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divine majesty,\nbecause the greater the person we offend, the more grievous the\noffense. Hence for condign satisfaction it was necessary that the act\nof the one satisfying should have an infinite efficiency, as being of\nGod and man. Secondly, man's satisfaction may be termed sufficient,\nimperfectly--i.e. in the acceptation of him who is content with it,\neven though it is not condign, and in this way the satisfaction of a\nmere man is sufficient. And forasmuch as every imperfect presupposes\nsome perfect thing, by which it is sustained, hence it is that\nsatisfaction of every mere man has its efficiency from the\nsatisfaction of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 3: By taking flesh, God did not lessen His majesty; and in\nconsequence did not lessen the reason for reverencing Him, which is\nincreased by the increase of knowledge of Him. But, on the contrary,\ninasmuch as He wished to draw nigh to us by taking flesh, He greatly\ndrew us to know Him.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 3]\n\nWhether, If Man Had Not Sinned, God Would Have Become Incarnate?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that if man had not sinned, God would\nstill have become incarnate. For the cause remaining, the effect also\nremains. But as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 17): \"Many other\nthings are to be considered in the Incarnation of Christ besides\nabsolution from sin\"; and these were discussed above (A. 2).\nTherefore if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it belongs to the omnipotence of the Divine power to\nperfect His works, and to manifest Himself by some infinite effect.\nBut no mere creature can be called an infinite effect, since it is\nfinite of its very essence. Now, seemingly, in the work of the\nIncarnation alone is an infinite effect of the Divine power\nmanifested in a special manner by which power things infinitely\ndistant are united, inasmuch as it has been brought about that man is\nGod. And in this work especially the universe would seem to be\nperfected, inasmuch as the last creature--viz. man--is united to the\nfirst principle--viz. God. Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God\nwould have become incarnate.\n\nObj. 3: Further, human nature has not been made more capable of grace\nby sin. But after sin it is capable of the grace of union, which is\nthe greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature\nwould have been capable of this grace; nor would God have withheld\nfrom human nature any good it was capable of. Therefore, if man had\nnot sinned, God would have become incarnate.\n\nObj. 4: Further, God's predestination is eternal. But it is said of\nChrist (Rom. 1:4): \"Who was predestined the Son of God in power.\"\nTherefore, even before sin, it was necessary that the Son of God\nshould become incarnate, in order to fulfil God's predestination.\n\nObj. 5: Further, the mystery of the Incarnation was revealed to the\nfirst man, as is plain from Gen. 2:23. \"This now is bone of my\nbones,\" etc. which the Apostle says is \"a great sacrament . . . in\nChrist and in the Church,\" as is plain from Eph. 5:32. But man could\nnot be fore-conscious of his fall, for the same reason that the\nangels could not, as Augustine proves (Gen. ad lit. xi, 18).\nTherefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have become\nincarnate.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2),\nexpounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, \"For the Son of Man is\ncome to seek and to save that which was lost\"; \"Therefore, if man had\nnot sinned, the Son of Man would not have come.\" And on 1 Tim. 1:15,\n\"Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners,\" a gloss says,\n\"There was no cause of Christ's coming into the world, except to save\nsinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need\nof medicine.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There are different opinions about this question.\nFor some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would\nhave become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our\nassent ought rather to be given to this opinion.\n\nFor such things as spring from God's will, and beyond the creature's\ndue, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the\nSacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us.\nHence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first\nman is assigned as the reason of the Incarnation, it is more in\naccordance with this to say that the work of the Incarnation was\nordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed,\nthe Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not\nlimited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become\nincarnate.\n\nReply Obj. 1: All the other causes which are assigned in the\npreceding article have to do with a remedy for sin. For if man had\nnot sinned, he would have been endowed with the light of Divine\nwisdom, and would have been perfected by God with the righteousness\nof justice in order to know and carry out everything needful. But\nbecause man, on deserting God, had stooped to corporeal things, it\nwas necessary that God should take flesh, and by corporeal things\nshould afford him the remedy of salvation. Hence, on John 1:14, \"And\nthe Word was made flesh,\" St. Augustine says (Tract. ii): \"Flesh had\nblinded thee, flesh heals thee; for Christ came and overthrew the\nvices of the flesh.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The infinity of Divine power is shown in the mode of\nproduction of things from nothing. Again, it suffices for the\nperfection of the universe that the creature be ordained in a natural\nmanner to God as to an end. But that a creature should be united to\nGod in person exceeds the limits of the perfection of nature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A double capability may be remarked in human nature:\none, in respect of the order of natural power, and this is always\nfulfilled by God, Who apportions to each according to its natural\ncapability; the other in respect to the order of the Divine power,\nwhich all creatures implicitly obey; and the capability we speak of\npertains to this. But God does not fulfil all such capabilities,\notherwise God could do only what He has done in creatures, and this\nis false, as stated above (I, Q. 105, A. 6). But there is no reason\nwhy human nature should not have been raised to something greater\nafter sin. For God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater\ngood therefrom; hence it is written (Rom. 5:20): \"Where sin abounded,\ngrace did more abound.\" Hence, too, in the blessing of the Paschal\ncandle, we say: \"O happy fault, that merited such and so great a\nRedeemer!\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Predestination presupposes the foreknowledge of future\nthings; and hence, as God predestines the salvation of anyone to be\nbrought about by the prayers of others, so also He predestined the\nwork of the Incarnation to be the remedy of human sin.\n\nReply Obj. 5: Nothing prevents an effect from being revealed to one\nto whom the cause is not revealed. Hence, the mystery of the\nIncarnation could be revealed to the first man without his being\nfore-conscious of his fall. For not everyone who knows the effect\nknows the cause.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 4]\n\nWhether God Became Incarnate in Order to Take Away Actual Sin, Rather\nThan to Take Away Original Sin?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that God became incarnate as a remedy for\nactual sins rather than for original sin. For the more grievous the\nsin, the more it runs counter to man's salvation, for which God\nbecame incarnate. But actual sin is more grievous than original sin;\nfor the lightest punishment is due to original sin, as Augustine says\n(Contra Julian. v, 11). Therefore the Incarnation of Christ is\nchiefly directed to taking away actual sins.\n\nObj. 2: Further, pain of sense is not due to original sin, but merely\npain of loss, as has been shown (I-II, Q. 87, A. 5). But Christ came\nto suffer the pain of sense on the Cross in satisfaction for\nsins--and not the pain of loss, for He had no defect of either the\nbeatific vision or fruition. Therefore He came in order to take away\nactual sin rather than original sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Chrysostom says (De Compunctione Cordis ii, 3):\n\"This must be the mind of the faithful servant, to account the\nbenefits of his Lord, which have been bestowed on all alike, as\nthough they were bestowed on himself alone. For as if speaking of\nhimself alone, Paul writes to the Galatians 2:20: 'Christ . . . loved\nme and delivered Himself for me.'\" But our individual sins are actual\nsins; for original sin is the common sin. Therefore we ought to have\nthis conviction, so as to believe that He has come chiefly for actual\nsins.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:29): \"Behold the Lamb of\nGod, behold Him Who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It is certain that Christ came into this world not\nonly to take away that sin which is handed on originally to\nposterity, but also in order to take away all sins subsequently added\nto it; not that all are taken away (and this is from men's fault,\ninasmuch as they do not adhere to Christ, according to John 3:19:\n\"The light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than\nthe light\"), but because He offered what was sufficient for blotting\nout all sins. Hence it is written (Rom. 5:15-16): \"But not as the\noffense, so also the gift . . . For judgment indeed was by one unto\ncondemnation, but grace is of many offenses unto justification.\"\n\nMoreover, the more grievous the sin, the more particularly did Christ\ncome to blot it out. But \"greater\" is said in two ways: in one way\n\"intensively,\" as a more intense whiteness is said to be greater, and\nin this way actual sin is greater than original sin; for it has more\nof the nature of voluntary, as has been shown (I-II, Q. 81, A. 1). In\nanother way a thing is said to be greater \"extensively,\" as whiteness\non a greater superficies is said to be greater; and in this way\noriginal sin, whereby the whole human race is infected, is greater\nthan any actual sin, which is proper to one person. And in this\nrespect Christ came principally to take away original sin, inasmuch\nas \"the good of the race is a more Divine thing than the good of an\nindividual,\" as is said _Ethic._ i, 2.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This reason looks to the intensive greatness of sin.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In the future award the pain of sense will not be meted\nout to original sin. Yet the penalties, such as hunger, thirst,\ndeath, and the like, which we suffer sensibly in this life flow from\noriginal sin. And hence Christ, in order to satisfy fully for\noriginal sin, wished to suffer sensible pain, that He might consume\ndeath and the like in Himself.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Chrysostom says (De Compunctione Cordis ii, 6): \"The\nApostle used these words, not as if wishing to diminish Christ's\ngifts, ample as they are, and spreading throughout the whole world,\nbut that he might account himself alone the occasion of them. For\nwhat does it matter that they are given to others, if what are given\nto you are as complete and perfect as if none of them were given to\nanother than yourself?\" And hence, although a man ought to account\nChrist's gifts as given to himself, yet he ought not to consider them\nnot to be given to others. And thus we do not exclude that He came to\nwipe away the sin of the whole nature rather than the sin of one\nperson. But the sin of the nature is as perfectly healed in each one\nas if it were healed in him alone. Hence, on account of the union of\ncharity, what is vouchsafed to all ought to be accounted his own by\neach one.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 5]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That God Should Become Incarnate in the\nBeginning of the Human Race?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was fitting that God should become\nincarnate in the beginning of the human race. For the work of the\nIncarnation sprang from the immensity of Divine charity, according to\nEph. 2:4, 5: \"But God (Who is rich in mercy), for His exceeding\ncharity wherewith He loved us . . . even when we were dead in sins,\nhath quickened us together in Christ.\" But charity does not tarry in\nbringing assistance to a friend who is suffering need, according to\nProv. 3:28: \"Say not to thy friend: Go, and come again, and tomorrow\nI will give to thee, when thou canst give at present.\" Therefore God\nought not to have put off the work of the Incarnation, but ought\nthereby to have brought relief to the human race from the beginning.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): \"Christ Jesus came into\nthis world to save sinners.\" But more would have been saved had God\nbecome incarnate at the beginning of the human race; for in the\nvarious centuries very many, through not knowing God, perished in\ntheir sin. Therefore it was fitting that God should become incarnate\nat the beginning of the human race.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the work of grace is not less orderly than the work\nof nature. But nature takes its rise with the more perfect, as\nBoethius says (De Consol. iii). Therefore the work of Christ ought to\nhave been perfect from the beginning. But in the work of the\nIncarnation we see the perfection of grace, according to John 1:14:\n\"The Word was made flesh\"; and afterwards it is added: \"Full of grace\nand truth.\" Therefore Christ ought to have become incarnate at the\nbeginning of the human race.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 4:4): \"But when the fulness of\nthe time was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the\nlaw\": upon which a gloss says that \"the fulness of the time is when\nit was decreed by God the Father to send His Son.\" But God decreed\neverything by His wisdom. Therefore God became incarnate at the most\nfitting time; and it was not fitting that God should become incarnate\nat the beginning of the human race.\n\n_I answer that,_ Since the work of the Incarnation is principally\nordained to the restoration of the human race by blotting out sin, it\nis manifest that it was not fitting for God to become incarnate at\nthe beginning of the human race before sin. For medicine is given\nonly to the sick. Hence our Lord Himself says (Matt. 9:12, 13): \"They\nthat are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill . . .\nFor I am not come to call the just, but sinners.\"\n\nNor was it fitting that God should become incarnate immediately after\nsin. First, on account of the manner of man's sin, which had come of\npride; hence man was to be liberated in such a manner that he might\nbe humbled, and see how he stood in need of a deliverer. Hence on the\nwords in Gal. 3:19, \"Being ordained by angels in the hand of a\nmediator,\" a gloss says: \"With great wisdom was it so ordered that\nthe Son of Man should not be sent immediately after man's fall. For\nfirst of all God left man under the natural law, with the freedom of\nhis will, in order that he might know his natural strength; and when\nhe failed in it, he received the law; whereupon, by the fault, not of\nthe law, but of his nature, the disease gained strength; so that\nhaving recognized his infirmity he might cry out for a physician, and\nbeseech the aid of grace.\"\n\nSecondly, on account of the order of furtherance in good, whereby we\nproceed from imperfection to perfection. Hence the Apostle says (1\nCor. 15:46, 47): \"Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that\nwhich is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual . . . The first\nman was of the earth, earthy; the second man from heaven, heavenly.\"\n\nThirdly, on account of the dignity of the incarnate Word, for on the\nwords (Gal. 4:4), \"But when the fulness of the time was come,\" a\ngloss says: \"The greater the judge who was coming, the more numerous\nwas the band of heralds who ought to have preceded him.\"\n\nFourthly, lest the fervor of faith should cool by the length of time,\nfor the charity of many will grow cold at the end of the world. Hence\n(Luke 18:8) it is written: \"But yet the Son of Man, when He cometh,\nshall He find think you, faith on earth?\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Charity does not put off bringing assistance to a\nfriend: always bearing in mind the circumstances as well as the state\nof the persons. For if the physician were to give the medicine at the\nvery outset of the ailment, it would do less good, and would hurt\nrather than benefit. And hence the Lord did not bestow upon the human\nrace the remedy of the Incarnation in the beginning, lest they should\ndespise it through pride, if they did not already recognize their\ndisease.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Augustine replies to this (De Sex Quest. Pagan., Ep.\ncii), saying (Q. 2) that \"Christ wished to appear to man and to have\nHis doctrine preached to them when and where He knew those were who\nwould believe in Him. But in such times and places as His Gospel was\nnot preached He foresaw that not all, indeed, but many would so bear\nthemselves towards His preaching as not to believe in His corporeal\npresence, even were He to raise the dead.\" But the same Augustine,\ntaking exception to this reply in his book (De Perseverantia ix),\nsays: \"How can we say the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon would not\nbelieve when such great wonders were wrought in their midst, or would\nnot have believed had they been wrought, when God Himself bears\nwitness that they would have done penance with great humility if\nthese signs of Divine power had been wrought in their midst?\" And he\nadds in answer (De Perseverantia xi): \"Hence, as the Apostle says\n(Rom. 9:16), 'it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth,\nbut of God that showeth mercy'; Who (succors whom He will of) those\nwho, as He foresaw, would believe in His miracles if wrought amongst\nthem, (while others) He succors not, having judged them in His\npredestination secretly yet justly. Therefore let us unshrinkingly\nbelieve His mercy to be with those who are set free, and His truth\nwith those who are condemned.\" [*The words in brackets are not in the\ntext of St. Augustine].\n\nReply Obj. 3: Perfection is prior to imperfection, both in time and\nnature, in things that are different (for what brings others to\nperfection must itself be perfect); but in one and the same,\nimperfection is prior in time though posterior in nature. And thus\nthe eternal perfection of God precedes in duration the imperfection\nof human nature; but the latter's ultimate perfection in union with\nGod follows.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 1, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Incarnation Ought to Have Been Put Off Till the End of\nthe World?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the work of the Incarnation ought to\nhave been put off till the end of the world. For it is written (Ps.\n91:11): \"My old age in plentiful mercy\"--i.e. \"in the last days,\" as\na gloss says. But the time of the Incarnation is especially the time\nof mercy, according to Ps. 101:14: \"For it is time to have mercy on\nit.\" Therefore the Incarnation ought to have been put off till the\nend of the world.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as has been said (A. 5, ad 3), in the same subject,\nperfection is subsequent in time to imperfection. Therefore, what is\nmost perfect ought to be the very last in time. But the highest\nperfection of human nature is in the union with the Word, because \"in\nChrist it hath pleased the Father that all the fulness of the Godhead\nshould dwell,\" as the Apostle says (Col. 1:19, and 2:9). Therefore\nthe Incarnation ought to have been put off till the end of the world.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what can be done by one ought not to be done by two.\nBut the one coming of Christ at the end of the world was sufficient\nfor the salvation of human nature. Therefore it was not necessary for\nHim to come beforehand in His Incarnation; and hence the Incarnation\nought to have been put off till the end of the world.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Hab. 3:2): \"In the midst of the\nyears Thou shalt make it known.\" Therefore the mystery of the\nIncarnation which was made known to the world ought not to have been\nput off till the end of the world.\n\n_I answer that,_ As it was not fitting that God should become\nincarnate at the beginning of the world, so also it was not fitting\nthat the Incarnation should be put off till the end of the world. And\nthis is shown first from the union of the Divine and human nature.\nFor, as it has been said (A. 5, ad 3), perfection precedes\nimperfection in time in one way, and contrariwise in another way\nimperfection precedes perfection. For in that which is made perfect\nfrom being imperfect, imperfection precedes perfection in time,\nwhereas in that which is the efficient cause of perfection,\nperfection precedes imperfection in time. Now in the work of the\nIncarnation both concur; for by the Incarnation human nature is\nraised to its highest perfection; and in this way it was not becoming\nthat the Incarnation should take place at the beginning of the human\nrace. And the Word incarnate is the efficient cause of the perfection\nof human nature, according to John 1:16: \"Of His fulness we have all\nreceived\"; and hence the work of the Incarnation ought not to have\nbeen put off till the end of the world. But the perfection of glory\nto which human nature is to be finally raised by the Word Incarnate\nwill be at the end of the world.\n\nSecondly, from the effect of man's salvation; for, as is said _Qq.\nVet. et Nov. Test., qu. 83,_ \"it is in the power of the Giver to have\npity when, or as much as, He wills. Hence He came when He knew it was\nfitting to succor, and when His boons would be welcome. For when by\nthe feebleness of the human race men's knowledge of God began to grow\ndim and their morals lax, He was pleased to choose Abraham as a\nstandard of the restored knowledge of God and of holy living; and\nlater on when reverence grew weaker, He gave the law to Moses in\nwriting; and because the gentiles despised it and would not take it\nupon themselves, and they who received it would not keep it, being\ntouched with pity, God sent His Son, to grant to all remission of\ntheir sin and to offer them, justified, to God the Father.\" But if\nthis remedy had been put off till the end of the world, all knowledge\nand reverence of God and all uprightness of morals would have been\nswept away from the earth.\n\nThirdly, this appears fitting to the manifestation of the Divine\npower, which has saved men in several ways--not only by faith in some\nfuture thing, but also by faith in something present and past.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This gloss has in view the mercy of God, which leads us\nto glory. Nevertheless, if it is referred to the mercy shown the\nhuman race by the Incarnation of Christ, we must reflect that, as\nAugustine says (Retract. i), the time of the Incarnation may be\ncompared to the youth of the human race, \"on account of the strength\nand fervor of faith, which works by charity\"; and to old age--i.e.\nthe sixth age--on account of the number of centuries, for Christ came\nin the sixth age. And although youth and old age cannot be together\nin a body, yet they can be together in a soul, the former on account\nof quickness, the latter on account of gravity. And hence Augustine\nsays elsewhere (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 44) that \"it was not becoming that\nthe Master by Whose imitation the human race was to be formed to the\nhighest virtue should come from heaven, save in the time of youth.\"\nBut in another work (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 23) he says: that\nChrist came in the sixth age--i.e. in the old age--of the human race.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The work of the Incarnation is to be viewed not as\nmerely the terminus of a movement from imperfection to perfection,\nbut also as a principle of perfection to human nature, as has been\nsaid.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says on John 3:11, \"For God sent not His\nSon into the world to judge the world\" (Hom. xxviii): \"There are two\ncomings of Christ: the first, for the remission of sins; the second,\nto judge the world. For if He had not done so, all would have\nperished together, since all have sinned and need the glory of God.\"\nHence it is plain that He ought not to have put off the coming in\nmercy till the end of the world.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 2\n\nOF THE MODE OF UNION OF THE WORD INCARNATE\n(In Twelve Articles)\n\nNow we must consider the mode of union of the Incarnate Word; and,\nfirst, the union itself; secondly, the Person assuming; thirdly, the\nnature assumed.\n\nUnder the first head there are twelve points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the union of the Word Incarnate took place in the nature?\n\n(2) Whether it took place in the Person?\n\n(3) Whether it took place in the suppositum or hypostasis?\n\n(4) Whether the Person or hypostasis of Christ is composite after the\nIncarnation?\n\n(5) Whether any union of body and soul took place in Christ?\n\n(6) Whether the human nature was united to the Word accidentally?\n\n(7) Whether the union itself is something created?\n\n(8) Whether it is the same as assumption?\n\n(9) Whether the union of the two natures is the greatest union?\n\n(10) Whether the union of the two natures in Christ was brought about\nby grace?\n\n(11) Whether any merits preceded it?\n\n(12) Whether the grace of union was natural to the man Christ?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Union of the Incarnate Word Took Place in the Nature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Union of the Word Incarnate took\nplace in the nature. For Cyril says (he is quoted in the acts of the\nCouncil of Chalcedon, part ii, act. 1): \"We must understand not two\nnatures, but one incarnate nature of the Word of God\"; and this could\nnot be unless the union took place in the nature. Therefore the union\nof the Word Incarnate took place in the nature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Athanasius says that, as the rational soul and the\nflesh together form the human nature, so God and man together form a\ncertain one nature; therefore the union took place in the nature.\n\nObj. 3: Further, of two natures one is not denominated by the other\nunless they are to some extent mutually transmuted. But the Divine\nand human natures in Christ are denominated one by the other; for\nCyril says (quoted in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, part ii,\nact. 1) that the Divine nature \"is incarnate\"; and Gregory Nazianzen\nsays (Ep. i ad Cledon.) that the human nature is \"deified,\" as\nappears from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 6, 11). Therefore from two\nnatures one seems to have resulted.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is said in the declaration of the Council of\nChalcedon: \"We confess that in these latter times the only-begotten\nSon of God appeared in two natures, without confusion, without\nchange, without division, without separation--the distinction of\nnatures not having been taken away by the union.\" Therefore the union\ndid not take place in the nature.\n\n_I answer that,_ To make this question clear we must consider what is\n\"nature.\" Now it is to be observed that the word \"nature\" comes from\nnativity. Hence this word was used first of all to signify the\nbegetting of living beings, which is called \"birth\" or \"sprouting\nforth,\" the word \"natura\" meaning, as it were, \"nascitura.\"\nAfterwards this word \"nature\" was taken to signify the principle of\nthis begetting; and because in living things the principle of\ngeneration is an intrinsic principle, this word \"nature\" was further\nemployed to signify any intrinsic principle of motion: thus the\nPhilosopher says (Phys. ii) that \"nature is the principle of motion\nin that in which it is essentially and not accidentally.\" Now this\nprinciple is either form or matter. Hence sometimes form is called\nnature, and sometimes matter. And because the end of natural\ngeneration, in that which is generated, is the essence of the\nspecies, which the definition signifies, this essence of the species\nis called the \"nature.\" And thus Boethius defines nature (De Duab.\nNat.): \"Nature is what informs a thing with its specific difference,\n\"--i.e. which perfects the specific definition. But we are now\nspeaking of nature as it signifies the essence, or the \"what-it-is,\"\nor the quiddity of the species.\n\nNow, if we take nature in this way, it is impossible that the union\nof the Incarnate Word took place in the nature. For one thing is made\nof two or more in three ways. First, from two complete things which\nremain in their perfection. This can only happen to those whose form\nis composition, order, or figure, as a heap is made up of many stones\nbrought together without any order, but solely with juxtaposition;\nand a house is made of stones and beams arranged in order, and\nfashioned to a figure. And in this way some said the union was by\nmanner of confusion (which is without order) or by manner of\ncommensuration (which is with order). But this cannot be. First,\nbecause neither composition nor order nor figure is a substantial\nform, but accidental; and hence it would follow that the union of the\nIncarnation was not essential, but accidental, which will be\ndisproved later on (A. 6). Secondly, because thereby we should not\nhave an absolute unity, but relative only, for there remain several\nthings actually. Thirdly, because the form of such is not a nature,\nbut an art, as the form of a house; and thus one nature would not be\nconstituted in Christ, as they wish.\n\nSecondly, one thing is made up of several things, perfect but\nchanged, as a mixture is made up of its elements; and in this way\nsome have said that the union of the Incarnation was brought about by\nmanner of combination. But this cannot be. First, because the Divine\nNature is altogether immutable, as has been said (I, Q. 9, AA. 1, 2),\nhence neither can it be changed into something else, since it is\nincorruptible; nor can anything else be changed into it, for it\ncannot be generated. Secondly, because what is mixed is of the same\nspecies with none of the elements; for flesh differs in species from\nany of its elements. And thus Christ would be of the same nature\nneither with His Father nor with His Mother. Thirdly, because there\ncan be no mingling of things widely apart; for the species of one of\nthem is absorbed, e.g. if we were to put a drop of water in a flagon\nof wine. And hence, since the Divine Nature infinitely exceeds the\nhuman nature, there could be no mixture, but the Divine Nature alone\nwould remain.\n\nThirdly, a thing is made up of things not mixed nor changed, but\nimperfect; as man is made up of soul and body, and likewise of divers\nmembers. But this cannot be said of the mystery of the Incarnation.\nFirst, because each nature, i.e. the Divine and the human, has its\nspecific perfection. Secondly, because the Divine and human natures\ncannot constitute anything after the manner of quantitative parts, as\nthe members make up the body; for the Divine Nature is incorporeal;\nnor after the manner of form and matter, for the Divine Nature cannot\nbe the form of anything, especially of anything corporeal, since it\nwould follow that the species resulting therefrom would be\ncommunicable to several, and thus there would be several Christs.\nThirdly, because Christ would exist neither in human nature nor in\nthe Divine Nature: since any difference varies the species, as unity\nvaries number, as is said (Metaph. viii, text. 10).\n\nReply Obj. 1: This authority of Cyril is expounded in the Fifth Synod\n(i.e. Constantinople II, coll. viii, can. 8) thus: \"If anyone\nproclaiming one nature of the Word of God to be incarnate does not\nreceive it as the Fathers taught, viz. that from the Divine and human\nnatures (a union in subsistence having taken place) one Christ\nresults, but endeavors from these words to introduce one nature or\nsubstance of the Divinity and flesh of Christ, let such a one be\nanathema.\" Hence the sense is not that from two natures one results;\nbut that the Nature of the Word of God united flesh to Itself in\nPerson.\n\nReply Obj. 2: From the soul and body a double unity, viz. of nature\nand person--results in each individual--of nature inasmuch as the\nsoul is united to the body, and formally perfects it, so that one\nnature springs from the two as from act and potentiality or from\nmatter and form. But the comparison is not in this sense, for the\nDivine Nature cannot be the form of a body, as was proved (I, Q. 3,\nA. 8). Unity of person results from them, however, inasmuch as there\nis an individual subsisting in flesh and soul; and herein lies the\nlikeness, for the one Christ subsists in the Divine and human natures.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6, 11), the\nDivine Nature is said to be incarnate because It is united to flesh\npersonally, and not that It is changed into flesh. So likewise the\nflesh is said to be deified, as he also says (De Fide Orth. 15, 17),\nnot by change, but by union with the Word, its natural properties\nstill remaining, and hence it may be considered as deified, inasmuch\nas it becomes the flesh of the Word of God, but not that it becomes\nGod.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Union of the Incarnate Word Took Place in the Person?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the union of the Incarnate Word did\nnot take place in the person. For the Person of God is not distinct\nfrom His Nature, as we said (I, Q. 39, A. 1). If, therefore, the\nunion did not take place in the nature, it follows that it did not\ntake place in the person.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's human nature has no less dignity than ours.\nBut personality belongs to dignity, as was stated above (I, Q. 29, A.\n3, ad 2). Hence, since our human nature has its proper personality,\nmuch more reason was there that Christ's should have its proper\npersonality.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.), a person is an\nindividual substance of rational nature. But the Word of God assumed\nan individual human nature, for \"universal human nature does not\nexist of itself, but is the object of pure thought,\" as Damascene\nsays (De Fide Orth. iii, 11). Therefore the human nature of Christ\nhas its personality. Hence it does not seem that the union took place\nin the person.\n\n_On the contrary,_ We read in the Synod of Chalcedon (Part ii, act.\n5): \"We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is not parted or divided\ninto two persons, but is one and the same only-Begotten Son and Word\nof God.\" Therefore the union took place in the person.\n\n_I answer that,_ Person has a different meaning from \"nature.\" For\nnature, as has been said (A. 1), designates the specific essence\nwhich is signified by the definition. And if nothing was found to be\nadded to what belongs to the notion of the species, there would be no\nneed to distinguish the nature from the suppositum of the nature\n(which is the individual subsisting in this nature), because every\nindividual subsisting in a nature would be altogether one with its\nnature. Now in certain subsisting things we happen to find what does\nnot belong to the notion of the species, viz. accidents and\nindividuating principles, which appears chiefly in such as are\ncomposed of matter and form. Hence in such as these the nature and\nthe suppositum really differ; not indeed as if they were wholly\nseparate, but because the suppositum includes the nature, and in\naddition certain other things outside the notion of the species.\nHence the suppositum is taken to be a whole which has the nature as\nits formal part to perfect it; and consequently in such as are\ncomposed of matter and form the nature is not predicated of the\nsuppositum, for we do not say that this man is his manhood. But if\nthere is a thing in which there is nothing outside the species or its\nnature (as in God), the suppositum and the nature are not really\ndistinct in it, but only in our way of thinking, inasmuch it is\ncalled \"nature\" as it is an essence, and a suppositum as it is\nsubsisting. And what is said of a suppositum is to be applied to a\nperson in rational or intellectual creatures; for a person is nothing\nelse than \"an individual substance of rational nature,\" according to\nBoethius. Therefore, whatever adheres to a person is united to it in\nperson, whether it belongs to its nature or not. Hence, if the human\nnature is not united to God the Word in person, it is nowise united\nto Him; and thus belief in the Incarnation is altogether done away\nwith, and Christian faith wholly overturned. Therefore, inasmuch as\nthe Word has a human nature united to Him, which does not belong to\nHis Divine Nature, it follows that the union took place in the Person\nof the Word, and not in the nature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although in God Nature and Person are not really\ndistinct, yet they have distinct meanings, as was said above,\ninasmuch as person signifies after the manner of something\nsubsisting. And because human nature is united to the Word, so that\nthe Word subsists in it, and not so that His Nature receives\ntherefrom any addition or change, it follows that the union of human\nnature to the Word of God took place in the person, and not in the\nnature.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Personality pertains of necessity to the dignity of a\nthing, and to its perfection so far as it pertains to the dignity and\nperfection of that thing to exist by itself (which is understood by\nthe word \"person\"). Now it is a greater dignity to exist in something\nnobler than oneself than to exist by oneself. Hence the human nature\nof Christ has a greater dignity than ours, from this very fact that\nin us, being existent by itself, it has its own personality, but in\nChrist it exists in the Person of the Word. Thus to perfect the\nspecies belongs to the dignity of a form, yet the sensitive part in\nman, on account of its union with the nobler form which perfects the\nspecies, is more noble than in brutes, where it is itself the form\nwhich perfects.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Word of God \"did not assume human nature in\ngeneral, but _in atomo_\"--that is, in an individual--as Damascene\nsays (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) otherwise every man would be the Word of\nGod, even as Christ was. Yet we must bear in mind that not every\nindividual in the genus of substance, even in rational nature, is a\nperson, but that alone which exists by itself, and not that which\nexists in some more perfect thing. Hence the hand of Socrates,\nalthough it is a kind of individual, is not a person, because it does\nnot exist by itself, but in something more perfect, viz. in the\nwhole. And hence, too, this is signified by a \"person\" being defined\nas \"an individual substance,\" for the hand is not a complete\nsubstance, but part of a substance. Therefore, although this human\nnature is a kind of individual in the genus of substance, it has not\nits own personality, because it does not exist separately, but in\nsomething more perfect, viz. in the Person of the Word. Therefore the\nunion took place in the person.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Union of the Word Incarnate Took Place in the Suppositum\nor Hypostasis?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the union of the Word Incarnate did\nnot take place in the suppositum or hypostasis. For Augustine says\n(Enchiridion xxxv, xxxviii): \"Both the Divine and human substance are\none Son of God, but they are one thing (_aliud_) by reason of the\nWord and another thing (_aliud_) by reason of the man.\" And Pope Leo\nsays in his letter to Flavian (Ep. xxviii): \"One of these is glorious\nwith miracles, the other succumbs under injuries.\" But \"one\"\n(_aliud_) and \"the other\" (_aliud_) differ in suppositum. Therefore\nthe union of the Word Incarnate did not take place in the suppositum.\n\nObj. 2: Further, hypostasis is nothing more than a \"particular\nsubstance,\" as Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.). But it is plain that in\nChrist there is another particular substance beyond the hypostasis of\nthe Word, viz. the body and the soul and the resultant of these.\nTherefore there is another hypostasis in Him besides the hypostasis\nof the Word.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the hypostasis of the Word is not included in any\ngenus or species, as is plain from the First Part (Q. 3, A. 5). But\nChrist, inasmuch as He is made man, is contained under the species of\nman; for Dionysius says (Div. Nom. 1): \"Within the limits of our\nnature He came, Who far surpasses the whole order of nature\nsupersubstantially.\" Now nothing is contained under the human species\nunless it be a hypostasis of the human species. Therefore in Christ\nthere is another hypostasis besides the hypostasis of the Word of\nGod; and hence the same conclusion follows as above.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3, 4, 5): \"In\nour Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures and one hypostasis.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Some who did not know the relation of hypostasis to\nperson, although granting that there is but one person in Christ,\nheld, nevertheless, that there is one hypostasis of God and another\nof man, and hence that the union took place in the person and not in\nthe hypostasis. Now this, for three reasons, is clearly erroneous.\nFirst, because person only adds to hypostasis a determinate nature,\nviz. rational, according to what Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.), \"a\nperson is an individual substance of rational nature\"; and hence it\nis the same to attribute to the human nature in Christ a proper\nhypostasis and a proper person. And the holy Fathers, seeing this,\ncondemned both in the Fifth Council held at Constantinople, saying:\n\"If anyone seeks to introduce into the mystery of the Incarnation two\nsubsistences or two persons, let him be anathema. For by the\nincarnation of one of the Holy Trinity, God the Word, the Holy\nTrinity received no augment of person or subsistence.\" Now\n\"subsistence\" is the same as the subsisting thing, which is proper to\nhypostasis, as is plain from Boethius (De Duab. Nat.). Secondly,\nbecause if it is granted that person adds to hypostasis something in\nwhich the union can take place, this something is nothing else than a\nproperty pertaining to dignity; according as it is said by some that\na person is a \"hypostasis distinguished by a property pertaining to\ndignity.\" If, therefore, the union took place in the person and not\nin the hypostasis, it follows that the union only took place in\nregard to some dignity. And this is what Cyril, with the approval of\nthe Council of Ephesus (part iii, can. 3), condemned in these terms:\n\"If anyone after the uniting divides the subsistences in the one\nChrist, only joining them in a union of dignity or authority or\npower, and not rather in a concourse of natural union, let him be\nanathema.\" Thirdly, because to the hypostasis alone are attributed\nthe operations and the natural properties, and whatever belongs to\nthe nature in the concrete; for we say that this man reasons, and is\nrisible, and is a rational animal. So likewise this man is said to be\na suppositum, because he underlies (_supponitur_) whatever belongs to\nman and receives its predication. Therefore, if there is any\nhypostasis in Christ besides the hypostasis of the Word, it follows\nthat whatever pertains to man is verified of some other than the\nWord, e.g. that He was born of a Virgin, suffered, was crucified, was\nburied. And this, too, was condemned with the approval of the Council\nof Ephesus (part iii, can. 4) in these words: \"If anyone ascribes to\ntwo persons or subsistences such words as are in the evangelical and\napostolic Scriptures, or have been said of Christ by the saints, or\nby Himself of Himself, and, moreover, applies some of them to the\nman, taken as distinct from the Word of God, and some of them (as if\nthey could be used of God alone) only to the Word of God the Father,\nlet him be anathema.\" Therefore it is plainly a heresy condemned long\nsince by the Church to say that in Christ there are two hypostases,\nor two supposita, or that the union did not take place in the\nhypostasis or suppositum. Hence in the same Synod (can. 2) it is\nsaid: \"If anyone does not confess that the Word was united to flesh\nin subsistence, and that Christ with His flesh is both--to wit, God\nand man--let him be anathema.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As accidental difference makes a thing \"other\"\n(_alterum_), so essential difference makes \"another thing\" (_aliud_).\nNow it is plain that the \"otherness\" which springs from accidental\ndifference may pertain to the same hypostasis or suppositum in\ncreated things, since the same thing numerically can underlie\ndifferent accidents. But it does not happen in created things that\nthe same numerically can subsist in divers essences or natures. Hence\njust as when we speak of \"otherness\" in regard to creatures we do not\nsignify diversity of suppositum, but only diversity of accidental\nforms, so likewise when Christ is said to be one thing or another\nthing, we do not imply diversity of suppositum or hypostasis, but\ndiversity of nature. Hence Gregory Nazianzen says in a letter to\nChelidonius (Ep. ci): \"In the Saviour we may find one thing and\nanother, yet He is not one person and another. And I say 'one thing\nand another'; whereas, on the contrary, in the Trinity we say one\nPerson and another (so as not to confuse the subsistences), but not\none thing and another.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Hypostasis signifies a particular substance, not in\nevery way, but as it is in its complement. Yet as it is in union with\nsomething more complete, it is not said to be a hypostasis, as a hand\nor a foot. So likewise the human nature in Christ, although it is a\nparticular substance, nevertheless cannot be called a hypostasis or\nsuppositum, seeing that it is in union with a completed thing, viz.\nthe whole Christ, as He is God and man. But the complete being with\nwhich it concurs is said to be a hypostasis or suppositum.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In created things a singular thing is placed in a genus\nor species, not on account of what belongs to its individuation, but\non account of its nature, which springs from its form, and in\ncomposite things individuation is taken more from matter. Hence we\nsay that Christ is in the human species by reason of the nature\nassumed, and not by reason of the hypostasis.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 4]\n\nWhether After the Incarnation the Person or Hypostasis of Christ Is\nComposite?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Person of Christ is not\ncomposite. For the Person of Christ is naught else than the Person or\nhypostasis of the Word, as appears from what has been said (A. 2).\nBut in the Word, Person and Nature do not differ, as appears from\nFirst Part (Q. 39, A. 1). Therefore since the Nature of the Word is\nsimple, as was shown above (I, Q. 3, A. 7), it is impossible that the\nPerson of Christ be composite.\n\nObj. 2: Further, all composition requires parts. But the Divine\nNature is incompatible with the notion of a part, for every part\nimplicates the notion of imperfection. Therefore it is impossible\nthat the Person of Christ be composed of two natures.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what is composed of others would seem to be\nhomogeneous with them, as from bodies only a body can be composed.\nTherefore if there is anything in Christ composed of the two natures,\nit follows that this will not be a person but a nature; and hence the\nunion in Christ will take place in the nature, which is contrary to\nA. 2.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3, 4, 5), \"In\nthe Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures, but one hypostasis\ncomposed from both.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The Person or hypostasis of Christ may be viewed in\ntwo ways. First as it is in itself, and thus it is altogether simple,\neven as the Nature of the Word. Secondly, in the aspect of person or\nhypostasis to which it belongs to subsist in a nature; and thus the\nPerson of Christ subsists in two natures. Hence though there is one\nsubsisting being in Him, yet there are different aspects of\nsubsistence, and hence He is said to be a composite person, insomuch\nas one being subsists in two.\n\nAnd thereby the solution to the first is clear.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This composition of a person from natures is not\nso called on account of parts, but by reason of number, even as that\nin which two things concur may be said to be composed of them.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It is not verified in every composition, that\nthe thing composed is homogeneous with its component parts, but only\nin the parts of a continuous thing; for the continuous is composed\nsolely of continuous [parts]. But an animal is composed of soul and\nbody, and neither of these is an animal.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 5]\n\nWhether in Christ There Is Any Union of Soul and Body?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no union of soul\nand body. For from the union of soul and body in us a person or a\nhuman hypostasis is caused. Hence if the soul and body were united in\nChrist, it follows that a hypostasis resulted from their union. But\nthis was not the hypostasis of God the Word, for It is eternal.\nTherefore in Christ there would be a person or hypostasis besides the\nhypostasis of the Word, which is contrary to AA. 2, 3.\n\nObj. 2: Further, from the union of soul and body results the nature\nof the human species. But Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3), that\n\"we must not conceive a common species in the Lord Jesus Christ.\"\nTherefore there was no union of soul and body in Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the soul is united to the body for the sole purpose\nof quickening it. But the body of Christ could be quickened by the\nWord of God Himself, seeing He is the fount and principle of life.\nTherefore in Christ there was no union of soul and body.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The body is not said to be animated save from its\nunion with the soul. Now the body of Christ is said to be animated,\nas the Church chants: \"Taking an animate body, He deigned to be born\nof a Virgin\" [*Feast of the Circumcision, Ant. ii, Lauds]. Therefore\nin Christ there was a union of soul and body.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ is called a man univocally with other men, as\nbeing of the same species, according to the Apostle (Phil. 2:7),\n\"being made in the likeness of a man.\" Now it belongs essentially to\nthe human species that the soul be united to the body, for the form\ndoes not constitute the species, except inasmuch as it becomes the\nact of matter, and this is the terminus of generation through which\nnature intends the species. Hence it must be said that in Christ the\nsoul was united to the body; and the contrary is heretical, since it\ndestroys the truth of Christ's humanity.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This would seem to be the reason which was of weight\nwith such as denied the union of the soul and body in Christ, viz.\nlest they should thereby be forced to admit a second person or\nhypostasis in Christ, since they saw that the union of soul and body\nin mere men resulted in a person. But this happens in mere men\nbecause the soul and body are so united in them as to exist by\nthemselves. But in Christ they are united together, so as to be\nunited to something higher, which subsists in the nature composed of\nthem. And hence from the union of the soul and body in Christ a new\nhypostasis or person does not result, but what is composed of them is\nunited to the already existing hypostasis or Person. Nor does it\ntherefore follow that the union of the soul and body in Christ is of\nless effect than in us, for its union with something nobler does not\nlessen but increases its virtue and worth; just as the sensitive soul\nin animals constitutes the species, as being considered the ultimate\nform, yet it does not do so in man, although it is of greater effect\nand dignity, and this because of its union with a further and nobler\nperfection, viz. the rational soul, as has been said above (A. 2, ad\n2).\n\nReply Obj. 2: This saying of Damascene may be taken in two ways:\nFirst, as referring to human nature, which, as it is in one\nindividual alone, has not the nature of a common species, but only\ninasmuch as either it is abstracted from every individual, and\nconsidered in itself by the mind, or according as it is in all\nindividuals. Now the Son of God did not assume human nature as it\nexists in the pure thought of the intellect, since in this way He\nwould not have assumed human nature in reality, unless it be said\nthat human nature is a separate idea, just as the Platonists\nconceived of man without matter. But in this way the Son of God would\nnot have assumed flesh, contrary to what is written (Luke 24:39), \"A\nspirit hath not flesh and bones as you see Me to have.\" Neither can\nit be said that the Son of God assumed human nature as it is in all\nthe individuals of the same species, otherwise He would have assumed\nall men. Therefore it remains, as Damascene says further on (De Fide\nOrth. iii, 11) that He assumed human nature _in atomo,_ i.e. in an\nindividual; not, indeed, in another individual which is a suppositum\nor a person of that nature, but in the Person of the Son of God.\n\nSecondly, this saying of Damascene may be taken not as referring to\nhuman nature, as if from the union of soul and body one common nature\n(viz. human) did not result, but as referring to the union of the two\nnatures Divine and human: which do not combine so as to form a third\nsomething that becomes a common nature, for in this way it would\nbecome predicable of many, and this is what he is aiming at, since he\nadds: \"For there was not generated, neither will there ever be\ngenerated, another Christ, Who from the Godhead and manhood, and in\nthe Godhead and manhood, is perfect God and perfect man.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: There are two principles of corporeal life: one the\neffective principle, and in this way the Word of God is the principle\nof all life; the other, the formal principle of life, for since \"in\nliving things to be is to live,\" as the Philosopher says (De Anima\nii, 37), just as everything is formally by its form, so likewise the\nbody lives by the soul: in this way a body could not live by the\nWord, Which cannot be the form of a body.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Human Nature Was United to the Word of God Accidentally?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the human nature was united to the\nWord of God accidentally. For the Apostle says (Phil. 2:7) of the Son\nof God, that He was \"in habit found as a man.\" But habit is\naccidentally associated with that to which it pertains, whether habit\nbe taken for one of the ten predicaments or as a species of quality.\nTherefore human nature is accidentally united to the Son of God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whatever comes to a thing that is complete in being\ncomes to it accidentally, for an accident is said to be what can come\nor go without the subject being corrupted. But human nature came to\nChrist in time, Who had perfect being from eternity. Therefore it\ncame to Him accidentally.\n\nObj. 3: Further, whatever does not pertain to the nature or the\nessence of a thing is its accident, for whatever is, is either a\nsubstance or an accident. But human nature does not pertain to the\nDivine Essence or Nature of the Son of God, for the union did not\ntake place in the nature, as was said above (A. 1). Hence the human\nnature must have accrued accidentally to the Son of God.\n\nObj. 4: Further, an instrument accrues accidentally. But the human\nnature was the instrument of the Godhead in Christ, for Damascene\nsays (De Fide Orth. iii, 15), that \"the flesh of Christ is the\ninstrument of the Godhead.\" Therefore it seems that the human nature\nwas united to the Son of God accidentally.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Whatever is predicated accidentally, predicates,\nnot substance, but quantity, or quality, or some other mode of being.\nIf therefore the human nature accrues accidentally, when we say\nChrist is man, we do not predicate substance, but quality or\nquantity, or some other mode of being, which is contrary to the\nDecretal of Pope Alexander III, who says (Conc. Later. iii): \"Since\nChrist is perfect God and perfect man, what foolhardiness have some\nto dare to affirm that Christ as man is not a substance?\"\n\n_I answer that,_ In evidence of this question we must know that two\nheresies have arisen with regard to the mystery of the union of the\ntwo natures in Christ. The first confused the natures, as Eutyches\nand Dioscorus, who held that from the two natures one nature\nresulted, so that they confessed Christ to be \"from\" two natures\n(which were distinct before the union), but not \"in\" two natures (the\ndistinction of nature coming to an end after the union). The second\nwas the heresy of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who separated\nthe persons. For they held the Person of the Son of God to be\ndistinct from the Person of the Son of man, and said these were\nmutually united: first, \"by indwelling,\" inasmuch as the Word of God\ndwelt in the man, as in a temple; secondly, \"by unity of intention,\"\ninasmuch as the will of the man was always in agreement with the will\nof the Word of God; thirdly, \"by operation,\" inasmuch as they said\nthe man was the instrument of the Word of God; fourthly, \"by\ngreatness of honor,\" inasmuch as all honor shown to the Son of God\nwas equally shown to the Son of man, on account of His union with the\nSon of God; fifthly, \"by equivocation,\" i.e. communication of names,\ninasmuch as we say that this man is God and the Son of God. Now it is\nplain that these modes imply an accidental union.\n\nBut some more recent masters, thinking to avoid these heresies,\nthrough ignorance fell into them. For some conceded one person in\nChrist, but maintained two hypostases, or two supposita, saying that\na man, composed of body and soul, was from the beginning of his\nconception assumed by the Word of God. And this is the first opinion\nset down by the Master (Sent. iii, D, 6). But others desirous of\nkeeping the unity of person, held that the soul of Christ was not\nunited to the body, but that these two were mutually separate, and\nwere united to the Word accidentally, so that the number of persons\nmight not be increased. And this is the third opinion which the\nMaster sets down (Sent. iii, D, 6).\n\nBut both of these opinions fall into the heresy of Nestorius; the\nfirst, indeed, because to maintain two hypostases or supposita in\nChrist is the same as to maintain two persons, as was shown above (A.\n3). And if stress is laid on the word \"person,\" we must have in mind\nthat even Nestorius spoke of unity of person on account of the unity\nof dignity and honor. Hence the fifth Council (Constantinople II,\ncoll. viii, can. 5) directs an anathema against such a one as holds\n\"one person in dignity, honor and adoration, as Theodore and\nNestorius foolishly wrote.\" But the other opinion falls into the\nerror of Nestorius by maintaining an accidental union. For there is\nno difference in saying that the Word of God is united to the Man\nChrist by indwelling, as in His temple (as Nestorius said), or by\nputting on man, as a garment, which is the third opinion; rather it\nsays something worse than Nestorius--to wit, that the soul and body\nare not united.\n\nNow the Catholic faith, holding the mean between the aforesaid\npositions, does not affirm that the union of God and man took place\nin the essence or nature, nor yet in something accidental, but\nmidway, in a subsistence or hypostasis. Hence in the fifth Council\n(Constantinople II, coll. viii, can. 5) we read: \"Since the unity may\nbe understood in many ways, those who follow the impiety of\nApollinaris and Eutyches, professing the destruction of what came\ntogether\" (i.e. destroying both natures), \"confess a union by\nmingling; but the followers of Theodore and Nestorius, maintaining\ndivision, introduce a union of purpose. But the Holy Church of God,\nrejecting the impiety of both these treasons, confesses a union of\nthe Word of God with flesh, by composition, which is in subsistence.\"\nTherefore it is plain that the second of the three opinions,\nmentioned by the Master (Sent. iii, D, 6), which holds one hypostasis\nof God and man, is not to be called an opinion, but an article of\nCatholic faith. So likewise the first opinion which holds two\nhypostases, and the third which holds an accidental union, are not to\nbe styled opinions, but heresies condemned by the Church in Councils.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26): \"Examples\nneed not be wholly and at all points similar, for what is wholly\nsimilar is the same, and not an example, and especially in Divine\nthings, for it is impossible to find a wholly similar example in the\nTheology,\" i.e. in the Godhead of Persons, \"and in the Dispensation,\"\ni.e. the mystery of the Incarnation. Hence the human nature in Christ\nis likened to a habit, i.e. a garment, not indeed in regard to\naccidental union, but inasmuch as the Word is seen by the human\nnature, as a man by his garment, and also inasmuch as the garment is\nchanged, for it is shaped according to the figure of him who puts it\non, and yet he is not changed from his form on account of the\ngarment. So likewise the human nature assumed by the Word of God is\nennobled, but the Word of God is not changed, as Augustine says (Qq.\n83, qu. 73).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Whatever accrues after the completion of the being\ncomes accidentally, unless it be taken into communion with the\ncomplete being, just as in the resurrection the body comes to the\nsoul which pre-exists, yet not accidentally, because it is assumed\nunto the same being, so that the body has vital being through the\nsoul; but it is not so with whiteness, for the being of whiteness is\nother than the being of man to which whiteness comes. But the Word of\nGod from all eternity had complete being in hypostasis or person;\nwhile in time the human nature accrued to it, not as if it were\nassumed unto one being inasmuch as this is of the nature (even as the\nbody is assumed to the being of the soul), but to one being inasmuch\nas this is of the hypostasis or person. Hence the human nature is not\naccidentally united to the Son of God.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Accident is divided against substance. Now substance,\nas is plain from _Metaph._ v, 25, is taken in two ways: first, for\nessence or nature; secondly, for suppositum or hypostasis--hence the\nunion having taken place in the hypostasis, is enough to show that it\nis not an accidental union, although the union did not take place in\nthe nature.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Not everything that is assumed as an instrument\npertains to the hypostasis of the one who assumes, as is plain in the\ncase of a saw or a sword; yet nothing prevents what is assumed into\nthe unity of the hypostasis from being as an instrument, even as the\nbody of man or his members. Hence Nestorius held that the human\nnature was assumed by the Word merely as an instrument, and not into\nthe unity of the hypostasis. And therefore he did not concede that\nthe man was really the Son of God, but His instrument. Hence Cyril\nsays (Epist. ad Monach. Aegyptii): \"The Scripture does not affirm\nthat this Emmanuel,\" i.e. Christ, \"was assumed for the office of an\ninstrument, but as God truly humanized,\" i.e. made man. But Damascene\nheld that the human nature in Christ is an instrument belonging to\nthe unity of the hypostasis.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Union of the Divine Nature and the Human Is Anything\nCreated?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the union of the Divine and human\nnatures is not anything created. For there can be nothing created in\nGod, because whatever is in God is God. But the union is in God, for\nGod Himself is united to human nature. Therefore it seems that the\nunion is not anything created.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the end holds first place in everything. But the end\nof the union is the Divine hypostasis or Person in which the union is\nterminated. Therefore it seems that this union ought chiefly to be\njudged with reference to the dignity of the Divine hypostasis, which\nis not anything created. Therefore the union is nothing created.\n\nObj. 3: Further, \"That which is the cause of a thing being such is\nstill more so\" (Poster. i). But man is said to be the Creator on\naccount of the union. Therefore much more is the union itself nothing\ncreated, but the Creator.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Whatever has a beginning in time is created. Now\nthis union was not from eternity, but began in time. Therefore the\nunion is something created.\n\n_I answer that,_ The union of which we are speaking is a relation\nwhich we consider between the Divine and the human nature, inasmuch\nas they come together in one Person of the Son of God. Now, as was\nsaid above (I, Q. 13, A. 7), every relation which we consider between\nGod and the creature is really in the creature, by whose change the\nrelation is brought into being; whereas it is not really in God, but\nonly in our way of thinking, since it does not arise from any change\nin God. And hence we must say that the union of which we are speaking\nis not really in God, except only in our way of thinking; but in the\nhuman nature, which is a creature, it is really. Therefore we must\nsay it is something created.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This union is not really in God, but only in our way of\nthinking, for God is said to be united to a creature inasmuch as the\ncreature is really united to God without any change in Him.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The specific nature of a relation, as of motion,\ndepends on the subject. And since this union has its being nowhere\nsave in a created nature, as was said above, it follows that it has a\ncreated being.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A man is called Creator and is God because of the\nunion, inasmuch as it is terminated in the Divine hypostasis; yet it\ndoes not follow that the union itself is the Creator or God, because\nthat a thing is said to be created regards its being rather than its\nrelation.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Union Is the Same As Assumption?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that union is the same as assumption. For\nrelations, as motions, are specified by their termini. Now the term\nof assumption and union is one and the same, viz. the Divine\nhypostasis. Therefore it seems that union and assumption are not\ndifferent.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in the mystery of the Incarnation the same thing\nseems to be what unites and what assumes, and what is united and what\nis assumed. But union and assumption seem to follow the action and\npassion of the thing uniting and the united, of the thing assuming\nand the assumed. Therefore union seems to be the same as assumption.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11): \"Union is\none thing, incarnation is another; for union demands mere copulation,\nand leaves unsaid the end of the copulation; but incarnation and\nhumanation determine the end of copulation.\" But likewise assumption\ndoes not determine the end of copulation. Therefore it seems that\nunion is the same as assumption.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Divine Nature is said to be united, not\nassumed.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was stated above (A. 7), union implies a certain\nrelation of the Divine Nature and the human, according as they come\ntogether in one Person. Now all relations which begin in time are\nbrought about by some change; and change consists in action and\npassion. Hence the _first_ and principal difference between\nassumption and union must be said to be that union implies the\nrelation: whereas assumption implies the action, whereby someone is\nsaid to assume, or the passion, whereby something is said to be\nassumed. Now from this difference another _second_ difference arises,\nfor assumption implies _becoming,_ whereas union implies _having\nbecome,_ and therefore the thing uniting is said to be united, but\nthe thing assuming is not said to be assumed. For the human nature is\ntaken to be in the terminus of assumption unto the Divine hypostasis\nwhen man is spoken of; and hence we can truly say that the Son of\nGod, Who assumes human nature unto Himself, is man. But human nature,\nconsidered in itself, i.e. in the abstract, is viewed as assumed; and\nwe do not say the Son of God is human nature. From this same follows\na _third_ difference, which is that a relation, especially one of\nequiparance, is no more to one extreme than to the other, whereas\naction and passion bear themselves differently to the agent and the\npatient, and to different termini. And hence assumption determines\nthe term whence and the term whither; for assumption means a taking\nto oneself from another. But union determines none of these things.\nHence it may be said indifferently that the human nature is united\nwith the Divine, or conversely. But the Divine Nature is not said to\nbe assumed by the human, but conversely, because the human nature is\njoined to the Divine personality, so that the Divine Person subsists\nin human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Union and assumption have not the same relation to the\nterm, but a different relation, as was said above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: What unites and what assumes are not the same. For\nwhatsoever Person assumes unites, and not conversely. For the Person\nof the Father united the human nature to the Son, but not to Himself;\nand hence He is said to unite and not to assume. So likewise the\nunited and the assumed are not identical, for the Divine Nature is\nsaid to be united, but not assumed.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Assumption determines with whom the union is made on\nthe part of the one assuming, inasmuch as assumption means taking\nunto oneself (_ad se sumere_), whereas incarnation and humanation\n(determine with whom the union is made) on the part of the thing\nassumed, which is flesh or human nature. And thus assumption differs\nlogically both from union and from incarnation or humanation.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 9]\n\nWhether the Union of the Two Natures in Christ Is the Greatest of All\nUnions?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the union of the two natures in\nChrist is not the greatest of all unions. For what is united falls\nshort of the unity of what is one, since what is united is by\nparticipation, but one is by essence. Now in created things there are\nsome that are simply one, as is shown especially in unity itself,\nwhich is the principle of number. Therefore the union of which we are\nspeaking does not imply the greatest of all unions.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the greater the distance between things united, the\nless the union. Now, the things united by this union are most\ndistant--namely, the Divine and human natures; for they are\ninfinitely apart. Therefore their union is the least of all.\n\nObj. 3: Further, from union there results one. But from the union of\nsoul and body in us there arises what is one in person and nature;\nwhereas from the union of the Divine and human nature there results\nwhat is one in person only. Therefore the union of soul and body is\ngreater than that of the Divine and human natures; and hence the\nunion of which we speak does not imply the greatest unity.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. i, 10) that \"man is in\nthe Son of God, more than the Son in the Father.\" But the Son is in\nthe Father by unity of essence, and man is in the Son by the union of\nthe Incarnation. Therefore the union of the Incarnation is greater\nthan the unity of the Divine Essence, which nevertheless is the\ngreatest union; and thus the union of the Incarnation implies the\ngreatest unity.\n\n_I answer that,_ Union implies the joining of several in some one\nthing. Therefore the union of the Incarnation may be taken in two\nways: first, in regard to the things united; secondly, in regard to\nthat in which they are united. And in this regard this union has a\npre-eminence over other unions; for the unity of the Divine Person,\nin which the two natures are united, is the greatest. But it has no\npre-eminence in regard to the things united.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The unity of the Divine Person is greater than\nnumerical unity, which is the principle of number. For the unity of a\nDivine Person is an uncreated and self-subsisting unity, not received\ninto another by participation. Also, it is complete in itself, having\nin itself whatever pertains to the nature of unity; and therefore it\nis not compatible with the nature of a part, as in numerical unity,\nwhich is a part of number, and which is shared in by the things\nnumbered. And hence in this respect the union of the Incarnation is\nhigher than numerical unity by reason of the unity of the Divine\nPerson, and not by reason of the human nature, which is not the unity\nof the Divine Person, but is united to it.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This reason regards the things united, and not the\nPerson in Whom the union takes place.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The unity of the Divine Person is greater than the\nunity of person and nature in us; and hence the union of the\nIncarnation is greater than the union of soul and body in us.\n\nAnd because what is urged in the argument \"on the contrary\" rests\nupon what is untrue--namely, that the union of the Incarnation is\ngreater than the unity of the Divine Persons in Essence--we must say\nto the authority of Augustine that the human nature is not more in\nthe Son of God than the Son of God in the Father, but much less. But\nthe man in some respects is more in the Son than the Son in the\nFather--namely, inasmuch as the same suppositum is signified when I\nsay \"man,\" meaning Christ, and when I say \"Son of God\"; whereas it is\nnot the same suppositum of Father and Son.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 10]\n\nWhether the Union of the Incarnation Took Place by Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the union of the Incarnation did not\ntake place by grace. For grace is an accident, as was shown above\n(I-II, Q. 110, A. 2). But the union of the human nature to the Divine\ndid not take place accidentally, as was shown above (A. 6). Therefore\nit seems that the union of the Incarnation did not take place by\ngrace.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the subject of grace is the soul. But it is written\n(Col. 2:9): \"In Christ [Vulg.: 'Him'] dwelleth all the fulness of the\nGodhead corporeally.\" Therefore it seems that this union did not take\nplace by grace.\n\nObj. 3: Further, every saint is united to God by grace. If,\ntherefore, the union of the Incarnation was by grace, it would seem\nthat Christ is said to be God no more than other holy men.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. xv): \"By the same\ngrace every man is made a Christian, from the beginning of his faith,\nas this man from His beginning was made Christ.\" But this man became\nChrist by union with the Divine Nature. Therefore this union was by\ngrace.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 110, A. 1), grace is\ntaken in two ways:--first, as the will of God gratuitously bestowing\nsomething; secondly, as the free gift of God. Now human nature stands\nin need of the gratuitous will of God in order to be lifted up to\nGod, since this is above its natural capability. Moreover, human\nnature is lifted up to God in two ways: first, by operation, as the\nsaints know and love God; secondly, by personal being, and this mode\nbelongs exclusively to Christ, in Whom human nature is assumed so as\nto be in the Person of the Son of God. But it is plain that for the\nperfection of operation the power needs to be perfected by a habit,\nwhereas that a nature has being in its own suppositum does not take\nplace by means of a habit.\n\nAnd hence we must say that if grace be understood as the will of God\ngratuitously doing something or reputing anything as well-pleasing or\nacceptable to Him, the union of the Incarnation took place by grace,\neven as the union of the saints with God by knowledge and love. But\nif grace be taken as the free gift of God, then the fact that the\nhuman nature is united to the Divine Person may be called a grace,\ninasmuch as it took place without being preceded by any merits--but\nnot as though there were an habitual grace, by means of which the\nunion took place.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The grace which is an accident is a certain likeness of\nthe Divinity participated by man. But by the Incarnation human nature\nis not said to have participated a likeness of the Divine nature, but\nis said to be united to the Divine Nature itself in the Person of the\nSon. Now the thing itself is greater than a participated likeness of\nit.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Habitual grace is only in the soul; but the grace, i.e.\nthe free gift of God, of being united to the Divine Person belongs to\nthe whole human nature, which is composed of soul and body. And hence\nit is said that the fulness of the Godhead dwelt corporeally in\nChrist because the Divine Nature is united not merely to the soul,\nbut to the body also. Although it may also be said that it dwelt in\nChrist corporeally, i.e. not as in a shadow, as it dwelt in the\nsacraments of the old law, of which it is said in the same place\n(Col. 2:17) that they are the \"shadow of things to come but the body\nis Christ\" [Vulg.: 'Christ's'], inasmuch as the body is opposed to\nthe shadow. And some say that the Godhead is said to have dwelt in\nChrist corporeally, i.e. in three ways, just as a body has three\ndimensions: first, by essence, presence, and power, as in other\ncreatures; secondly, by sanctifying grace, as in the saints; thirdly,\nby personal union, which is proper to Christ.\n\nHence the reply to the third is manifest, viz. because the union of\nthe Incarnation did not take place by habitual grace alone, but in\nsubsistence or person.\n_______________________\n\nELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 11]\n\nWhether Any Merits Preceded the Union of the Incarnation?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the union of the Incarnation followed\nupon certain merits, because upon Ps. 32:22, \"Let Thy mercy, o Lord,\nbe upon us, as,\" etc. a gloss says: \"Here the prophet's desire for\nthe Incarnation and its merited fulfilment are hinted at.\" Therefore\nthe Incarnation falls under merit.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whoever merits anything merits that without which it\ncannot be. But the ancient Fathers merited eternal life, to which\nthey were able to attain only by the Incarnation; for Gregory says\n(Moral. xiii): \"Those who came into this world before Christ's\ncoming, whatsoever eminency of righteousness they may have had, could\nnot, on being divested of the body, at once be admitted into the\nbosom of the heavenly country, seeing that He had not as yet come\nWho, by His own descending, should place the souls of the righteous\nin their everlasting seat.\" Therefore it would seem that they merited\nthe Incarnation.\n\nObj. 3: Further, of the Blessed Virgin it is sung that \"she merited\nto bear the Lord of all\" [*Little Office of B. V. M., Dominican Rite,\nAnt. at Benedictus], and this took place through the Incarnation.\nTherefore the Incarnation falls under merit.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Praed. Sanct. xv): \"Whoever can\nfind merits preceding the singular generation of our Head, may also\nfind merits preceding the repeated regeneration of us His members.\"\nBut no merits preceded our regeneration, according to Titus 3:5: \"Not\nby the works of justice which we have done, but according to His\nmercy He saved us, by the laver of regeneration.\" Therefore no merits\npreceded the generation of Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ With regard to Christ Himself, it is clear from the\nabove (A. 10) that no merits of His could have preceded the union.\nFor we do not hold that He was first of all a mere man, and that\nafterwards by the merits of a good life it was granted Him to become\nthe Son of God, as Photinus held; but we hold that from the beginning\nof His conception this man was truly the Son of God, seeing that He\nhad no other hypostasis but that of the Son of God, according to Luke\n1:35: \"The Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son\nof God.\" And hence every operation of this man followed the union.\nTherefore no operation of His could have been meritorious of the\nunion.\n\nNeither could the needs of any other man whatsoever have merited this\nunion condignly: first, because the meritorious works of man are\nproperly ordained to beatitude, which is the reward of virtue, and\nconsists in the full enjoyment of God. Whereas the union of the\nIncarnation, inasmuch as it is in the personal being, transcends the\nunion of the beatified mind with God, which is by the act of the soul\nin fruition; and therefore it cannot fall under merit. Secondly,\nbecause grace cannot fall under merit, for the principle of merit\ndoes not fall under merit; and therefore neither does grace, for it\nis the principle of merit. Hence, still less does the Incarnation\nfall under merit, since it is the principle of grace, according to\nJohn 1:17: \"Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.\" Thirdly, because\nthe Incarnation is for the reformation of the entire human nature,\nand therefore it does not fall under the merit of any individual man,\nsince the goodness of a mere man cannot be the cause of the good of\nthe entire nature. Yet the holy Fathers merited the Incarnation\ncongruously by desiring and beseeching; for it was becoming that God\nshould harken to those who obeyed Him.\n\nAnd thereby the reply to the First Objection is manifest.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It is false that under merit falls everything without\nwhich there can be no reward. For there is something pre-required not\nmerely for reward, but also for merit, as the Divine goodness and\ngrace and the very nature of man. And again, the mystery of the\nIncarnation is the principle of merit, because \"of His fulness we all\nhave received\" (John 1:16).\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Blessed Virgin is said to have merited to bear the\nLord of all; not that she merited His Incarnation, but because by the\ngrace bestowed upon her she merited that grade of purity and\nholiness, which fitted her to be the Mother of God.\n_______________________\n\nTWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 2, Art. 12]\n\nWhether the Grace of Union Was Natural to the Man Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the grace of union was not natural to\nthe man Christ. For the union of the Incarnation did not take place\nin the nature, but in the Person, as was said above (A. 2). Now a\nthing is denominated from its terminus. Therefore this grace ought\nrather to be called personal than natural.\n\nObj. 2: Further, grace is divided against nature, even as gratuitous\nthings, which are from God, are distinguished from natural things,\nwhich are from an intrinsic principle. But if things are divided in\nopposition to one another, one is not denominated by the other.\nTherefore the grace of Christ was not natural to Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, natural is that which is according to nature. But\nthe grace of union is not natural to Christ in regard to the Divine\nNature, otherwise it would belong to the other Persons; nor is it\nnatural to Him according to the human nature, otherwise it would\nbelong to all men, since they are of the same nature as He. Therefore\nit would seem that the grace of union is nowise natural to Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): \"In the\nassumption of human nature, grace itself became somewhat natural to\nthat man, so as to leave no room for sin in Him.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, 5), nature\ndesignates, in one way, nativity; in another, the essence of a thing.\nHence natural may be taken in two ways: first, for what is only from\nthe essential principles of a thing, as it is natural to fire to\nmount; secondly, we call natural to man what he has had from his\nbirth, according to Eph. 2:3: \"We were by nature children of wrath\";\nand Wis. 12:10: \"They were a wicked generation, and their malice\nnatural.\" Therefore the grace of Christ, whether of union or\nhabitual, cannot be called natural as if caused by the principles of\nthe human nature of Christ, although it may be called natural, as if\ncoming to the human nature of Christ by the causality of His Divine\nNature. But these two kinds of grace are said to be natural to\nChrist, inasmuch as He had them from His nativity, since from the\nbeginning of His conception the human nature was united to the Divine\nPerson, and His soul was filled with the gift of grace.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although the union did not take place in the nature,\nyet it was caused by the power of the Divine Nature, which is truly\nthe nature of Christ, and it, moreover, belonged to Christ from the\nbeginning of His nativity.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The union is not said to be grace and natural in the\nsame respect; for it is called grace inasmuch as it is not from\nmerit; and it is said to be natural inasmuch as by the power of the\nDivine Nature it was in the humanity of Christ from His nativity.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The grace of union is not natural to Christ according\nto His human nature, as if it were caused by the principles of the\nhuman nature, and hence it need not belong to all men. Nevertheless,\nit is natural to Him in regard to the human nature on account of the\n_property_ of His birth, seeing that He was conceived by the Holy\nGhost, so that He might be the natural Son of God and of man. But it\nis natural to Him in regard to the Divine Nature, inasmuch as the\nDivine Nature is the active principle of this grace; and this belongs\nto the whole Trinity--to wit, to be the active principle of this\ngrace.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 3\n\nOF THE MODE OF UNION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON ASSUMING\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the union on the part of the Person assuming,\nand under this head there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether to assume is befitting to a Divine Person?\n\n(2) Whether it is befitting to the Divine Nature?\n\n(3) Whether the Nature abstracted from the Personality can assume?\n\n(4) Whether one Person can assume without another?\n\n(5) Whether each Person can assume?\n\n(6) Whether several Persons can assume one individual nature?\n\n(7) Whether one Person can assume two individual natures?\n\n(8) Whether it was more fitting for the Person of the Son of God to\nassume human nature than for another Divine Person?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Is Befitting for a Divine Person to Assume?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it is not befitting to a Divine\nPerson to assume a created nature. For a Divine Person signifies\nsomething most perfect. Now no addition can be made to what is\nperfect. Therefore, since to assume is to take to oneself, and\nconsequently what is assumed is added to the one who assumes, it does\nnot seem to be befitting to a Divine Person to assume a created\nnature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, that to which anything is assumed is communicated in\nsome degree to what is assumed to it, just as dignity is communicated\nto whosoever is assumed to a dignity. But it is of the nature of a\nperson to be incommunicable, as was said above (I, Q. 29, A. 1).\nTherefore it is not befitting to a Divine Person to assume, i.e. to\ntake to Himself.\n\nObj. 3: Further, person is constituted by nature. But it is repugnant\nthat the thing constituted should assume the constituent, since the\neffect does not act on its cause. Hence it is not befitting to a\nPerson to assume a nature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum\nii): \"This God, i.e. the only-Begotten one, took the form,\" i.e. the\nnature, \"of a servant to His own Person.\" But the only-Begotten God\nis a Person. Therefore it is befitting to a Person to take, i.e. to\nassume a nature.\n\n_I answer that,_ In the word \"assumption\" are implied two things,\nviz. the principle and the term of the act, for to assume is to take\nsomething to oneself. Now of this assumption a Person is both the\nprinciple and the term. The principle--because it properly belongs to\na person to act, and this assuming of flesh took place by the Divine\naction. Likewise a Person is the term of this assumption, because, as\nwas said above (Q. 2, AA. 1, 2), the union took place in the Person,\nand not in the nature. Hence it is plain that to assume a nature is\nmost properly befitting to a Person.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Since the Divine Person is infinite, no addition can be\nmade to it: Hence Cyril says [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]:\n\"We do not conceive the mode of conjunction to be according to\naddition\"; just as in the union of man with God, nothing is added to\nGod by the grace of adoption, but what is Divine is united to man;\nhence, not God but man is perfected.\n\nReply Obj. 2: A Divine Person is said to be incommunicable inasmuch\nas It cannot be predicated of several supposita, but nothing prevents\nseveral things being predicated of the Person. Hence it is not\ncontrary to the nature of person to be communicated so as to subsist\nin several natures, for even in a created person several natures may\nconcur accidentally, as in the person of one man we find quantity and\nquality. But this is proper to a Divine Person, on account of its\ninfinity, that there should be a concourse of natures in it, not\naccidentally, but in subsistence.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As was said above (Q. 2, A. 1), the human nature\nconstitutes a Divine Person, not simply, but forasmuch as the Person\nis denominated from such a nature. For human nature does not make the\nSon of Man to be simply, since He was from eternity, but only to be\nman. It is by the Divine Nature that a Divine Person is constituted\nsimply. Hence the Divine Person is not said to assume the Divine\nNature, but to assume the human nature.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Is Befitting to the Divine Nature to Assume?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it is not befitting to the Divine\nNature to assume. Because, as was said above (A. 1), to assume is to\ntake to oneself. But the Divine Nature did not take to Itself human\nnature, for the union did not take place in the nature, as was said\nabove (Q. 2, AA. 1, 3). Hence it is not befitting to the Divine\nNature to assume human nature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Divine Nature is common to the three Persons.\nIf, therefore, it is befitting to the Divine Nature to assume, it\nconsequently is befitting to the three Persons; and thus the Father\nassumed human nature even as the Son, which is erroneous.\n\nObj. 3: Further, to assume is to act. But to act befits a person, not\na nature, which is rather taken to be the principle by which the\nagent acts. Therefore to assume is not befitting to the nature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Fulgentius) says (De Fide ad Petrum\nii): \"That nature which remains eternally begotten of the Father\"\n(i.e. which is received from the Father by eternal generation) \"took\nour nature free of sin from His Mother.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1), in the word assumption two\nthings are signified--to wit, the principle and the term of the\naction. Now to be the principle of the assumption belongs to the\nDivine Nature in itself, because the assumption took place by Its\npower; but to be the term of the assumption does not belong to the\nDivine Nature in itself, but by reason of the Person in Whom It is\nconsidered to be. Hence a Person is primarily and more properly said\nto assume, but it may be said secondarily that the Nature assumed a\nnature to Its Person. And after the same manner the Nature is also\nsaid to be incarnate, not that it is changed to flesh, but that it\nassumed the nature of flesh. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii,\n6): \"Following the blessed Athanasius and Cyril we say that the\nNature of God is incarnate.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: \"Oneself\" is reciprocal, and points to the same\nsuppositum. But the Divine Nature is not a distinct suppositum from\nthe Person of the Word. Hence, inasmuch as the Divine Nature took\nhuman nature to the Person of the Word, It is said to take it to\nItself. But although the Father takes human nature to the Person of\nthe Word, He did not thereby take it to Himself, for the suppositum\nof the Father and the Son is not one, and hence it cannot properly be\nsaid that the Father assumes human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 2: What is befitting to the Divine Nature in Itself is\nbefitting to the three Persons, as goodness, wisdom, and the like.\nBut to assume belongs to It by reason of the Person of the Word, as\nwas said above, and hence it is befitting to that Person alone.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As in God _what is_ and _whereby it is_ are the same,\nso likewise in Him _what acts_ and _whereby it acts_ are the same,\nsince everything acts, inasmuch as it is a being. Hence the Divine\nNature is both that whereby God acts, and the very God Who acts.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Nature Abstracted from the Personality Can Assume?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that if we abstract the Personality by our\nmind, the Nature cannot assume. For it was said above (A. 1) that it\nbelongs to the Nature to assume by reason of the Person. But what\nbelongs to one by reason of another cannot belong to it if the other\nis removed; as a body, which is visible by reason of color, without\ncolor cannot be seen. Hence if the Personality be mentally\nabstracted, the Nature cannot assume.\n\nObj. 2: Further, assumption implies the term of union, as was said\nabove (A. 1). But the union cannot take place in the nature, but only\nin the Person. Therefore, if the Personality be abstracted, the\nDivine Nature cannot assume.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it has been said above (I, Q. 40, A. 3) that in the\nGodhead if the Personality is abstracted, nothing remains. But the\none who assumes is something. Therefore, if the Personality is\nabstracted, the Divine Nature cannot assume.\n\n_On the contrary,_ In the Godhead Personality signifies a personal\nproperty; and this is threefold, viz. Paternity, Filiation and\nProcession, as was said above (I, Q. 30, A. 2). Now if we mentally\nabstract these, there still remains the omnipotence of God, by which\nthe Incarnation was wrought, as the angel says (Luke 1:37): \"No word\nshall be impossible with God.\" Therefore it seems that if the\nPersonality be removed, the Divine Nature can still assume.\n\n_I answer that,_ The intellect stands in two ways towards God. First,\nto know God as He is, and in this manner it is impossible for the\nintellect to circumscribe something in God and leave the rest, for\nall that is in God is one, except the distinction of Persons; and as\nregards these, if one is removed the other is taken away, since they\nare distinguished by relations only which must be together at the\nsame time. Secondly, the intellect stands towards God, not indeed as\nknowing God as He is, but in its own way, i.e. understanding\nmanifoldly and separately what in God is one: and in this way our\nintellect can understand the Divine goodness and wisdom, and the\nlike, which are called essential attributes, without understanding\nPaternity or Filiation, which are called Personalities. And hence if\nwe abstract Personality by our intellect, we may still understand the\nNature assuming.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Because in God _what is,_ and _whereby it is,_ are one,\nif any one of the things which are attributed to God in the abstract\nis considered in itself, abstracted from all else, it will still be\nsomething subsisting, and consequently a Person, since it is an\nintellectual nature. Hence just as we now say three Persons, on\naccount of holding three personal properties, so likewise if we\nmentally exclude the personal properties there will still remain in\nour thought the Divine Nature as subsisting and as a Person. And in\nthis way It may be understood to assume human nature by reason of Its\nsubsistence or Personality.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Even if the personal properties of the three Persons\nare abstracted by our mind, nevertheless there will remain in our\nthoughts the one Personality of God, as the Jews consider. And the\nassumption can be terminated in It, as we now say it is terminated in\nthe Person of the Word.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If we mentally abstract the Personality, it is said\nthat nothing remains by way of resolution, i.e. as if the subject of\nthe relation and the relation itself were distinct because all we can\nthink of in God is considered as a subsisting suppositum. However,\nsome of the things predicated of God can be understood without\nothers, not by way of resolution, but by the way mentioned above.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 4]\n\nWhether One Person Without Another Can Assume a Created Nature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that one Person cannot assume a created\nnature without another assuming it. For \"the works of the Trinity are\ninseparable,\" as Augustine says (Enchiridion xxxviii). But as the\nthree Persons have one essence, so likewise They have one operation.\nNow to assume is an operation. Therefore it cannot belong to one\nwithout belonging to another.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as we say the Person of the Son became incarnate, so\nalso did the Nature; for \"the whole Divine Nature became incarnate in\none of Its hypostases,\" as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6). But\nthe Nature is common to the three Persons. Therefore the assumption\nis.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as the human nature in Christ is assumed by God, so\nlikewise are men assumed by Him through grace, according to Rom.\n14:3: \"God hath taken him to Him.\" But this assumption pertains to\nall the Persons; therefore the first also.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii) that the mystery of\nthe Incarnation pertains to \"discrete theology,\" i.e. according to\nwhich something \"distinct\" is said of the Divine Persons.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1), assumption implies two\nthings, viz. the act of assuming and the term of assumption. Now the\nact of assumption proceeds from the Divine power, which is common to\nthe three Persons, but the term of the assumption is a Person, as\nstated above (A. 2). Hence what has to do with action in the\nassumption is common to the three Persons; but what pertains to the\nnature of term belongs to one Person in such a manner as not to\nbelong to another; for the three Persons caused the human nature to\nbe united to the one Person of the Son.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This reason regards the operation, and the conclusion\nwould follow if it implied this operation only, without the term,\nwhich is a Person.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Nature is said to be incarnate, and to assume by\nreason of the Person in Whom the union is terminated, as stated above\n(AA. 1, 2), and not as it is common to the three Persons. Now \"the\nwhole Divine Nature is\" said to be \"incarnate\"; not that It is\nincarnate in all the Persons, but inasmuch as nothing is wanting to\nthe perfection of the Divine Nature of the Person incarnate, as\nDamascene explains there.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The assumption which takes place by the grace of\nadoption is terminated in a certain participation of the Divine\nNature, by an assimilation to Its goodness, according to 2 Pet. 1:4:\n\"That you may be made partakers of the Divine Nature\"; and hence this\nassumption is common to the three Persons, in regard to the principle\nand the term. But the assumption which is by the grace of union is\ncommon on the part of the principle, but not on the part of the term,\nas was said above.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Each of the Divine Persons Could Have Assumed Human Nature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that no other Divine Person could have\nassumed human nature except the Person of the Son. For by this\nassumption it has been brought about that God is the Son of Man. But\nit was not becoming that either the Father or the Holy Ghost should\nbe said to be a Son; for this would tend to the confusion of the\nDivine Persons. Therefore the Father and Holy Ghost could not have\nassumed flesh.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by the Divine Incarnation men have come into\npossession of the adoption of sons, according to Rom. 8:15: \"For you\nhave not received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but the spirit\nof adoption of sons.\" But sonship by adoption is a participated\nlikeness of natural sonship which does not belong to the Father nor\nthe Holy Ghost; hence it is said (Rom. 8:29): \"For whom He foreknew\nHe also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His\nSon.\" Therefore it seems that no other Person except the Person of\nthe Son could have become incarnate.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Son is said to be sent and to be begotten by the\ntemporal nativity, inasmuch as He became incarnate. But it does not\nbelong to the Father to be sent, for He is innascible, as was said\nabove (I, Q. 32, A. 3; First Part, Q. 43, A. 4). Therefore at least\nthe Person of the Father cannot become incarnate.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Whatever the Son can do, so can the Father and the\nHoly Ghost, otherwise the power of the three Persons would not be\none. But the Son was able to become incarnate. Therefore the Father\nand the Holy Ghost were able to become incarnate.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (AA. 1, 2, 4), assumption implies\ntwo things, viz. the act of the one assuming and the term of the\nassumption. Now the principle of the act is the Divine power, and the\nterm is a Person. But the Divine power is indifferently and commonly\nin all the Persons. Moreover, the nature of Personality is common to\nall the Persons, although the personal properties are different. Now\nwhenever a power regards several things indifferently, it can\nterminate its action in any of them indifferently, as is plain in\nrational powers, which regard opposites, and can do either of them.\nTherefore the Divine power could have united human nature to the\nPerson of the Father or of the Holy Ghost, as It united it to the\nPerson of the Son. And hence we must say that the Father or the Holy\nGhost could have assumed flesh even as the Son.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The temporal sonship, whereby Christ is said to be the\nSon of Man, does not constitute His Person, as does the eternal\nSonship; but is something following upon the temporal nativity.\nHence, if the name of son were transferred to the Father or the Holy\nGhost in this manner, there would be no confusion of the Divine\nPersons.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Adoptive sonship is a certain participation of natural\nsonship; but it takes place in us, by appropriation, by the Father,\nWho is the principle of natural sonship, and by the gift of the Holy\nGhost, Who is the love of the Father and Son, according to Gal. 4:6:\n\"God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts crying, Abba,\nFather.\" And therefore, even as by the Incarnation of the Son we\nreceive adoptive sonship in the likeness of His natural sonship, so\nlikewise, had the Father become incarnate, we should have received\nadoptive sonship from Him, as from the principle of the natural\nsonship, and from the Holy Ghost as from the common bond of Father\nand Son.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It belongs to the Father to be innascible as to eternal\nbirth, and the temporal birth would not destroy this. But the Son of\nGod is said to be sent in regard to the Incarnation, inasmuch as He\nis from another, without which the Incarnation would not suffice for\nthe nature of mission.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Several Divine Persons Can Assume One and the Same Individual\nNature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that two Divine Persons cannot assume one\nand the same individual nature. For, this being granted, there would\neither be several men or one. But not several, for just as one Divine\nNature in several Persons does not make several gods, so one human\nnature in several persons does not make several men. Nor would there\nbe only one man, for one man is \"this man,\" which signifies one\nperson; and hence the distinction of three Divine Persons would be\ndestroyed, which cannot be allowed. Therefore neither two nor three\nPersons can take one human nature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the assumption is terminated in the unity of Person,\nas has been said above (A. 2). But the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost\nare not one Person. Therefore the three Persons cannot assume one\nhuman nature.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3, 4), and\nAugustine (De Trin. i, 11, 12, 13), that from the Incarnation of God\nthe Son it follows that whatever is said of the Son of God is said of\nthe Son of Man, and conversely. Hence, if three Persons were to\nassume one human nature, it would follow that whatever is said of\neach of the three Persons would be said of the man; and conversely,\nwhat was said of the man could be said of each of the three Persons.\nTherefore what is proper to the Father, viz. to beget the Son, would\nbe said of the man, and consequently would be said of the Son of God;\nand this could not be. Therefore it is impossible that the three\nPersons should assume one human nature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Incarnate Person subsists in two natures. But\nthe three Persons can subsist in one Divine Nature. Therefore they\ncan also subsist in one human nature in such a way that the human\nnature be assumed by the three Persons.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 2, A. 5, ad 1), by the union\nof the soul and body in Christ neither a new person is made nor a new\nhypostasis, but one human nature is assumed to the Divine Person or\nhypostasis, which, indeed, does not take place by the power of the\nhuman nature, but by the power of the Divine Person. Now such is the\ncharacteristic of the Divine Persons that one does not exclude\nanother from communicating in the same nature, but only in the same\nPerson. Hence, since in the mystery of the Incarnation \"the whole\nreason of the deed is the power of the doer,\" as Augustine says (Ep.\nad Volusianum cxxxvii), we must judge of it in regard to the quality\nof the Divine Person assuming, and not according to the quality of\nthe human nature assumed. Therefore it is not impossible that two or\nthree Divine Persons should assume one human nature, but it would be\nimpossible for them to assume one human hypostasis or person; thus\nAnselm says in the book De Concep. Virg. (Cur Deus Homo ii, 9), that\n\"several Persons cannot assume one and the same man to unity of\nPerson.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: In the hypothesis that three Persons assume one human\nnature, it would be true to say that the three Persons were one man,\nbecause of the one human nature. For just as it is now true to say\nthe three Persons are one God on account of the one Divine Nature, so\nit would be true to say they are one man on account of the one human\nnature. Nor would \"one\" imply unity of person, but unity in human\nnature; for it could not be argued that because the three Persons\nwere one man they were one simply. For nothing hinders our saying\nthat men, who are many simply, are in some respect one, e.g. one\npeople, and as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 3): \"The Spirit of God\nand the spirit of man are by nature different, but by inherence one\nspirit results,\" according to 1 Cor. 6:17: \"He who is joined to the\nLord is one spirit.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: In this supposition the human nature would be assumed\nto the unity, not indeed of one Person, but to the unity of each\nPerson, so that even as the Divine Nature has a natural unity with\neach Person, so also the human nature would have a unity with each\nPerson by assumption.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In the mystery of the Incarnation, there results a\ncommunication of the properties belonging to the nature, because\nwhatever belongs to the nature can be predicated of the Person\nsubsisting in that nature, no matter to which of the natures it may\napply. Hence in this hypothesis, of the Person of the Father may be\npredicated what belongs to the human nature and what belongs to the\nDivine; and likewise of the Person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.\nBut what belongs to the Person of the Father by reason of His own\nPerson could not be attributed to the Person of the Son or Holy Ghost\non account of the distinction of Persons which would still remain.\nTherefore it might be said that as the Father was unbegotten, so the\nman was unbegotten, inasmuch as \"man\" stood for the Person of the\nFather. But if one were to go on to say, \"The man is unbegotten; the\nSon is man; therefore the Son is unbegotten,\" it would be the fallacy\nof figure of speech or of accident; even as we now say God is\nunbegotten, because the Father is unbegotten, yet we cannot conclude\nthat the Son is unbegotten, although He is God.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 7]\n\nWhether One Divine Person Can Assume Two Human Natures?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that one Divine Person cannot assume two\nhuman natures. For the nature assumed in the mystery of the\nIncarnation has no other suppositum than the suppositum of the Divine\nPerson, as is plain from what has been stated above (Q. 2, AA. 3, 6).\nTherefore, if we suppose one Person to assume two human natures,\nthere would be one suppositum of two natures of the same species;\nwhich would seem to imply a contradiction, for the nature of one\nspecies is only multiplied by distinct supposita.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in this hypothesis it could not be said that the\nDivine Person incarnate was one man, seeing that He would not have\none human nature; neither could it be said that there were several,\nfor several men have distinct supposita, whereas in this case there\nwould be only one suppositum. Therefore the aforesaid hypothesis is\nimpossible.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the mystery of the Incarnation the whole Divine\nNature is united to the whole nature assumed, i.e. to every part of\nit, for Christ is \"perfect God and perfect man, complete God and\ncomplete man,\" as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 7). But two\nhuman natures cannot be wholly united together, inasmuch as the soul\nof one would be united to the body of the other; and, again, two\nbodies would be together, which would give rise to confusion of\nnatures. Therefore it is not possibly for one Divine Person to assume\ntwo human natures.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Whatever the Father can do, that also can the Son\ndo. But after the Incarnation the Father can still assume a human\nnature distinct from that which the Son has assumed; for in nothing\nis the power of the Father or the Son lessened by the Incarnation of\nthe Son. Therefore it seems that after the Incarnation the Son can\nassume another human nature distinct from the one He has assumed.\n\n_I answer that,_ What has power for one thing, and no more, has a\npower limited to one. Now the power of a Divine Person is infinite,\nnor can it be limited by any created thing. Hence it may not be said\nthat a Divine Person so assumed one human nature as to be unable to\nassume another. For it would seem to follow from this that the\nPersonality of the Divine Nature was so comprehended by one human\nnature as to be unable to assume another to its Personality; and this\nis impossible, for the Uncreated cannot be comprehended by any\ncreature. Hence it is plain that, whether we consider the Divine\nPerson in regard to His power, which is the principle of the union,\nor in regard to His Personality, which is the term of the union, it\nhas to be said that the Divine Person, over and beyond the human\nnature which He has assumed, can assume another distinct human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: A created nature is completed in its essentials by its\nform, which is multiplied according to the division of matter. And\nhence, if the composition of matter and form constitutes a new\nsuppositum, the consequence is that the nature is multiplied by the\nmultiplication of supposita. But in the mystery of the Incarnation\nthe union of form and matter, i.e. of soul and body, does not\nconstitute a new suppositum, as was said above (A. 6). Hence there\ncan be a numerical multitude on the part of the nature, on account of\nthe division of matter, without distinction of supposita.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It might seem possible to reply that in such a\nhypothesis it would follow that there were two men by reason of the\ntwo natures, just as, on the contrary, the three Persons would be\ncalled one man, on account of the one nature assumed, as was said\nabove (A. 6, ad 1). But this does not seem to be true; because we\nmust use words according to the purpose of their signification, which\nis in relation to our surroundings. Consequently, in order to judge\nof a word's signification or co-signification, we must consider the\nthings which are around us, in which a word derived from some form is\nnever used in the plural unless there are several supposita. For a\nman who has on two garments is not said to be \"two persons clothed,\"\nbut \"one clothed with two garments\"; and whoever has two qualities is\ndesignated in the singular as \"such by reason of the two qualities.\"\nNow the assumed nature is, as it were, a garment, although this\nsimilitude does not fit at all points, as has been said above (Q. 2,\nA. 6, ad 1). And hence, if the Divine Person were to assume two human\nnatures, He would be called, on account of the unity of suppositum,\none man having two human natures. Now many men are said to be one\npeople, inasmuch as they have some one thing in common, and not on\naccount of the unity of suppositum. So likewise, if two Divine\nPersons were to assume one singular human nature, they would be said\nto be one man, as stated (A. 6, ad 1), not from the unity of\nsuppositum, but because they have some one thing in common.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Divine and human natures do not bear the same\nrelation to the one Divine Person, but the Divine Nature is related\nfirst of all thereto, inasmuch as It is one with It from eternity;\nand afterwards the human nature is related to the Divine Person,\ninasmuch as it is assumed by the Divine Person in time, not indeed\nthat the nature is the Person, but that the Person of God subsists in\nhuman nature. For the Son of God is His Godhead, but is not His\nmanhood. And hence, in order that the human nature may be assumed by\nthe Divine Person, the Divine Nature must be united by a personal\nunion with the whole nature assumed, i.e. in all its parts. Now in\nthe two natures assumed there would be a uniform relation to the\nDivine Person, nor would one assume the other. Hence it would not be\nnecessary for one of them to be altogether united to the other, i.e.\nall the parts of one with all the parts of the other.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 3, Art. 8]\n\nWhether it was more fitting that the Person of the Son rather than\nany other Divine Person should assume human nature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not more fitting that the Son\nof God should become incarnate than the Father or the Holy Ghost. For\nby the mystery of the Incarnation men are led to the true knowledge\nof God, according to John 18:37: \"For this was I born, and for this\ncame I into the world, to give testimony to the truth.\" But by the\nPerson of the Son of God becoming incarnate many have been kept back\nfrom the true knowledge of God, since they referred to the very\nPerson of the Son what was said of the Son in His human nature, as\nArius, who held an inequality of Persons, according to what is said\n(John 14:28): \"The Father is greater than I.\" Now this error would\nnot have arisen if the Person of the Father had become incarnate, for\nno one would have taken the Father to be less than the Son. Hence it\nseems fitting that the Person of the Father, rather than the Person\nof the Son, should have become incarnate.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the effect of the Incarnation would seem to be, as\nit were, a second creation of human nature, according to Gal. 6:15:\n\"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor\nuncircumcision, but a new creature.\" But the power of creation is\nappropriated to the Father. Therefore it would have been more\nbecoming to the Father than to the Son to become incarnate.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Incarnation is ordained to the remission of\nsins, according to Matt. 1:21: \"Thou shalt call His name Jesus. For\nHe shall save His people from their sins.\" Now the remission of sins\nis attributed to the Holy Ghost according to John 20:22, 23: \"Receive\nye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven\nthem.\" Therefore it became the Person of the Holy Ghost rather than\nthe Person of the Son to become incarnate.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 1): \"In the\nmystery of the Incarnation the wisdom and power of God are made\nknown: the wisdom, for He found a most suitable discharge for a most\nheavy debt; the power, for He made the conquered conquer.\" But power\nand wisdom are appropriated to the Son, according to 1 Cor. 1:24:\n\"Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God.\" Therefore it was\nfitting that the Person of the Son should become incarnate.\n\n_I answer that,_ It was most fitting that the Person of the Son\nshould become incarnate. First, on the part of the union; for such as\nare similar are fittingly united. Now the Person of the Son, Who is\nthe Word of God, has a certain common agreement with all creatures,\nbecause the word of the craftsman, i.e. his concept, is an exemplar\nlikeness of whatever is made by him. Hence the Word of God, Who is\nHis eternal concept, is the exemplar likeness of all creatures. And\ntherefore as creatures are established in their proper species,\nthough movably, by the participation of this likeness, so by the\nnon-participated and personal union of the Word with a creature, it\nwas fitting that the creature should be restored in order to its\neternal and unchangeable perfection; for the craftsman by the\nintelligible form of his art, whereby he fashioned his handiwork,\nrestores it when it has fallen into ruin. Moreover, He has a\nparticular agreement with human nature, since the Word is a concept\nof the eternal Wisdom, from Whom all man's wisdom is derived. And\nhence man is perfected in wisdom (which is his proper perfection, as\nhe is rational) by participating the Word of God, as the disciple is\ninstructed by receiving the word of his master. Hence it is said\n(Ecclus. 1:5): \"The Word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom.\"\nAnd hence for the consummate perfection of man it was fitting that\nthe very Word of God should be personally united to human nature.\n\nSecondly, the reason of this fitness may be taken from the end of the\nunion, which is the fulfilling of predestination, i.e. of such as are\npreordained to the heavenly inheritance, which is bestowed only on\nsons, according to Rom. 8:17: \"If sons, heirs also.\" Hence it was\nfitting that by Him Who is the natural Son, men should share this\nlikeness of sonship by adoption, as the Apostle says in the same\nchapter (Rom. 8:29): \"For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to\nbe made conformable to the image of His Son.\"\n\nThirdly, the reason for this fitness may be taken from the sin of our\nfirst parent, for which the Incarnation supplied the remedy. For the\nfirst man sinned by seeking knowledge, as is plain from the words of\nthe serpent, promising to man the knowledge of good and evil. Hence\nit was fitting that by the Word of true knowledge man might be led\nback to God, having wandered from God through an inordinate thirst\nfor knowledge.\n\nReply Obj. 1: There is nothing which human malice cannot abuse, since\nit even abuses God's goodness, according to Rom. 2:4: \"Or despisest\nthou the riches of His goodness?\" Hence, even if the Person of the\nFather had become incarnate, men would have been capable of finding\nan occasion of error, as though the Son were not able to restore\nhuman nature.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The first creation of things was made by the power of\nGod the Father through the Word; hence the second creation ought to\nhave been brought about through the Word, by the power of God the\nFather, in order that restoration should correspond to creation\naccording to 2 Cor. 5:19: \"For God indeed was in Christ reconciling\nthe world to Himself.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: To be the gift of the Father and the Son is proper to\nthe Holy Ghost. But the remission of sins is caused by the Holy\nGhost, as by the gift of God. And hence it was more fitting to man's\njustification that the Son should become incarnate, Whose gift the\nHoly Ghost is.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 4\n\nOF THE MODE OF UNION ON THE PART OF THE HUMAN NATURE\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the union on the part of what was assumed. About\nwhich we must consider first what things were assumed by the Word of\nGod; secondly, what were co-assumed, whether perfections or defects.\n\nNow the Son of God assumed human nature and its parts. Hence a\nthreefold consideration arises. First, with regard to the nature;\nsecondly, with regard to its parts; thirdly, with regard to the order\nof the assumption.\n\nUnder the first head there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether human nature was more capable of being assumed than any\nother nature?\n\n(2) Whether He assumed a person?\n\n(3) Whether He assumed a man?\n\n(4) Whether it was becoming that He should assume human nature\nabstracted from all individuals?\n\n(5) Whether it was becoming that He should assume human nature in all\nits individuals?\n\n(6) Whether it was becoming that He should assume human nature in any\nman begotten of the stock of Adam?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Human Nature Was More Assumable by the Son of God Than Any\nOther Nature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that human nature is not more capable of\nbeing assumed by the Son of God than any other nature. For Augustine\nsays (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii): \"In deeds wrought miraculously the\nwhole reason of the deed is the power of the doer.\" Now the power of\nGod Who wrought the Incarnation, which is a most miraculous work, is\nnot limited to one nature, since the power of God is infinite.\nTherefore human nature is not more capable of being assumed than any\nother creature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, likeness is the foundation of the fittingness of the\nIncarnation of the Divine Person, as above stated (Q. 3, A. 8). But\nas in rational creatures we find the likeness of image, so in\nirrational creatures we find the image of trace. Therefore the\nirrational creature was as capable of assumption as human nature.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the angelic nature we find a more perfect\nlikeness than in human nature, as Gregory says: (Hom. de Cent. Ovib.;\nxxxiv in Ev.), where he introduces Ezech. 28:12: \"Thou wast the seal\nof resemblance.\" And sin is found in angels, even as in man,\naccording to Job 4:18: \"And in His angels He found wickedness.\"\nTherefore the angelic nature was as capable of assumption as the\nnature of man.\n\nObj. 4: Further, since the highest perfection belongs to God, the\nmore like to God a thing is, the more perfect it is. But the whole\nuniverse is more perfect than its parts, amongst which is human\nnature. Therefore the whole universe is more capable of being assumed\nthan human nature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is said (Prov. 8:31) by the mouth of Begotten\nWisdom: \"My delights were to be with the children of men\"; and hence\nthere would seem some fitness in the union of the Son of God with\nhuman nature.\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be assumable as being capable of\nbeing assumed by a Divine Person, and this capability cannot be taken\nwith reference to the natural passive power, which does not extend to\nwhat transcends the natural order, as the personal union of a\ncreature with God transcends it. Hence it follows that a thing is\nsaid to be assumable according to some fitness for such a union. Now\nthis fitness in human nature may be taken from two things, viz.\naccording to its dignity, and according to its need. According to its\ndignity, because human nature, as being rational and intellectual,\nwas made for attaining to the Word to some extent by its operation,\nviz. by knowing and loving Him. According to its need--because it\nstood in need of restoration, having fallen under original sin. Now\nthese two things belong to human nature alone. For in the irrational\ncreature the fitness of dignity is wanting, and in the angelic nature\nthe aforesaid fitness of need is wanting. Hence it follows that only\nhuman nature was assumable.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Creatures are said to be \"such\" with reference to their\nproper causes, not with reference to what belongs to them from their\nfirst and universal causes; thus we call a disease incurable, not\nthat it cannot be cured by God, but that it cannot be cured by the\nproper principles of the subject. Therefore a creature is said to be\nnot assumable, not as if we withdrew anything from the power of God,\nbut in order to show the condition of the creature, which has no\ncapability for this.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The likeness of image is found in human nature,\nforasmuch as it is capable of God, viz. by attaining to Him through\nits own operation of knowledge and love. But the likeness of trace\nregards only a representation by Divine impression, existing in the\ncreature, and does not imply that the irrational creature, in which\nsuch a likeness is, can attain to God by its own operation alone. For\nwhat does not come up to the less, has no fitness for the greater; as\na body which is not fitted to be perfected by a sensitive soul is\nmuch less fitted for an intellectual soul. Now much greater and more\nperfect is the union with God in personal being than the union by\noperation. And hence the irrational creature which falls short of the\nunion with God by operation has no fitness to be united with Him in\npersonal being.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Some say that angels are not assumable, since they are\nperfect in their personality from the beginning of their creation,\ninasmuch as they are not subject to generation and corruption; hence\nthey cannot be assumed to the unity of a Divine Person, unless their\npersonality be destroyed, and this does not befit the\nincorruptibility of their nature nor the goodness of the one\nassuming, to Whom it does not belong to corrupt any perfection in the\ncreature assumed. But this would not seem totally to disprove the\nfitness of the angelic nature for being assumed. For God by producing\na new angelic nature could join it to Himself in unity of Person, and\nin this way nothing pre-existing would be corrupted in it. But as was\nsaid above, there is wanting the fitness of need, because, although\nthe angelic nature in some is the subject of sin, their sin is\nirremediable, as stated above (I, Q. 64, A. 2).\n\nReply Obj. 4: The perfection of the universe is not the perfection of\none person or suppositum, but of something which is one by position\nor order, whereof very many parts are not capable of assumption, as\nwas said above. Hence it follows that only human nature is capable of\nbeing assumed.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Son of God Assumed a Person?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God assumed a person. For\nDamascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) that the Son of God \"assumed\nhuman nature _in atomo,\"_ i.e. in an individual. But an individual in\nrational nature is a person, as is plain from Boethius (De Duab.\nNat.). Therefore the Son of God assumed a person.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that the Son\nof God \"assumed what He had sown in our nature.\" But He sowed our\npersonality there. Therefore the Son of God assumed a person.\n\nObj. 3: Further, nothing is absorbed unless it exist. But Innocent\nIII [*Paschas. Diac., De Spiritu Sanct. ii] says in a Decretal that\n\"the Person of God absorbed the person of man.\" Therefore it would\nseem that the person of man existed previous to its being assumed.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum\nii) that \"God assumed the nature, not the person, of man.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be assumed inasmuch as it is\ntaken into another. Hence, what is assumed must be presupposed to the\nassumption, as what is moved locally is presupposed to the motion.\nNow a person in human nature is not presupposed to assumption;\nrather, it is the term of the assumption, as was said (Q. 3, AA. 1,\n2). For if it were presupposed, it must either have been\ncorrupted--in which case it was useless; or it remains after the\nunion--and thus there would be two persons, one assuming and the\nother assumed, which is false, as was shown above (Q. 2, A. 6). Hence\nit follows that the Son of God nowise assumed a human person.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Son of God assumed human nature _in atomo,_ i.e. in\nan individual, which is no other than the uncreated suppositum, the\nPerson of the Son of God. Hence it does not follow that a person was\nassumed.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Its proper personality is not wanting to the nature\nassumed through the loss of anything pertaining to the perfection of\nthe human nature but through the addition of something which is above\nhuman nature, viz. the union with a Divine Person.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Absorption does not here imply the destruction of\nanything pre-existing, but the hindering what might otherwise have\nbeen. For if the human nature had not been assumed by a Divine\nPerson, the human nature would have had its own personality; and in\nthis way is it said, although improperly, that the Person \"absorbed\nthe person,\" inasmuch as the Divine Person by His union hindered the\nhuman nature from having its personality.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Divine Person Assumed a Man?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Divine Person assumed a man. For\nit is written (Ps. 64:5): \"Blessed is he whom Thou hast chosen and\ntaken to Thee,\" which a gloss expounds of Christ; and Augustine says\n(De Agone Christ. xi): \"The Son of God assumed a man, and in him bore\nthings human.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, the word \"man\" signifies a human nature. But the Son\nof God assumed a human nature. Therefore He assumed a man.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Son of God is a man. But He is not one of the\nmen He did not assume, for with equal reason He would be Peter or any\nother man. Therefore He is the man whom He assumed.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Is the authority of Felix, Pope and Martyr, which\nis quoted by the Council of Ephesus: \"We believe in our Lord Jesus\nChrist, born of the Virgin Mary, because He is the Eternal Son and\nWord of God, and not a man assumed by God, in such sort that there is\nanother besides Him. For the Son of God did not assume a man, so that\nthere be another besides Him.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As has been said above (A. 2), what is assumed is\nnot the term of the assumption, but is presupposed to the assumption.\nNow it was said (Q. 3, AA. 1, 2) that the individual to Whom the\nhuman nature is assumed is none other than the Divine Person, Who is\nthe term of the assumption. Now this word \"man\" signifies human\nnature, as it is in a suppositum, because, as Damascene says (De Fide\nOrth. iii, 4, 11), this word God signifies Him Who has human nature.\nAnd hence it cannot properly be said that the Son assumed a man,\ngranted (as it must be, in fact) that in Christ there is but one\nsuppositum and one hypostasis. But according to such as hold that\nthere are two hypostases or two supposita in Christ, it may fittingly\nand properly be said that the Son of God assumed a man. Hence the\nfirst opinion quoted in Sent. iii, D. 6, grants that a man was\nassumed. But this opinion is erroneous, as was said above (Q. 2, A.\n6).\n\nReply Obj. 1: These phrases are not to be taken too literally, but\nare to be loyally explained, wherever they are used by holy doctors;\nso as to say that a man was assumed, inasmuch as his nature was\nassumed; and because the assumption terminated in this--that the Son\nof God is man.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The word \"man\" signifies human nature in the concrete,\ninasmuch as it is in a suppositum; and hence, since we cannot say a\nsuppositum was assumed, so we cannot say a man was assumed.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Son of God is not the man whom He assumed, but the\nman whose nature He assumed.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed Human Nature Abstracted\nfrom All Individuals?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God ought to have assumed\nhuman nature abstracted from all individuals. For the assumption of\nhuman nature took place for the common salvation of all men; hence it\nis said of Christ (1 Tim. 4:10) that He is \"the Saviour of all men,\nespecially of the faithful.\" But nature as it is in individuals\nwithdraws from its universality. Therefore the Son of God ought to\nhave assumed human nature as it is abstracted from all individuals.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what is noblest in all things ought to be attributed\nto God. But in every genus what is of itself is best. Therefore the\nSon of God ought to have assumed self-existing (_per se_) man, which,\naccording to Platonists, is human nature abstracted from its\nindividuals. Therefore the Son of God ought to have assumed this.\n\nObj. 3: Further, human nature was not assumed by the Son of God in\nthe concrete as is signified by the word \"man,\" as was said above (A.\n3). Now in this way it signifies human nature as it is in\nindividuals, as is plain from what has been said (A. 3). Therefore\nthe Son of God assumed human nature as it is separated from\nindividuals.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11): \"God the\nWord Incarnate did not assume a nature which exists in pure thought;\nfor this would have been no Incarnation, but a false and fictitious\nIncarnation.\" But human nature as it is separated or abstracted from\nindividuals is \"taken to be a pure conception, since it does not\nexist in itself,\" as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11).\nTherefore the Son of God did not assume human nature, as it is\nseparated from individuals.\n\n_I answer that,_ The nature of man or of any other sensible thing,\nbeyond the being which it has in individuals, may be taken in two\nways: first, as if it had being of itself, away from matter, as the\nPlatonists held; secondly, as existing in an intellect either human\nor Divine. Now it cannot subsist of itself, as the Philosopher proves\n(Metaph. vii, 26, 27, 29, 51), because sensible matter belongs to the\nspecific nature of sensible things, and is placed in its definition,\nas flesh and bones in the definition of man. Hence human nature\ncannot be without sensible matter. Nevertheless, if human nature were\nsubsistent in this way, it would not be fitting that it should be\nassumed by the Word of God. First, because this assumption is\nterminated in a Person, and it is contrary to the nature of a common\nform to be thus individualized in a person. Secondly, because to a\ncommon nature can only be attributed common and universal operations,\naccording to which man neither merits nor demerits, whereas, on the\ncontrary, the assumption took place in order that the Son of God,\nhaving assumed our nature, might merit for us. Thirdly, because a\nnature so existing would not be sensible, but intelligible. But the\nSon of God assumed human nature in order to show Himself in men's\nsight, according to Baruch 3:38: \"Afterwards He was seen upon earth,\nand conversed with men.\"\n\nLikewise, neither could human nature have been assumed by the Son of\nGod, as it is in the Divine intellect, since it would be none other\nthan the Divine Nature; and, according to this, human nature would be\nin the Son of God from eternity. Neither can we say that the Son of\nGod assumed human nature as it is in a human intellect, for this\nwould mean nothing else but that He is understood to assume a human\nnature; and thus if He did not assume it in reality, this would be a\nfalse understanding; nor would this assumption of the human nature be\nanything but a fictitious Incarnation, as Damascene says (De Fide\nOrth. iii, 11).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The incarnate Son of God is the common Saviour of all,\nnot by a generic or specific community, such as is attributed to the\nnature separated from the individuals, but by a community of cause,\nwhereby the incarnate Son of God is the universal cause of human\nsalvation.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Self-existing (_per se_) man is not to be found in\nnature in such a way as to be outside the singular, as the Platonists\nheld, although some say Plato believed that the separate man was only\nin the Divine intellect. And hence it was not necessary for it to be\nassumed by the Word, since it had been with Him from eternity.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although human nature was not assumed in the concrete,\nas if the suppositum were presupposed to the assumption, nevertheless\nit is assumed in an individual, since it is assumed so as to be in an\nindividual.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed Human Nature in All\nIndividuals?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God ought to have assumed\nhuman nature in all individuals. For what is assumed first and by\nitself is human nature. But what belongs essentially to a nature\nbelongs to all who exist in the nature. Therefore it was fitting that\nhuman nature should be assumed by the Word of God in all its\nsupposita.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Divine Incarnation proceeded from Divine Love;\nhence it is written (John 3:16): \"God so loved the world as to give\nHis only-begotten Son.\" But love makes us give ourselves to our\nfriends as much as we can, and it was possible for the Son of God to\nassume several human natures, as was said above (Q. 3, A. 7), and\nwith equal reason all. Hence it was fitting for the Son of God to\nassume human nature in all its supposita.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a skilful workman completes his work in the shortest\nmanner possible. But it would have been a shorter way if all men had\nbeen assumed to the natural sonship than for one natural Son to lead\nmany to the adoption of sons, as is written Gal. 4:5 (cf. Heb. 2:10).\nTherefore human nature ought to have been assumed by God in all its\nsupposita.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) that the\nSon of God \"did not assume human nature as a species, nor did He\nassume all its hypostases.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was unfitting for human nature to be assumed by\nthe Word in all its supposita. First, because the multitude of\nsupposita of human nature, which are natural to it, would have been\ntaken away. For since we must not see any other suppositum in the\nassumed nature, except the Person assuming, as was said above (A. 3),\nif there was no human nature except what was assumed, it would follow\nthat there was but one suppositum of human nature, which is the\nPerson assuming. Secondly, because this would have been derogatory to\nthe dignity of the incarnate Son of God, as He is the First-born of\nmany brethren, according to the human nature, even as He is the\nFirst-born of all creatures according to the Divine, for then all men\nwould be of equal dignity. Thirdly, because it is fitting that as one\nDivine suppositum is incarnate, so He should assume one human nature,\nso that on both sides unity might be found.\n\nReply Obj. 1: To be assumed belongs to the human nature of itself,\nbecause it does not belong to it by reason of a person, as it belongs\nto the Divine Nature to assume by reason of the Person; not, however,\nthat it belongs to it of itself as if belonging to its essential\nprinciples, or as its natural property in which manner it would\nbelong to all its supposita.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The love of God to men is shown not merely in the\nassumption of human nature, but especially in what He suffered in\nhuman nature for other men, according to Rom. 5:8: \"But God\ncommendeth His charity towards us; because when as yet we were\nsinners . . . Christ died for us,\" which would not have taken place\nhad He assumed human nature in all its supposita.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In order to shorten the way, which every skilful\nworkman does, what can be done by one must not be done by many. Hence\nit was most fitting that by one man all the rest should be saved.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 4, Art. 6]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting for the Son of God to Assume Human Nature of\nthe Stock of Adam?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for the Son of God\nto assume human nature of the stock of Adam, for the Apostle says\n(Heb. 7:26): \"For it was fitting that we should have such a high\npriest . . . separated from sinners.\" But He would have been still\nfurther separated from sinners had He not assumed human nature of the\nstock of Adam, a sinner. Hence it seems that He ought not to have\nassumed human nature of the stock of Adam.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in every genus the principle is nobler than what is\nfrom the principle. Hence, if He wished to assume human nature, He\nought to have assumed it in Adam himself.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Gentiles were greater sinners than the Jews, as\na gloss says on Gal. 2:15: \"For we by nature are Jews, and not of the\nGentiles, sinners.\" Hence, if He wished to assume human nature from\nsinners, He ought rather to have assumed it from the Gentiles than\nfrom the stock of Abraham, who was just.\n\n_On the contrary,_ (Luke 3), the genealogy of our Lord is traced back\nto Adam.\n\n_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 18): \"God was able\nto assume human nature elsewhere than from the stock of Adam, who by\nhis sin had fettered the whole human race; yet God judged it better\nto assume human nature from the vanquished race, and thus to vanquish\nthe enemy of the human race.\" And this for three reasons: First,\nbecause it would seem to belong to justice that he who sinned should\nmake amends; and hence that from the nature which he had corrupted\nshould be assumed that whereby satisfaction was to be made for the\nwhole nature. Secondly, it pertains to man's greater dignity that the\nconqueror of the devil should spring from the stock conquered by the\ndevil. Thirdly, because God's power is thereby made more manifest,\nsince, from a corrupt and weakened nature, He assumed that which was\nraised to such might and glory.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ ought to be separated from sinners as regards\nsin, which He came to overthrow, and not as regards nature which He\ncame to save, and in which \"it behooved Him in all things to be made\nlike to His brethren,\" as the Apostle says (Heb. 2:17). And in this\nis His innocence the more wonderful, seeing that though assumed from\na mass tainted by sin, His nature was endowed with such purity.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As was said above (ad 1) it behooved Him Who came to\ntake away sins to be separated from sinners as regards sin, to which\nAdam was subject, whom Christ \"brought out of his sin,\" as is written\n(Wis. 10:2). For it behooved Him Who came to cleanse all, not to need\ncleansing Himself; just as in every genus of motion the first mover\nis immovable as regards that motion, and the first to alter is itself\nunalterable. Hence it was not fitting that He should assume human\nnature in Adam himself.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Since Christ ought especially to be separated from\nsinners as regards sin, and to possess the highest innocence, it was\nfitting that between the first sinner and Christ some just men should\nstand midway, in whom certain forecasts of (His) future holiness\nshould shine forth. And hence, even in the people from whom Christ\nwas to be born, God appointed signs of holiness, which began in\nAbraham, who was the first to receive the promise of Christ, and\ncircumcision, as a sign that the covenant should be kept, as is\nwritten (Gen. 17:11).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 5\n\nOF THE PARTS OF HUMAN NATURE WHICH WERE ASSUMED\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the assumption of the parts of human nature; and\nunder this head there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the Son of God ought to have assumed a true body?\n\n(2) Whether He ought to have assumed an earthly body, i.e. one of\nflesh and blood?\n\n(3) Whether He ought to have assumed a soul?\n\n(4) Whether He ought to have assumed an intellect?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed a True Body?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a true\nbody. For it is written (Phil. 2:7), that He was \"made in the\nlikeness of men.\" But what is something in truth is not said to be in\nthe likeness thereof. Therefore the Son of God did not assume a true\nbody.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the assumption of a body in no way diminishes the\ndignity of the Godhead; for Pope Leo says (Serm. de Nativ.) that \"the\nglorification did not absorb the lesser nature, nor did the\nassumption lessen the higher.\" But it pertains to the dignity of God\nto be altogether separated from bodies. Therefore it seems that by\nthe assumption God was not united to a body.\n\nObj. 3: Further, signs ought to correspond to the realities. But the\napparitions of the Old Testament which were signs of the\nmanifestation of Christ were not in a real body, but by visions in\nthe imagination, as is plain from Isa. 60:1: \"I saw the Lord\nsitting,\" etc. Hence it would seem that the apparition of the Son of\nGod in the world was not in a real body, but only in imagination.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 13): \"If the body\nof Christ was a phantom, Christ deceived us, and if He deceived us,\nHe is not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth. Therefore His body was\nnot a phantom.\" Hence it is plain that He assumed a true body.\n\n_I answer that,_ As is said (De Eccles. Dogm. ii). The Son of God was\nnot born in appearance only, as if He had an imaginary body; but His\nbody was real. The proof of this is threefold. First, from the\nessence of human nature to which it pertains to have a true body.\nTherefore granted, as already proved (Q. 4, A. 1), that it was\nfitting for the Son of God to assume human nature, He must\nconsequently have assumed a real body. The second reason is taken\nfrom what was done in the mystery of the Incarnation. For if His body\nwas not real but imaginary, He neither underwent a real death, nor of\nthose things which the Evangelists recount of Him, did He do any in\nvery truth, but only in appearance; and hence it would also follow\nthat the real salvation of man has not taken place; since the effect\nmust be proportionate to the cause. The third reason is taken from\nthe dignity of the Person assuming, Whom it did not become to have\nanything fictitious in His work, since He is the Truth. Hence our\nLord Himself deigned to refute this error (Luke 24:37, 39), when the\ndisciples, \"troubled and frighted, supposed that they saw a spirit,\"\nand not a true body; wherefore He offered Himself to their touch,\nsaying: \"Handle, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as\nyou see Me to have.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: This likeness indicates the truth of the human nature\nin Christ--just as all that truly exist in human nature are said to\nbe like in species--and not a mere imaginary likeness. In proof of\nthis the Apostle subjoins (Phil. 2:8) that He became \"obedient unto\ndeath, even to the death of the cross\"; which would have been\nimpossible, had it been only an imaginary likeness.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By assuming a true body the dignity of the Son of God\nis nowise lessened. Hence Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad\nPetrum ii): \"He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, that\nHe might become a servant; yet did He not lose the fulness of the\nform of God.\" For the Son of God assumed a true body, not so as to\nbecome the form of a body, which is repugnant to the Divine\nsimplicity and purity--for this would be to assume a body to the\nunity of the nature, which is impossible, as is plain from what has\nbeen stated above (Q. 2, A. 1): but, the natures remaining distinct,\nHe assumed a body to the unity of Person.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The figure ought to correspond to the reality as\nregards the likeness and not as regards the truth of the thing. For\nif they were alike in all points, it would no longer be a likeness\nbut the reality itself, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26).\nHence it was more fitting that the apparitions of the old Testament\nshould be in appearance only, being figures; and that the apparition\nof the Son of God in the world should be in a real body, being the\nthing prefigured by these figures. Hence the Apostle says (Col.\n2:17): \"Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is\nChrist's.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Son of God Ought to Have Assumed a Carnal or Earthly Body?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ had not a carnal or earthly,\nbut a heavenly body. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:41): \"The first\nman was of the earth, earthy; the second man from heaven, heavenly.\"\nBut the first man, i.e. Adam, was of the earth as regards his body,\nas is plain from Gen. 1. Therefore the second man, i.e. Christ, was\nof heaven as regards the body.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is said (1 Cor. 15:50): \"Flesh and blood shall\nnot [Vulg.: 'cannot'] possess the kingdom of God.\" But the kingdom of\nGod is in Christ chiefly. Therefore there is no flesh or blood in\nHim, but rather a heavenly body.\n\nObj. 3: Further, whatever is best is to be attributed to God. But of\nall bodies a heavenly body is the best. Therefore it behooved Christ\nto assume such a body.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord says (Luke 24:39): \"A spirit hath not\nflesh and bones, as you see Me to have.\" Now flesh and bones are not\nof the matter of heavenly bodies, but are composed of the inferior\nelements. Therefore the body of Christ was not a heavenly, but a\ncarnal and earthly body.\n\n_I answer that,_ By the reasons which proved that the body of Christ\nwas not an imaginary one, it may also be shown that it was not a\nheavenly body. First, because even as the truth of the human nature\nof Christ would not have been maintained had His body been an\nimaginary one, such as Manes supposed, so likewise it would not have\nbeen maintained if we supposed, as did Valentine, that it was a\nheavenly body. For since the form of man is a natural thing, it\nrequires determinate matter, to wit, flesh and bones, which must be\nplaced in the definition of man, as is plain from the Philosopher\n(Metaph. vii, 39). Secondly, because this would lessen the truth of\nsuch things as Christ did in the body. For since a heavenly body is\nimpassible and incorruptible, as is proved De Coel. i, 20, if the Son\nof God had assumed a heavenly body, He would not have truly hungered\nor thirsted, nor would he have undergone His passion and death.\nThirdly, this would have detracted from God's truthfulness. For since\nthe Son of God showed Himself to men, as if He had a carnal and\nearthly body, the manifestation would have been false, had He had a\nheavenly body. Hence (De Eccles. Dogm. ii) it is said: \"The Son of\nGod was born, taking flesh of the Virgin's body, and not bringing it\nwith Him from heaven.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ is said in two ways to have come down from\nheaven. First, as regards His Divine Nature; not indeed that the\nDivine Nature ceased to be in heaven, but inasmuch as He began to be\nhere below in a new way, viz. by His assumed nature, according to\nJohn 3:13: \"No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended\nfrom heaven, the Son of Man, Who is in heaven.\"\n\nSecondly, as regards His body, not indeed that the very substance of\nthe body of Christ descended from heaven, but that His body was\nformed by a heavenly power, i.e. by the Holy Ghost. Hence Augustine,\nexplaining the passage quoted, says (Ad Orosium [*Dial. Qq. lxv, qu.\n4, work of an unknown author]): \"I call Christ a heavenly man because\nHe was not conceived of human seed.\" And Hilary expounds it in the\nsame way (De Trin. x).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Flesh and blood are not taken here for the substance of\nflesh and blood, but for the corruption of flesh, which was not in\nChrist as far as it was sinful; but as far as it was a punishment;\nthus, for a time, it was in Christ, that He might carry through the\nwork of our redemption.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It pertains to the greatest glory of God to have raised\na weak and earthly body to such sublimity. Hence in the General\nCouncil of Ephesus (P. II, Act. I) we read the saying of St.\nTheophilus: \"Just as the best workmen are esteemed not merely for\ndisplaying their skill in precious materials, but very often because\nby making use of the poorest clay and commonest earth, they show the\npower of their craft; so the best of all workmen, the Word of God,\ndid not come down to us by taking a heavenly body of some most\nprecious matter, but shewed the greatness of His skill in clay.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 5, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Son of God Assumed a Soul?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a soul.\nFor John has said, teaching the mystery of the Incarnation (John\n1:14): \"The Word was made flesh\"--no mention being made of a soul.\nNow it is not said that \"the Word was made flesh\" as if changed to\nflesh, but because He assumed flesh. Therefore He seems not to have\nassumed a soul.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a soul is necessary to the body, in order to quicken\nit. But this was not necessary for the body of Christ, as it would\nseem, for of the Word of God it is written (Ps. 35:10): Lord, \"with\nThee is the fountain of life.\" Therefore it would seem altogether\nsuperfluous for the soul to be there, when the Word was present. But\n\"God and nature do nothing uselessly,\" as the Philosopher says (De\nCoel. i, 32; ii, 56). Therefore the Word would seem not to have\nassumed a soul.\n\nObj. 3: Further, by the union of soul and body is constituted the\ncommon nature, which is the human species. But \"in the Lord Jesus\nChrist we are not to look for a common species,\" as Damascene says\n(De Fide Orth. iii, 3). Therefore He did not assume a soul.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxi): \"Let us not\nhearken to such as say that only a human body was assumed by the Word\nof God; and take 'the Word was made flesh' to mean that the man had\nno soul nor any other part of a man, save flesh.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Haeres. 69, 55), it was first\nof all the opinion of Arius and then of Apollinaris that the Son of\nGod assumed only flesh, without a soul, holding that the Word took\nthe place of a soul to the body. And consequently it followed that\nthere were not two natures in Christ, but only one; for from a soul\nand body one human nature is constituted. But this opinion cannot\nhold, for three reasons. First, because it is counter to the\nauthority of Scripture, in which our Lord makes mention of His soul,\nMatt. 26:38: \"My soul is sorrowful even unto death\"; and John 10:18:\n\"I have power to lay down My soul [_animam meam:_ Douay: 'My life'].\"\nBut to this Apollinaris replied that in these words soul is taken\nmetaphorically, in which way mention is made in the Old Testament of\nthe soul of God (Isa. 1:14): \"My soul hateth your new moons and your\nsolemnities.\" But, as Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 80), the\nEvangelists relate how Jesus wondered, was angered, sad, and hungry.\nNow these show that He had a true soul, just as that He ate, slept\nand was weary shows that He had a true human body: otherwise, if\nthese things are a metaphor, because the like are said of God in the\nOld Testament, the trustworthiness of the Gospel story is undermined.\nFor it is one thing that things were foretold in a figure, and\nanother that historical events were related in very truth by the\nEvangelists. Secondly, this error lessens the utility of the\nIncarnation, which is man's liberation. For Augustine [*Vigilius\nTapsensis] argues thus (Contra Felician. xiii): \"If the Son of God in\ntaking flesh passed over the soul, either He knew its sinlessness,\nand trusted it did not need a remedy; or He considered it unsuitable\nto Him, and did not bestow on it the boon of redemption; or He\nreckoned it altogether incurable, and was unable to heal it; or He\ncast it off as worthless and seemingly unfit for any use. Now two of\nthese reasons imply a blasphemy against God. For how shall we call\nHim omnipotent, if He is unable to heal what is beyond hope? Or God\nof all, if He has not made our soul. And as regards the other two\nreasons, in one the cause of the soul is ignored, and in the other no\nplace is given to merit. Is He to be considered to understand the\ncause of the soul, Who seeks to separate it from the sin of wilful\ntransgression, enabled as it is to receive the law by the endowment\nof the habit of reason? Or how can His generosity be known to any one\nwho says it was despised on account of its ignoble sinfulness? If you\nlook at its origin, the substance of the soul is more precious than\nthe body: but if at the sin of transgression, on account of its\nintelligence it is worse than the body. Now I know and declare that\nChrist is perfect wisdom, nor have I any doubt that He is most\nloving; and because of the first of these He did not despise what was\nbetter and more capable of prudence; and because of the second He\nprotected what was most wounded.\" Thirdly, this position is against\nthe truth of the Incarnation. For flesh and the other parts of man\nreceive their species through the soul. Hence, if the soul is absent,\nthere are no bones nor flesh, except equivocally, as is plain from\nthe Philosopher (De Anima ii, 9; _Metaph._ vii, 34).\n\nReply Obj. 1: When we say, \"The Word was made flesh,\" \"flesh\" is\ntaken for the whole man, as if we were to say, \"The Word was made\nman,\" as Isa. 40:5: \"All flesh together shall see that the mouth of\nthe Lord hath spoken.\" And the whole man is signified by flesh,\nbecause, as is said in the authority quoted, the Son of God became\nvisible by flesh; hence it is subjoined: \"And we saw His glory.\" Or\nbecause, as Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 80), \"in all that union\nthe Word is the highest, and flesh the last and lowest. Hence,\nwishing to commend the love of God's humility to us, the Evangelist\nmentioned the Word and flesh, leaving the soul on one side, since it\nis less than the Word and nobler than flesh.\" Again, it was\nreasonable to mention flesh, which, as being farther away from the\nWord, was less assumable, as it would seem.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Word is the fountain of life, as the first\neffective cause of life; but the soul is the principle of the life of\nthe body, as its form. Now the form is the effect of the agent. Hence\nfrom the presence of the Word it might rather have been concluded\nthat the body was animated, just as from the presence of fire it may\nbe concluded that the body, in which fire adheres, is warm.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It is not unfitting, indeed it is necessary to say that\nin Christ there was a nature which was constituted by the soul coming\nto the body. But Damascene denied that in Jesus Christ there was a\ncommon species, i.e. a third something resulting from the Godhead and\nthe humanity.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 5, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Son of God Assumed a Human Mind or Intellect?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a human\nmind or intellect. For where a thing is present, its image is not\nrequired. But man is made to God's image, as regards his mind, as\nAugustine says (De Trin. xiv, 3, 6). Hence, since in Christ there was\nthe presence of the Divine Word itself, there was no need of a human\nmind.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the greater light dims the lesser. But the Word of\nGod, Who is \"the light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into\nthis world,\" as is written John 1:9, is compared to the mind as the\ngreater light to the lesser; since our mind is a light, being as it\nwere a lamp enkindled by the First Light (Prov. 20:27): \"The spirit\nof a man is the lamp of the Lord.\" Therefore in Christ Who is the\nWord of God, there is no need of a human mind.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the assumption of human nature by the Word of God is\ncalled His Incarnation. But the intellect or human mind is nothing\ncarnal, either in its substance or in its act, for it is not the act\nof a body, as is proved _De Anima_ iii, 6. Hence it would seem that\nthe Son of God did not assume a human mind.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad Petrum\nxiv): \"Firmly hold and nowise doubt that Christ the Son of God has\ntrue flesh and a rational soul of the same kind as ours, since of His\nflesh He says (Luke 24:39): 'Handle, and see; for a spirit hath not\nflesh and bones, as you see Me to have.' And He proves that He has a\nsoul, saying (John 17): 'I lay down My soul [Douay: 'life'] that I\nmay take it again.' And He proves that He has an intellect, saying\n(Matt. 11:29): 'Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart.'\nAnd God says of Him by the prophet (Isa. 52:13): 'Behold my servant\nshall understand.'\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Haeres. 49, 50), \"the\nApollinarists thought differently from the Catholic Church concerning\nthe soul of Christ, saying with the Arians, that Christ took flesh\nalone, without a soul; and on being overcome on this point by the\nGospel witness, they went on to say that the mind was wanting to\nChrist's soul, but that the Word supplied its place.\" But this\nposition is refuted by the same arguments as the preceding. First,\nbecause it runs counter to the Gospel story, which relates how He\nmarveled (as is plain from Matt. 8:10). Now marveling cannot be\nwithout reason, since it implies the collation of effect and cause,\ni.e. inasmuch as when we see an effect and are ignorant of its cause,\nwe seek to know it, as is said _Metaph._ i, 2. Secondly, it is\ninconsistent with the purpose of the Incarnation, which is the\njustification of man from sin. For the human soul is not capable of\nsin nor of justifying grace except through the mind. Hence it was\nespecially necessary for the mind to be assumed. Hence Damascene says\n(De Fide Orth. iii, 6) that \"the Word of God assumed a body and an\nintellectual and rational soul,\" and adds afterwards: \"The whole was\nunited to the whole, that He might bestow salvation on me wholly; for\nwhat was not assumed is not curable.\" Thirdly, it is against the\ntruth of the Incarnation. For since the body is proportioned to the\nsoul as matter to its proper form, it is not truly human flesh if it\nis not perfected by human, i.e. a rational soul. And hence if Christ\nhad had a soul without a mind, He would not have had true human\nflesh, but irrational flesh, since our soul differs from an animal\nsoul by the mind alone. Hence Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 80)\nthat from this error it would have followed that the Son of God \"took\nan animal with the form of a human body,\" which, again, is against\nthe Divine truth, which cannot suffer any fictitious untruth.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Where a thing is by its presence, its image is not\nrequired to supply the place of the thing, as where the emperor is\nthe soldiers do not pay homage to his image. Yet the image of a thing\nis required together with its presence, that it may be perfected by\nthe presence of the thing, just as the image in the wax is perfected\nby the impression of the seal, and as the image of man is reflected\nin the mirror by his presence. Hence in order to perfect the human\nmind it was necessary that the Word should unite it to Himself.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The greater light dims the lesser light of another\nluminous body; but it does not dim, rather it perfects the light of\nthe body illuminated--at the presence of the sun the light of the\nstars is put out, but the light of the air is perfected. Now the\nintellect or mind of man is, as it were, a light lit up by the light\nof the Divine Word; and hence by the presence of the Word the mind of\nman is perfected rather than overshadowed.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although the intellective power is not the act of a\nbody, nevertheless the essence of the human soul, which is the form\nof the body, requires that it should be more noble, in order that it\nmay have the power of understanding; and hence it is necessary that a\nbetter disposed body should correspond to it.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 6\n\nOF THE ORDER OF ASSUMPTION\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the order of the foregoing assumption, and under\nthis head there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the Son of God assumed flesh through the medium of the\nsoul?\n\n(2) Whether He assumed the soul through the medium of the spirit or\nmind?\n\n(3) Whether the soul was assumed previous to the flesh?\n\n(4) Whether the flesh of Christ was assumed by the Word previous to\nbeing united to the soul?\n\n(5) Whether the whole human nature was assumed through the medium of\nthe parts?\n\n(6) Whether it was assumed through the medium of grace?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Son of God Assumed Flesh Through the Medium of the Soul?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume flesh\nthrough the medium of the soul. For the mode in which the Son of God\nis united to human nature and its parts, is more perfect than the\nmode whereby He is in all creatures. But He is in all creatures\nimmediately by essence, power and presence. Much more, therefore, is\nthe Son of God united to flesh without the medium of the soul.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the soul and flesh are united to the Word of God in\nunity of hypostasis or person. But the body pertains immediately to\nthe human hypostasis or person, even as the soul. Indeed, the human\nbody, since it is matter, would rather seem to be nearer the\nhypostasis than the soul, which is a form, since the principle of\nindividuation, which is implied in the word \"hypostasis,\" would seem\nto be matter. Hence the Son of God did not assume flesh through the\nmedium of the soul.\n\nObj. 3: Further, take away the medium and you separate what were\njoined by the medium; for example, if the superficies be removed\ncolor would leave the body, since it adheres to the body through the\nmedium of the superficies. But though the soul was separated from the\nbody by death, yet there still remained the union of the Word to the\nflesh, as will be shown (Q. 50, AA. 2, 3). Hence the Word was not\njoined to flesh through the medium of the soul.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvi): \"The\ngreatness of the Divine power fitted to itself a rational soul, and\nthrough it a human body, so as to raise the whole man to something\nhigher.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A medium is in reference to a beginning and an end.\nHence as beginning and end imply order, so also does a medium. Now\nthere is a twofold order: one, of time; the other, of nature. But in\nthe mystery of the Incarnation nothing is said to be a medium in the\norder of time, for the Word of God united the whole human nature to\nHimself at the same time, as will appear (Q. 30, A. 3). An order of\nnature between things may be taken in two ways: first, as regards\nrank of dignity, as we say the angels are midway between man and God;\nsecondly, as regards the idea of causality, as we say a cause is\nmidway between the first cause and the last effect. And this second\norder follows the first to some extent; for as Dionysius says (Coel.\nHier. xiii), God acts upon the more remote substances through the\nless remote. Hence if we consider the rank of dignity, the soul is\nfound to be midway between God and flesh; and in this way it may be\nsaid that the Son of God united flesh to Himself, through the medium\nof the soul. But even as regards the second order of causality the\nsoul is to some extent the cause of flesh being united to the Son of\nGod. For the flesh would not have been assumable, except by its\nrelation to the rational soul, through which it becomes human flesh.\nFor it was said above (Q. 4, A. 1) that human nature was assumable\nbefore all others.\n\nReply Obj. 1: We may consider a twofold order between creatures and\nGod: the first is by reason of creatures being caused by God and\ndepending on Him as on the principle of their being; and thus on\naccount of the infinitude of His power God touches each thing\nimmediately, by causing and preserving it, and so it is that God is\nin all things by essence, presence and power. But the second order is\nby reason of things being directed to God as to their end; and it is\nhere that there is a medium between the creature and God, since lower\ncreatures are directed to God by higher, as Dionysius says (Eccl.\nHier. v); and to this order pertains the assumption of human nature\nby the Word of God, Who is the term of the assumption; and hence it\nis united to flesh through the soul.\n\nReply Obj. 2: If the hypostasis of the Word of God were constituted\nsimply by human nature, it would follow that the body was nearest to\nit, since it is matter which is the principle of individuation; even\nas the soul, being the specific form, would be nearer the human\nnature. But because the hypostasis of the Word is prior to and more\nexalted than the human nature, the more exalted any part of the human\nnature is, the nearer it is to the hypostasis of the Word. And hence\nthe soul is nearer the Word of God than the body is.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Nothing prevents one thing being the cause of the\naptitude and congruity of another, and yet if it be taken away the\nother remains; because although a thing's becoming may depend on\nanother, yet when it is in being it no longer depends on it, just as\na friendship brought about by some other may endure when the latter\nhas gone; or as a woman is taken in marriage on account of her\nbeauty, which makes a woman's fittingness for the marriage tie, yet\nwhen her beauty passes away, the marriage tie still remains. So\nlikewise, when the soul was separated, the union of the Word with\nflesh still endured.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Son of God Assumed a Soul Through the Medium of the\nSpirit or Mind?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God did not assume a soul\nthrough the medium of the spirit or mind. For nothing is a medium\nbetween itself and another. But the spirit is nothing else in essence\nbut the soul itself, as was said above (I, Q. 77, A. 1, ad 1).\nTherefore the Son of God did not assume a soul through the medium of\nthe spirit or mind.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what is the medium of the assumption is itself more\nassumable. But the spirit or mind is not more assumable than the\nsoul; which is plain from the fact that angelic spirits are not\nassumable, as was said above (Q. 4, A. 1). Hence it seems that the\nSon of God did not assume a soul through the medium of the spirit.\n\nObj. 3: Further, that which comes later is assumed by the first\nthrough the medium of what comes before. But the soul implies the\nvery essence, which naturally comes before its power--the mind.\nTherefore it would seem that the Son of God did not assume a soul\nthrough the medium of the spirit or mind.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xviii): \"The\ninvisible and unchangeable Truth took a soul by means of the spirit,\nand a body by means of the soul.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the Son of God is said to\nhave assumed flesh through the medium of the soul, on account of the\norder of dignity, and the congruity of the assumption. Now both these\nmay be applied to the intellect, which is called the spirit, if we\ncompare it with the other parts of the soul. For the soul is assumed\ncongruously only inasmuch as it has a capacity for God, being in His\nlikeness: which is in respect of the mind that is called the spirit,\naccording to Eph. 4:23: \"Be renewed in the spirit of your mind.\" So,\ntoo, the intellect is the highest and noblest of the parts of the\nsoul, and the most like to God, and hence Damascene says (De Fide\nOrth. iii, 6) that \"the Word of God is united to flesh through the\nmedium of the intellect; for the intellect is the purest part of the\nsoul, God Himself being an intellect.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although the intellect is not distinct from the soul in\nessence, it is distinct from the other parts of the soul as a power;\nand it is in this way that it has the nature of a medium.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Fitness for assumption is wanting to the angelic\nspirits, not from any lack of dignity, but because of the\nirremediableness of their fall, which cannot be said of the human\nspirit, as is clear from what has been said above (I, Q. 62, A. 8;\nFirst Part, Q. 64, A. 2).\n\nReply Obj. 3: The soul, between which and the Word of God the\nintellect is said to be a medium, does not stand for the essence of\nthe soul, which is common to all the powers, but for the lower\npowers, which are common to every soul.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Soul Was Assumed Before the Flesh by the Son of God?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ was assumed before\nthe flesh by the Word. For the Son of God assumed flesh through the\nmedium of the soul, as was said above (A. 1). Now the medium is\nreached before the end. Therefore the Son of God assumed the soul\nbefore the body.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the soul of Christ is nobler than the angels,\naccording to Ps. 96:8: \"Adore Him, all you His angels.\" But the\nangels were created in the beginning, as was said above (I, Q. 46, A.\n3). Therefore the soul of Christ also (was created in the beginning).\nBut it was not created before it was assumed, for Damascene says (De\nFide Orth. iii, 2, 3, 9), that \"neither the soul nor the body of\nChrist ever had any hypostasis save the hypostasis of the Word.\"\nTherefore it would seem that the soul was assumed before the flesh,\nwhich was conceived in the womb of the Virgin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (John 1:14): \"We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His\nglory'] full of grace and truth,\" and it is added afterwards that \"of\nHis fulness we have all received\" (John 1:16), i.e. all the faithful\nof all time, as Chrysostom expounds it (Hom. xiii in Joan.). Now this\ncould not have been unless the soul of Christ had all fulness of\ngrace and truth before all the saints, who were from the beginning of\nthe world, for the cause is not subsequent to the effect. Hence since\nthe fulness of grace and truth was in the soul of Christ from union\nwith the Word, according to what is written in the same place: \"We\nsaw His glory, the glory as it were of the Only-begotten of the\nFather, full of grace and truth,\" it would seem in consequence that\nfrom the beginning of the world the soul of Christ was assumed by the\nWord of God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 6): \"The\nintellect was not, as some untruthfully say, united to the true God,\nand henceforth called Christ, before the Incarnation which was of the\nVirgin.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Origen (Peri Archon i, 7, 8; ii, 8) maintained that\nall souls, amongst which he placed Christ's soul, were created in the\nbeginning. But this is not fitting, if we suppose that it was first\nof all created, but not at once joined to the Word, since it would\nfollow that this soul once had its proper subsistence without the\nWord; and thus, since it was assumed by the Word, either the union\ndid not take place in the subsistence, or the pre-existing\nsubsistence of the soul was corrupted. So likewise it is not fitting\nto suppose that this soul was united to the Word from the beginning,\nand that it afterwards became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin;\nfor thus His soul would not seem to be of the same nature as ours,\nwhich are created at the same time that they are infused into bodies.\nHence Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Julian. xxxv) that \"Christ's flesh was\nnot of a different nature to ours, nor was a different soul infused\ninto it in the beginning than into other men.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As was said above (A. 1), the soul of Christ is said to\nbe the medium in the union of the flesh with the Word, in the order\nof nature; but it does not follow from this that it was the medium in\nthe order of time.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Pope Leo says in the same Epistle, Christ's soul\nexcels our soul \"not by diversity of genus, but by sublimity of\npower\"; for it is of the same genus as our souls, yet excels even the\nangels in \"fulness of grace and truth.\" But the mode of creation is\nin harmony with the generic property of the soul; and since it is the\nform of the body, it is consequently created at the same time that it\nis infused into and united with the body; which does not happen to\nangels, since they are substances entirely free from matter.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Of the fulness of Christ all men receive according to\nthe faith they have in Him; for it is written (Rom. 3:22) that \"the\njustice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them\nthat believe in Him.\" Now just as we believe in Him as already born;\nso the ancients believed in Him as about to be born, since \"having\nthe same spirit of faith . . . we also believe,\" as it is written (2\nCor. 4:13). But the faith which is in Christ has the power of\njustifying by reason of the purpose of the grace of God, according to\nRom. 4:5: \"But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that\njustifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice according to\nthe purpose of the grace of God.\" Hence because this purpose is\neternal, there is nothing to hinder some from being justified by the\nfaith of Jesus Christ, even before His soul was full of grace and\ntruth.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Flesh of Christ Was Assumed by the Word Before Being\nUnited to the Soul?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the flesh of Christ was assumed by\nthe Word before being united to the soul. For Augustine [*Fulgentius]\nsays (De Fide ad Petrum xviii): \"Most firmly hold, and nowise doubt\nthat the flesh of Christ was not conceived in the womb of the Virgin\nwithout the Godhead before it was assumed by the Word.\" But the flesh\nof Christ would seem to have been conceived before being united to\nthe rational soul, because matter or disposition is prior to the\ncompletive form in order of generation. Therefore the flesh of Christ\nwas assumed before being united to the soul.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as the soul is a part of human nature, so is the\nbody. But the human soul in Christ had no other principle of being\nthan in other men, as is clear from the authority of Pope Leo, quoted\nabove (A. 3). Therefore it would seem that the body of Christ had no\nother principle of being than we have. But in us the body is begotten\nbefore the rational soul comes to it. Therefore it was the same in\nChrist; and thus the flesh was assumed by the Word before being\nunited to the soul.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as is said (De Causis), the first cause excels the\nsecond in bringing about the effect, and precedes it in its union\nwith the effect. But the soul of Christ is compared to the Word as a\nsecond cause to a first. Hence the Word was united to the flesh\nbefore it was to the soul.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2): \"At the\nsame time the Word of God was made flesh, and flesh was united to a\nrational and intellectual soul.\" Therefore the union of the Word with\nthe flesh did not precede the union with the soul.\n\n_I answer that,_ The human flesh is assumable by the Word on account\nof the order which it has to the rational soul as to its proper form.\nNow it has not this order before the rational soul comes to it,\nbecause when any matter becomes proper to any form, at the same time\nit receives that form; hence the alteration is terminated at the same\ninstant in which the substantial form is introduced. And hence it is\nthat the flesh ought not to have been assumed before it was human\nflesh; and this happened when the rational soul came to it. Therefore\nsince the soul was not assumed before the flesh, inasmuch as it is\nagainst the nature of the soul to be before it is united to the body,\nso likewise the flesh ought not to have been assumed before the soul,\nsince it is not human flesh before it has a rational soul.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Human flesh depends upon the soul for its being; and\nhence, before the coming of the soul, there is no human flesh, but\nthere may be a disposition towards human flesh. Yet in the conception\nof Christ, the Holy Ghost, Who is an agent of infinite might,\ndisposed the matter and brought it to its perfection at the same time.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The form actually gives the species; but the matter in\nitself is in potentiality to the species. And hence it would be\nagainst the nature of a form to exist before the specific nature. And\ntherefore the dissimilarity between our origin and Christ's origin,\ninasmuch as we are conceived before being animated, and Christ's\nflesh is not, is by reason of what precedes the perfection of the\nnature, viz. that we are conceived from the seed of man, and Christ\nis not. But a difference which would be with reference to the origin\nof the soul, would bespeak a diversity of nature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Word of God is understood to be united to the flesh\nbefore the soul by the common mode whereby He is in the rest of\ncreatures by essence, power, and presence. Yet I say \"before,\" not in\ntime, but in nature; for the flesh is understood as a being, which it\nhas from the Word, before it is understood as animated, which it has\nfrom the soul. But by the personal union we understand the flesh as\nunited to the soul before it is united to the Word, for it is from\nits union with the soul that it is capable of being united to the\nWord in Person; especially since a person is found only in the\nrational nature.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Whole Human Nature Was Assumed Through the Medium of the\nParts?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God assumed the whole\nhuman nature through the medium of its parts. For Augustine says (De\nAgone Christ. xviii) that \"the invisible and unchangeable Truth\nassumed the soul through the medium of the spirit, and the body\nthrough the medium of the soul, and in this way the whole man.\" But\nthe spirit, soul, and body are parts of the whole man. Therefore He\nassumed all, through the medium of the parts.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Son of God assumed flesh through the medium of\nthe soul because the soul is more like to God than the body. But the\nparts of human nature, since they are simpler than the body, would\nseem to be more like to God, Who is most simple, than the whole.\nTherefore He assumed the whole through the medium of the parts.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the whole results from the union of parts. But the\nunion is taken to be the term of the assumption, and the parts are\npresupposed to the assumption. Therefore He assumed the whole by the\nparts.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 16): \"In our\nLord Jesus Christ we do not behold parts of parts, but such as are\nimmediately joined, i.e. the Godhead and the manhood.\" Now the\nhumanity is a whole, which is composed of soul and body, as parts.\nTherefore the Son of God assumed the parts through the medium of the\nwhole.\n\n_I answer that,_ When anything is said to be a medium in the\nassumption of the Incarnation, we do not signify order of time,\nbecause the assumption of the whole and the parts was simultaneous.\nFor it has been shown (AA. 3, 4) that the soul and body were mutually\nunited at the same time in order to constitute the human nature of\nthe Word. But it is order of nature that is signified. Hence by what\nis prior in nature, that is assumed which is posterior in nature. Now\na thing is prior in nature in two ways: First on the part of the\nagent, secondly on the part of the matter; for these two causes\nprecede the thing. On the part of the agent--that is simply first,\nwhich is first included in his intention; but that is relatively\nfirst, with which his operation begins--and this because the\nintention is prior to the operation. On the part of the matter--that\nis first which exists first in the transmutation of the matter. Now\nin the Incarnation the order depending on the agent must be\nparticularly considered, because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad\nVolusianum cxxxvii), \"in such things the whole reason of the deed is\nthe power of the doer.\" But it is manifest that, according to the\nintention of the doer, what is complete is prior to what is\nincomplete, and, consequently, the whole to the parts. Hence it must\nbe said that the Word of God assumed the parts of human nature,\nthrough the medium of the whole; for even as He assumed the body on\naccount of its relation to the rational soul, so likewise He assumed\na body and soul on account of their relation to human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: From these words nothing may be gathered, except that\nthe Word, by assuming the parts of human nature, assumed the whole\nhuman nature. And thus the assumption of parts is prior in the order\nof the intellect, if we consider the operation, but not in order of\ntime; whereas the assumption of the nature is prior if we consider\nthe intention: and this is to be simply first, as was said above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: God is so simple that He is also most perfect; and\nhence the whole is more like to God than the parts, inasmuch as it is\nmore perfect.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It is a personal union wherein the assumption is\nterminated, not a union of nature, which springs from a conjunction\nof parts.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 6, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Human Nature Was Assumed Through the Medium of Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God assumed human nature\nthrough the medium of grace. For by grace we are united to God. But\nthe human nature in Christ was most closely united to God. Therefore\nthe union took place by grace.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as the body lives by the soul, which is its\nperfection, so does the soul by grace. But the human nature was\nfitted for the assumption by the soul. Therefore the Son of God\nassumed the soul through the medium of grace.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 11) that the incarnate\nWord is like our spoken word. But our word is united to our speech by\nmeans of _breathing_ (_spiritus_). Therefore the Word of God is\nunited to flesh by means of the Holy Spirit, and hence by means of\ngrace, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit, according to 1 Cor.\n12:4: \"Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Grace is an accident in the soul, as was shown\nabove (I-II, Q. 110, A. 2). Now the union of the Word with human\nnature took place in the subsistence, and not accidentally, as was\nshown above (Q. 2, A. 6). Therefore the human nature was not assumed\nby means of grace.\n\n_I answer that,_ In Christ there was the grace of union and habitual\ngrace. Therefore grace cannot be taken to be the medium of the\nassumption of the human nature, whether we speak of the grace of\nunion or of habitual grace. For the grace of union is the personal\nbeing that is given gratis from above to the human nature in the\nPerson of the Word, and is the term of the assumption. Whereas the\nhabitual grace pertaining to the spiritual holiness of the man is an\neffect following the union, according to John 1:14: \"We saw His glory\n. . . as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace\nand truth\"--by which we are given to understand that because this Man\n(as a result of the union) is the Only-begotten of the Father, He is\nfull of grace and truth. But if by grace we understand the will of\nGod doing or bestowing something gratis, the union took place by\ngrace, not as a means, but as the efficient cause.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Our union with God is by operation, inasmuch as we know\nand love Him; and hence this union is by habitual grace, inasmuch as\na perfect operation proceeds from a habit. Now the union of the human\nnature with the Word of God is in personal being, which depends not\non any habit, but on the nature itself.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The soul is the substantial perfection of the body;\ngrace is but an accidental perfection of the soul. Hence grace cannot\nordain the soul to personal union, which is not accidental, as the\nsoul ordains the body.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Our word is united to our speech, by means of breathing\n(_spiritus_), not as a formal medium, but as a moving medium. For\nfrom the word conceived within, the breathing proceeds, from which\nthe speech is formed. And similarly from the eternal Word proceeds\nthe Holy Spirit, Who formed the body of Christ, as will be shown (Q.\n32, A. 1). But it does not follow from this that the grace of the\nHoly Spirit is the formal medium in the aforesaid union.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 7\n\nOF THE GRACE OF CHRIST AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAN\n(In Thirteen Articles)\n\nWe must now consider such things as were co-assumed by the Son of God\nin human nature; and first what belongs to perfection; secondly, what\nbelongs to defect.\n\nConcerning the first, there are three points of consideration: (1) The\ngrace of Christ; (2) His knowledge; (3) His power.\n\nWith regard to His grace we must consider two things: (1) His grace as\nHe is an individual man; (2) His grace as He is the Head of the\nChurch. Of the grace of union we have already spoken (Q. 2).\n\nUnder the first head there are thirteen points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether in the soul of Christ there was any habitual grace?\n\n(2) Whether in Christ there were virtues?\n\n(3) Whether He had faith?\n\n(4) Whether He had hope?\n\n(5) Whether in Christ there were the gifts?\n\n(6) Whether in Christ there was the gift of fear?\n\n(7) Whether in Christ there were any gratuitous graces?\n\n(8) Whether in Christ there was prophecy?\n\n(9) Whether there was the fulness of grace in Him?\n\n(10) Whether such fulness was proper to Christ?\n\n(11) Whether the grace of Christ was infinite?\n\n(12) Whether it could have been increased?\n\n(13) How this grace stood towards the union?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 1]\n\nWhether in the Soul of Christ There Was Any Habitual Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem there was no habitual grace in the soul\nassumed by the Word. For grace is a certain partaking of the Godhead\nby the rational creature, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: \"By Whom He hath\ngiven us most great and precious promises, that by these you may be\nmade partakers of the Divine Nature.\" Now Christ is God not by\nparticipation, but in truth. Therefore there was no habitual grace in\nHim.\n\nObj. 2: Further, grace is necessary to man, that he may operate well,\naccording to 1 Cor. 15:10: \"I have labored more abundantly than all\nthey; yet not I, but the grace of God with me\"; and in order that he\nmay reach eternal life, according to Rom. 6:23: \"The grace of God\n(is) life everlasting.\" Now the inheritance of everlasting life was\ndue to Christ by the mere fact of His being the natural Son of God;\nand by the fact of His being the Word, by Whom all things were made,\nHe had the power of doing all things well. Therefore His human nature\nneeded no further grace beyond union with the Word.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what operates as an instrument does not need a habit\nfor its own operations, since habits are rooted in the principal\nagent. Now the human nature in Christ was \"as the instrument of the\nGodhead,\" as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15). Therefore there\nwas no need of habitual grace in Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 11:2): \"The Spirit of the Lord\nshall rest upon Him\"--which (Spirit), indeed, is said to be in man by\nhabitual grace, as was said above (I, Q. 8, A. 3; Q. 43, AA. 3, 6).\nTherefore there was habitual grace in Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ It is necessary to suppose habitual grace in Christ\nfor three reasons. First, on account of the union of His soul with\nthe Word of God. For the nearer any recipient is to an inflowing\ncause, the more does it partake of its influence. Now the influx of\ngrace is from God, according to Ps. 83:12: \"The Lord will give grace\nand glory.\" And hence it was most fitting that His soul should\nreceive the influx of Divine grace. Secondly, on account of the\ndignity of this soul, whose operations were to attain so closely to\nGod by knowledge and love, to which it is necessary for human nature\nto be raised by grace. Thirdly, on account of the relation of Christ\nto the human race. For Christ, as man, is the \"Mediator of God and\nmen,\" as is written, 1 Tim. 2:5; and hence it behooved Him to have\ngrace which would overflow upon others, according to John 1:16: \"And\nof His fulness we have all received, and grace for grace.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ is the true God in Divine Person and Nature. Yet\nbecause together with unity of person there remains distinction of\nnatures, as stated above (Q. 2, AA. 1, 2), the soul of Christ is not\nessentially Divine. Hence it behooves it to be Divine by\nparticipation, which is by grace.\n\nReply Obj. 2: To Christ, inasmuch as He is the natural Son of God, is\ndue an eternal inheritance, which is the uncreated beatitude through\nthe uncreated act of knowledge and love of God, i.e. the same whereby\nthe Father knows and loves Himself. Now the soul was not capable of\nthis act, on account of the difference of natures. Hence it behooved\nit to attain to God by a created act of fruition which could not be\nwithout grace. Likewise, inasmuch as He was the Word of God, He had\nthe power of doing all things well by the Divine operation. And\nbecause it is necessary to admit a human operation, distinct from the\nDivine operation, as will be shown (Q. 19, A. 1), it was necessary\nfor Him to have habitual grace, whereby this operation might be\nperfect in Him.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The humanity of Christ is the instrument of the\nGodhead--not, indeed, an inanimate instrument, which nowise acts, but\nis merely acted upon; but an instrument animated by a rational soul,\nwhich is so acted upon as to act. And hence the nature of the action\ndemanded that he should have habitual grace.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 2]\n\nWhether in Christ There Were Virtues?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there were no virtues. For\nChrist had the plenitude of grace. Now grace is sufficient for every\ngood act, according to 2 Cor. 12:9: \"My grace is sufficient for\nthee.\" Therefore there were no virtues in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 1), virtue\nis contrasted with a \"certain heroic or godlike habit\" which is\nattributed to godlike men. But this belongs chiefly to Christ.\nTherefore Christ had not virtues, but something higher than virtue.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as was said above (I-II, Q. 65, AA. 1, 2), all the\nvirtues are bound together. But it was not becoming for Christ to\nhave all the virtues, as is clear in the case of liberality and\nmagnificence, for these have to do with riches, which Christ spurned,\naccording to Matt. 8:20: \"The Son of man hath not where to lay His\nhead.\" Temperance and continence also regard wicked desires, from\nwhich Christ was free. Therefore Christ had not the virtues.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on Ps. 1:2, \"But His will is in the law of the\nLord,\"    a gloss says: \"This refers to Christ, Who is full of all\ngood.\" But a good quality of the mind is a virtue. Therefore Christ\nwas full of all virtue.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 110, AA. 3, 4), as grace\nregards the essence of the soul, so does virtue regard its power.\nHence it is necessary that as the powers of the soul flow from its\nessence, so do the virtues flow from grace. Now the more perfect a\nprinciple is, the more it impresses its effects. Hence, since the\ngrace of Christ was most perfect, there flowed from it, in\nconsequence, the virtues which perfect the several powers of the soul\nfor all the soul's acts; and thus Christ had all the virtues.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Grace suffices a man for all whereby he is ordained to\nbeatitude; nevertheless, it effects some of these by itself--as to\nmake him pleasing to God, and the like; and some others through the\nmedium of the virtues which proceed from grace.\n\nReply Obj. 2: A heroic or godlike habit only differs from\nvirtue commonly so called by a more perfect mode, inasmuch as one is\ndisposed to good in a higher way than is common to all. Hence it is\nnot hereby proved that Christ had not the virtues, but that He had\nthem most perfectly beyond the common mode. In this sense Plotinus\ngave to a certain sublime degree of virtue the name of \"virtue of the\npurified soul\" (cf. I-II, Q. 61, A. 5).\n\nReply Obj. 3: Liberality and magnificence are praiseworthy in\nregard to riches, inasmuch as anyone does not esteem wealth to the\nextent of wishing to retain it, so as to forego what ought to be done.\nBut he esteems them least who wholly despises them, and casts them\naside for love of perfection. And hence by altogether contemning all\nriches, Christ showed the highest kind of liberality and magnificence;\nalthough He also performed the act of liberality, as far as it became\nHim, by causing to be distributed to the poor what was given to\nHimself. Hence, when our Lord said to Judas (John 13:21), \"That which\nthou dost do quickly,\" the disciples understood our Lord to have\nordered him to give something to the poor. But Christ had no evil\ndesires whatever, as will be shown (Q. 15, AA. 1, 2); yet He was\nnot thereby prevented from having temperance, which is the more\nperfect in man, as he is without evil desires. Hence, according to the\nPhilosopher (Ethic. vii, 9), the temperate man differs from the\ncontinent in this--that the temperate has not the evil desires which\nthe continent suffers. Hence, taking continence in this sense, as the\nPhilosopher takes it, Christ, from the very fact that He had all\nvirtue, had not continence, since it is not a virtue, but something\nless than virtue.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 3]\n\nWhether in Christ There Was Faith?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was faith in Christ. For faith\nis a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, e.g. temperance and\nliberality. Now these were in Christ, as stated above (A. 2). Much\nmore, therefore, was there faith in Him.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ did not teach virtues which He had not\nHimself, according to Acts 1:1: \"Jesus began to do and to teach.\" But\nof Christ it is said (Heb. 12:2) that He is \"the author and finisher\nof our faith.\" Therefore there was faith in Him before all others.\n\nObj. 3: Further, everything imperfect is excluded from the blessed.\nBut in the blessed there is faith; for on Rom. 1:17, \"the justice of\nGod is revealed therein from faith to faith,\" a gloss says: \"From the\nfaith of words and hope to the faith of things and sight.\" Therefore\nit would seem that in Christ also there was faith, since it implies\nnothing imperfect.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 11:1): \"Faith is the evidence\nof things that appear not.\" But there was nothing that did not appear\nto Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (John 21:17): \"Thou\nknowest all things.\" Therefore there was no faith in Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (II-II, Q. 1, A. 4), the object of\nfaith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every\nother habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny\nthat the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of\nfaith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God's\nEssence fully, as will be made clear (Q. 34, A. 1). Hence there could\nbe no faith in Him.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Faith is a nobler virtue than the moral virtues, seeing\nthat it has to do with nobler matter; nevertheless, it implies a\ncertain defect with regard to that matter; and this defect was not in\nChrist. And hence there could be no faith in Him, although the moral\nvirtues were in Him, since in their nature they imply no defect with\nregard to their matter.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The merit of faith consists in this--that man through\nobedience assents to what things he does not see, according to Rom.\n1:5: \"For obedience to the faith in all nations for His name.\" Now\nChrist had most perfect obedience to God, according to Phil. 2:8:\n\"Becoming obedient unto death.\" And hence He taught nothing\npertaining to merit which He did not fulfil more perfectly Himself.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As a gloss says in the same place, faith is that\n\"whereby such things as are not seen are believed.\" But faith in\nthings seen is improperly so called, and only after a certain\nsimilitude with regard to the certainty and firmness of the assent.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7. Art. 4]\n\nWhether in Christ There Was Hope?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was hope in Christ. For it is\nsaid in the Person of Christ (Ps. 30:1): \"In Thee, O Lord, have I\nhoped.\" But the virtue of hope is that whereby a man hopes in God.\nTherefore the virtue of hope was in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, hope is the expectation of the bliss to come, as was\nshown above (II-II, Q. 17, A. 5, ad 3). But Christ awaited something\npertaining to bliss, viz. the glorifying of His body. Therefore it\nseems there was hope in Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, everyone may hope for what pertains to his\nperfection, if it has yet to come. But there was something still to\ncome pertaining to Christ's perfection, according to Eph. 4:12: \"For\nthe perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the\nbuilding up [Douay: 'edifying'] of the body of Christ.\" Hence it\nseems that it befitted Christ to have hope.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 8:24): \"What a man seeth, why\ndoth he hope for?\" Thus it is clear that as faith is of the unseen,\nso also is hope. But there was no faith in Christ, as was said above\n(A. 1): neither, consequently, was there hope.\n\n_I answer that,_ As it is of the nature of faith that one assents to\nwhat one sees not, so is it of the nature of hope that one expects\nwhat as yet one has not; and as faith, forasmuch as it is a\ntheological virtue, does not regard everything unseen, but only God;\nso likewise hope, as a theological virtue, has God Himself for its\nobject, the fruition of Whom man chiefly expects by the virtue of\nhope; yet, in consequence, whoever has the virtue of hope may expect\nthe Divine aid in other things, even as he who has the virtue of\nfaith believes God not only in Divine things, but even in whatsoever\nis divinely revealed. Now from the beginning of His conception Christ\nhad the Divine fruition fully, as will be shown (Q. 34, A. 4), and\nhence he had not the virtue of hope. Nevertheless He had hope as\nregards such things as He did not yet possess, although He had not\nfaith with regard to anything; because, although He knew all things\nfully, wherefore faith was altogether wanting to Him, nevertheless He\ndid not as yet fully possess all that pertained to His perfection,\nviz. immortality and glory of the body, which He could hope for.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This is said of Christ with reference to hope, not as a\ntheological virtue, but inasmuch as He hoped for some other things\nnot yet possessed, as was said above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The glory of the body does not pertain to beatitude as\nbeing that in which beatitude principally consists, but by a certain\noutpouring from the soul's glory, as was said above (I-II, Q. 4, A.\n6). Hence hope, as a theological virtue, does not regard the bliss of\nthe body but the soul's bliss, which consists in the Divine fruition.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The building up of the church by the conversion of the\nfaithful does not pertain to the perfection of Christ, whereby He is\nperfect in Himself, but inasmuch as it leads others to a share of His\nperfection. And because hope properly regards what is expected by him\nwho hopes, the virtue of hope cannot properly be said to be in\nChrist, because of the aforesaid reason.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 5]\n\nWhether in Christ There Were the Gifts?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the gifts were not in Christ. For, as\nis commonly said, the gifts are given to help the virtues. But what\nis perfect in itself does not need an exterior help. Therefore, since\nthe virtues of Christ were perfect, it seems there were no gifts in\nHim.\n\nObj. 2: Further, to give and to receive gifts would not seem to\nbelong to the same; since to give pertains to one who has, and to\nreceive pertains to one who has not. But it belongs to Christ to give\ngifts according to Ps. 67:19. \"Thou hast given gifts to men [Vulg.:\n'Thou hast received gifts in men'].\" Therefore it was not becoming\nthat Christ should receive gifts of the Holy Ghost.\n\nObj. 3: Further, four gifts would seem to pertain to the\ncontemplation of earth, viz. wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and\ncounsel which pertains to prudence; hence the Philosopher (Ethic. vi,\n3) enumerates these with the intellectual virtues. But Christ had the\ncontemplation of heaven. Therefore He had not these gifts.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 4:1): \"Seven women shall take\nhold of one man\": on which a gloss says: \"That is, the seven gifts of\nthe Holy Ghost shall take hold of Christ.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 68, A. 1), the gifts,\nproperly, are certain perfections of the soul's powers, inasmuch as\nthese have a natural aptitude to be moved by the Holy Ghost,\naccording to Luke 4:1: \"And Jesus, being full of the Holy Ghost,\nreturned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the desert.\"\nHence it is manifest that in Christ the gifts were in a pre-eminent\ndegree.\n\nReply Obj. 1: What is perfect in the order of its nature needs to be\nhelped by something of a higher nature; as man, however perfect,\nneeds to be helped by God. And in this way the virtues, which perfect\nthe powers of the soul, as they are controlled by reason, no matter\nhow perfect they are, need to be helped by the gifts, which perfect\nthe soul's powers, inasmuch as these are moved by the Holy Ghost.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ is not a recipient and a giver of the gifts of\nthe Holy Ghost, in the same respect; for He gives them as God and\nreceives them as man. Hence Gregory says (Moral. ii) that \"the Holy\nGhost never quitted the human nature of Christ, from Whose Divine\nnature He proceedeth.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: In Christ there was not only heavenly knowledge, but\nalso earthly knowledge, as will be said (Q. 15, A. 10). And yet even\nin heaven the gifts of the Holy Ghost will still exist, in a certain\nmanner, as was said above (I-II, Q. 68, A. 6).\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 6]\n\nWhether in Christ There Was the Gift of Fear?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of\nfear. For hope would seem to be stronger than fear; since the object\nof hope is goodness, and of fear, evil, as was said above (I-II, Q.\n40, A. 1; I-II, Q. 42, A. 1). But in Christ there was not the virtue\nof hope, as was said above (A. 4). Hence, likewise, there was not the\ngift of fear in Him.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by the gift of fear we fear either to be separated\nfrom God, which pertains to _chaste_ fear--or to be punished by Him,\nwhich pertains to _servile_ fear, as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract.\nix). But Christ did not fear being separated from God by sin, nor\nbeing punished by Him on account of a fault, since it was impossible\nfor Him to sin, as will be said (Q. 15, AA. 1, 2). Now fear is not of\nthe impossible. Therefore in Christ there was not the gift of fear.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (1 John 4:18) that \"perfect charity\ncasteth out fear.\" But in Christ there was most perfect charity,\naccording to Eph. 3:19: \"The charity of Christ which surpasseth all\nknowledge.\" Therefore in Christ there was not the gift of fear.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 11:3): \"And He shall be filled\nwith the spirit of the fear of the Lord.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 42, A. 1), fear regards\ntwo objects, one of which is an evil causing terror; the other is\nthat by whose power an evil can be inflicted, as we fear the king\ninasmuch as he has the power of putting to death. Now whoever can\nhurt would not be feared unless he had a certain greatness of might,\nto which resistance could not easily be offered; for what we easily\nrepel we do not fear. And hence it is plain that no one is feared\nexcept for some pre-eminence. And in this way it is said that in\nChrist there was the fear of God, not indeed as it regards the evil\nof separation from God by fault, nor as it regards the evil of\npunishment for fault; but inasmuch as it regards the Divine\npre-eminence, on account of which the soul of Christ, led by the Holy\nSpirit, was borne towards God in an act of reverence. Hence it is\nsaid (Heb. 5:7) that in all things \"he was heard for his reverence.\"\nFor Christ as man had this act of reverence towards God in a fuller\nsense and beyond all others. And hence Scripture attributes to Him\nthe fulness of the fear of the Lord.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The habits of virtues and gifts regard goodness\nproperly and of themselves; but evil, consequently; since it pertains\nto the nature of virtue to render acts good, as is said _Ethic._ ii,\n6. And hence the nature of the gift of fear regards not that evil\nwhich fear is concerned with, but the pre-eminence of that goodness,\nviz. of God, by Whose power evil may be inflicted. On the other hand,\nhope, as a virtue, regards not only the author of good, but even the\ngood itself, as far as it is not yet possessed. And hence to Christ,\nWho already possessed the perfect good of beatitude, we do not\nattribute the virtue of hope, but we do attribute the gift of fear.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This reason is based on fear in so far as it regards\nthe evil object.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Perfect charity casts out servile fear, which\nprincipally regards punishment. But this kind of fear was not in\nChrist.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Gratuitous Graces Were in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the gratuitous graces were not in\nChrist. For whoever has anything in its fulness, to him it does not\npertain to have it by participation. Now Christ has grace in its\nfulness, according to John 1:14: \"Full of grace and truth.\" But the\ngratuitous graces would seem to be certain participations, bestowed\ndistributively and particularly upon divers subjects, according to 1\nCor. 12:4: \"Now there are diversities of graces.\" Therefore it would\nseem that there were no gratuitous graces in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what is due to anyone would not seem to be\ngratuitously bestowed on him. But it was due to the man Christ that\nHe should abound in the word of wisdom and knowledge, and to be\nmighty in doing wonderful works and the like, all of which pertain to\ngratuitous graces: since He is \"the power of God and the wisdom of\nGod,\" as is written 1 Cor. 1:24. Therefore it was not fitting for\nChrist to have the gratuitous graces.\n\nObj. 3: Further, gratuitous graces are ordained to the benefit of the\nfaithful. But it does not seem that a habit which a man does not use\nis for the benefit of others, according to Ecclus. 20:32: \"Wisdom\nthat is hid and treasure that is not seen: what profit is there in\nthem both?\" Now we do not read that Christ made use of these\ngratuitously given graces, especially as regards the gift of tongues.\nTherefore not all the gratuitous graces were in Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan. cclxxxvii) that \"as\nin the head are all the senses, so in Christ were all the graces.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (I-II, Q. 3, AA. 1, 4), the\ngratuitous graces are ordained for the manifestation of faith and\nspiritual doctrine. For it behooves him who teaches to have the means\nof making his doctrine clear; otherwise his doctrine would be\nuseless. Now Christ is the first and chief teacher of spiritual\ndoctrine and faith, according to Heb. 2:3, 4: \"Which having begun to\nbe declared by the Lord was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him,\nGod also bearing them witness by signs and wonders.\" Hence it is\nclear that all the gratuitous graces were most excellently in Christ,\nas in the first and chief teacher of the faith.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As sanctifying grace is ordained to meritorious acts\nboth interior and exterior, so likewise gratuitous grace is ordained\nto certain exterior acts manifestive of the faith, as the working of\nmiracles, and the like. Now of both these graces Christ had the\nfulness, since inasmuch as His soul was united to the Godhead, He had\nthe perfect power of effecting all these acts. But other saints who\nare moved by God as separated and not united instruments, receive\npower in a particular manner in order to bring about this or that\nact. And hence in other saints these graces are divided, but not in\nChrist.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ is said to be the power of God and the wisdom of\nGod, inasmuch as He is the Eternal Son of God. But in this respect it\ndoes not pertain to Him to have grace, but rather to be the bestower\nof grace; but it pertains to Him in His human nature to have grace.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The gift of tongues was bestowed on the apostles,\nbecause they were sent to teach all nations; but Christ wished to\npreach personally only in the one nation of the Jews, as He Himself\nsays (Matt. 15:24): \"I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of\nthe house of Israel\"; and the Apostle says (Rom. 15:8): \"I say that\nChrist Jesus was minister of the circumcision.\" And hence it was not\nnecessary for Him to speak several languages. Yet was a knowledge of\nall languages not wanting to Him, since even the secrets of hearts,\nof which all words are signs, were not hidden from Him, as will be\nshown (Q. 10, A. 2). Nor was this knowledge uselessly possessed, just\nas it is not useless to have a habit, which we do not use when there\nis no occasion.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 8]\n\nWhether in Christ There Was the Gift of Prophecy?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the gift of\nprophecy. For prophecy implies a certain obscure and imperfect\nknowledge, according to Num. 12:6: \"If there be among you a prophet\nof the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him\nin a dream.\" But Christ had full and unveiled knowledge, much more\nthan Moses, of whom it is subjoined that \"plainly and not by riddles\nand figures doth he see God\" (Num. 6:8). Therefore we ought not to\nadmit prophecy in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as faith has to do with what is not seen, and hope\nwith what is not possessed, so prophecy has to do with what is not\npresent, but distant; for a prophet means, as it were, a teller of\nfar-off things. But in Christ there could be neither faith nor hope,\nas was said above (AA. 3, 4). Hence prophecy also ought not to be\nadmitted in Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a prophet is in an inferior order to an angel; hence\nMoses, who was the greatest of the prophets, as was said above\n(II-II, Q. 174, A. 4) is said (Acts 7:38) to have spoken with an\nangel in the desert. But Christ was \"made lower than the angels,\" not\nas to the knowledge of His soul, but only as regards the sufferings\nof His body, as is shown Heb. 2:9. Therefore it seems that Christ was\nnot a prophet.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written of Him (Deut. 18:15): \"Thy God will\nraise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren,\" and He\nsays of Himself (Matt. 13:57; John 4:44): \"A prophet is not without\nhonor, save in his own country.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A prophet means, as it were, a teller or seer of\nfar-off things, inasmuch as he knows and announces what things are\nfar from men's senses, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xvi, 18). Now\nwe must bear in mind that no one can be called a prophet for knowing\nand announcing what is distant from others, with whom he is not. And\nthis is clear in regard to place and time. For if anyone living in\nFrance were to know and announce to others living in France what\nthings were transpiring in Syria, it would be prophetical, as Eliseus\ntold Giezi (4 Kings 5:26) how the man had leaped down from his\nchariot to meet him. But if anyone living in Syria were to announce\nwhat things were there, it would not be prophetical. And the same\nappears in regard to time. For it was prophetical of Isaias to\nannounce that Cyrus, King of the Persians, would rebuild the temple\nof God, as is clear from Isa. 44:28. But it was not prophetical of\nEsdras to write it, in whose time it took place. Hence if God or\nangels, or even the blessed, know and announce what is beyond our\nknowing, this does not pertain to prophecy, since they nowise touch\nour state. Now Christ before His passion touched our state, inasmuch\nas He was not merely a \"comprehensor,\" but a \"wayfarer.\" Hence it was\nprophetical in Him to know and announce what was beyond the knowledge\nof other \"wayfarers\": and for this reason He is called a prophet.\n\nReply Obj. 1: These words do not prove that enigmatical knowledge,\nviz. by dream and vision, belongs to the nature of prophecy; but the\ncomparison is drawn between other prophets, who saw Divine things in\ndreams and visions, and Moses, who saw God plainly and not by\nriddles, and who yet is called a prophet, according to Deut. 24:10:\n\"And there arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses.\"\nNevertheless it may be said that although Christ had full and\nunveiled knowledge as regards the intellective part, yet in the\nimaginative part He had certain similitudes, in which Divine things\ncould be viewed, inasmuch as He was not only a \"comprehensor,\" but a\n\"wayfarer.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Faith regards such things as are unseen by him who\nbelieves; and hope, too, is of such things as are not possessed by\nthe one who hopes; but prophecy is of such things as are beyond the\nsense of men, with whom the prophet dwells and converses in this\nstate of life. And hence faith and hope are repugnant to the\nperfection of Christ's beatitude; but prophecy is not.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Angels, being \"comprehensors,\" are above prophets, who\nare merely \"wayfarers\"; but not above Christ, Who was both a\n\"comprehensor\" and a \"wayfarer.\"\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 9]\n\nWhether in Christ There Was the Fulness of Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the fulness\nof grace. For the virtues flow from grace, as was said above (I-II,\nQ. 110, A. 4). But in Christ there were not all the virtues; for\nthere was neither faith nor hope in Him, as was shown above (AA. 3,\n4). Therefore in Christ there was not the fulness of grace.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as is plain from what was said above (I-II, Q. 111,\nA. 2), grace is divided into operating and cooperating. Now operating\ngrace signifies that whereby the ungodly is justified, which has no\nplace in Christ, Who never lay under any sin. Therefore in Christ\nthere was not the fulness of grace.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (James 1:17): \"Every best gift and\nevery perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of\nlights.\" But what comes thus is possessed partially, and not fully.\nTherefore no creature, not even the soul of Christ, can have the\nfulness of the gifts of grace.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:14): \"We saw Him [Vulg.:\n'His glory'] full of grace and truth.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ To have fully is to have wholly and perfectly. Now\ntotality and perfection can be taken in two ways: First as regards\ntheir _intensive_ quantity; for instance, I may say that some man has\nwhiteness fully, because he has as much of it as can naturally be in\nhim; secondly, _as regards power_; for instance, if anyone be said to\nhave life fully, inasmuch as he has it in all the effects or works of\nlife; and thus man has life fully, but senseless animals or plants\nhave not. Now in both these ways Christ has the fulness of grace.\nFirst, since He has grace in its highest degree, in the most perfect\nway it can be had. And this appears, first, from the nearness of\nChrist's soul to the cause of grace. For it was said above (A. 1)\nthat the nearer a recipient is to the inflowing cause, the more it\nreceives. And hence the soul of Christ, which is more closely united\nto God than all other rational creatures, receives the greatest\noutpouring of His grace. Secondly, in His relation to the effect. For\nthe soul of Christ so received grace, that, in a manner, it is poured\nout from it upon others. And hence it behooved Him to have the\ngreatest grace; as fire which is the cause of heat in other hot\nthings, is of all things the hottest.\n\nLikewise, as regards the _virtue_ of grace, He had grace fully, since\nHe had it for all the operations and effects of grace; and this,\nbecause grace was bestowed on Him, as upon a universal principle in\nthe genus of such as have grace. Now the virtue of the first\nprinciple of a genus universally extends itself to all the effects of\nthat genus; thus the force of the sun, which is the universal cause\nof generation, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), extends to all things\nthat come under generation. Hence the second fulness of grace is seen\nin Christ inasmuch as His grace extends to all the effects of grace,\nwhich are the virtues, gifts, and the like.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Faith and hope signify effects of grace with certain\ndefects on the part of the recipient of grace, inasmuch as faith is\nof the unseen, and hope of what is not yet possessed. Hence it was\nnot necessary that in Christ, Who is the author of grace, there\nshould be any defects such as faith and hope imply; but whatever\nperfection is in faith and hope was in Christ most perfectly; as in\nfire there are not all the modes of heat which are defective by the\nsubject's defect, but whatever belongs to the perfection of heat.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It pertains essentially to operating grace to justify;\nbut that it makes the ungodly to be just is accidental to it on the\npart of the subject, in which sin is found. Therefore the soul of\nChrist was justified by operating grace, inasmuch as it was rendered\njust and holy by it from the beginning of His conception; not that it\nwas until then sinful, or even not just.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The fulness of grace is attributed to the soul of\nChrist according to the capacity of the creature and not by\ncomparison with the infinite fulness of the Divine goodness.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 10]\n\nWhether the Fulness of Grace Is Proper to Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the fulness of grace is not proper to\nChrist. For what is proper to anyone belongs to him alone. But to be\nfull of grace is attributed to some others; for it was said to the\nBlessed Virgin (Luke 1:28): \"Hail, full of grace\"; and again it is\nwritten (Acts 6:8): \"Stephen, full of grace and fortitude.\" Therefore\nthe fulness of grace is not proper to Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what can be communicated to others through Christ\ndoes not seem to be proper to Christ. But the fulness of grace can be\ncommunicated to others through Christ, since the Apostle says (Eph.\n3:19): \"That you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.\"\nTherefore the fulness of grace is not proper to Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the state of the wayfarer seems to be proportioned\nto the state of the comprehensor. But in the state of the\ncomprehensor there will be a certain fulness, since \"in our heavenly\ncountry with its fulness of all good, although some things are\nbestowed in a pre-eminent way, yet nothing is possessed singularly,\"\nas is clear from Gregory (Hom. De Cent. Ovib.; xxxiv in Ev.).\nTherefore in the state of the comprehensor the fulness of grace is\npossessed by everyone, and hence the fulness of grace is not proper\nto Christ. On the contrary, The fulness of grace is attributed to\nChrist inasmuch as He is the only-begotten of the Father, according\nto John 1:14: \"We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] as it were . . . the\nOnly-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.\" But to be the\nOnly-begotten of the Father is proper to Christ. Therefore it is\nproper to Him to be full of grace and truth.\n\n_I answer that,_ The fulness of grace may be taken in two ways:\nFirst, on the part of grace itself, or secondly on the part of the\none who has grace. Now on the part of grace itself there is said to\nbe the fulness of grace when the limit of grace is attained, as to\nessence and power, inasmuch as grace is possessed in its highest\npossible excellence and in its greatest possible extension to all its\neffects. And this fulness of grace is proper to Christ. But on the\npart of the subject there is said to be the fulness of grace when\nanyone fully possesses grace according to his condition--whether as\nregards intensity, by reason of grace being intense in him, to the\nlimit assigned by God, according to Eph. 4:1: \"But to every one of us\nis given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ\"--or\n\"as regards power,\" by reason of a man having the help of grace for\nall that belongs to his office or state, as the Apostle says (Eph.\n3:8): \"To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace . . .\nto enlighten all men.\" And this fulness of grace is not proper to\nChrist, but is communicated to others by Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace, not on\nthe part of grace itself--since she had not grace in its greatest\npossible excellence--nor for all the effects of grace; but she is\nsaid to be full of grace in reference to herself, i.e. inasmuch as\nshe had sufficient grace for the state to which God had chosen her,\ni.e. to be the mother of His Only-begotten. So, too, Stephen is said\nto be full of grace, since he had sufficient grace to be a fit\nminister and witness of God, to which office he had been called. And\nthe same must be said of others. Of these fulnesses one is greater\nthan another, according as one is divinely pre-ordained to a higher\nor lower state.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Apostle is there speaking of that fulness\nwhich has reference to the subject, in comparison with what man is\ndivinely pre-ordained to; and this is either something in common, to\nwhich all the saints are pre-ordained, or something special, which\npertains to the pre-eminence of some. And in this manner a certain\nfulness of grace is common to all the saints, viz. to have grace\nenough to merit eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of God.\nAnd this is the fulness of grace which the Apostle desires for the\nfaithful to whom he writes.\n\nReply Obj. 3: These gifts which are in common in heaven, viz.:\nvision, possession and fruition, and the like, have certain gifts\ncorresponding to them in this life which are also common to all the\nsaints. Yet there are certain prerogatives of saints, both in heaven\nand on earth, which are not possessed by all.\n_______________________\n\nELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 11]\n\nWhether the Grace of Christ Is Infinite?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's grace is infinite. For\neverything immeasurable is infinite. But the grace of Christ is\nimmeasurable; since it is written (John 3:34): \"For God doth not give\nthe Spirit by measure to His Son [*'To His Son' is lacking in the\nVulgate], namely Christ.\" Therefore the grace of Christ is infinite.\n\nObj. 2: Further, an infinite effect betokens an infinite power which\ncan only spring from an infinite essence. But the effect of Christ's\ngrace is infinite, since it extends to the salvation of the whole\nhuman race; for He is the propitiation for our sins . . . and for\nthose of the whole world, as is said (1 John 2:2). Therefore the\ngrace of Christ is infinite.\n\nObj. 3: Further, every finite thing by addition can attain to the\nquantity of any other finite thing. Therefore if the grace of Christ\nis finite the grace of any other man could increase to such an extent\nas to reach to an equality with Christ's grace, against what is\nwritten (Job 28:17): \"Gold nor crystal cannot equal it,\" as Gregory\nexpounds it (Moral. xviii). Therefore the grace of Christ is infinite.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Grace is something created in the soul. But every\ncreated thing is finite, according to Wis. 11:21: \"Thou hast ordered\nall things in measure and number and weight.\" Therefore the grace of\nChrist is not infinite.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was made clear above (Q. 2, A. 10), a twofold\ngrace may be considered in Christ; the first being the grace of\nunion, which, as was said (Q. 6, A. 6), is for Him to be personally\nunited to the Son of God, which union has been bestowed gratis on the\nhuman nature; and it is clear that this grace is infinite, as the\nPerson of God is infinite. The second is habitual grace; which may be\ntaken in two ways: first as a being, and in this way it must be a\nfinite being, since it is in the soul of Christ, as in a subject, and\nChrist's soul is a creature having a finite capacity; hence the being\nof grace cannot be infinite, since it cannot exceed its subject.\nSecondly it may be viewed in its specific nature of grace; and thus\nthe grace of Christ can be termed infinite, since it is not limited,\ni.e. it has whatsoever can pertain to the nature of grace, and what\npertains to the nature of grace is not bestowed on Him in a fixed\nmeasure; seeing that \"according to the purpose\" of God to Whom it\npertains to measure grace, it is bestowed on Christ's soul as on a\nuniversal principle for bestowing grace on human nature, according to\nEph. 1:5, 6, \"He hath graced us in His beloved Son\"; thus we might\nsay that the light of the sun is infinite, not indeed in being, but\nin the nature of light, as having whatever can pertain to the nature\nof light.\n\nReply Obj. 1: When it is said that the Father \"doth not give the\nSpirit by measure,\" it may be expounded of the gift which God the\nFather from all eternity gave the Son, viz. the Divine Nature, which\nis an infinite gift. Hence the comment of a certain gloss: \"So that\nthe Son may be as great as the Father is.\" Or again, it may be\nreferred to the gift which is given the human nature, to be united to\nthe Divine Person, and this also is an infinite gift. Hence a gloss\nsays on this text: \"As the Father begot a full and perfect Word, it\nis united thus full and perfect to human nature.\" Thirdly, it may be\nreferred to habitual grace, inasmuch as the grace of Christ extends\nto whatever belongs to grace. Hence Augustine expounding this (Tract.\nxiv in Joan.) says: \"The division of the gifts is a measurement. For\nto one indeed by the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, to another\nthe word of knowledge.\" But Christ the giver does not receive by\nmeasure.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The grace of Christ has an infinite effect, both\nbecause of the aforesaid infinity of grace, and because of the unity\n[*Perhaps we should read 'infinity'--Ed.] of the Divine Person, to\nWhom Christ's soul is united.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The lesser can attain by augment to the quantity of the\ngreater, when both have the same kind of quantity. But the grace of\nany man is compared to the grace of Christ as a particular to a\nuniversal power; hence as the force of fire, no matter how much it\nincreases, can never equal the sun's strength, so the grace of a man,\nno matter how much it increases, can never equal the grace of Christ.\n_______________________\n\nTWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 12]\n\nWhether the Grace of Christ Could Increase?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the grace of Christ could increase.\nFor to every finite thing addition can be made. But the grace of\nChrist was finite. Therefore it could increase.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is by Divine power that grace is increased,\naccording to 2 Cor. 9:8: \"And God is able to make all grace abound in\nyou.\" But the Divine power, being infinite, is confined by no limits.\nTherefore it seems that the grace of Christ could have been greater.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Luke 2:52) that the child \"Jesus\nadvanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.\" Therefore the\ngrace of Christ could increase.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:14): \"We saw Him [Vulg.:\n'His glory'] as it were . . . the Only-begotten of the Father, full\nof grace and truth.\" But nothing can be or can be thought greater\nthan that anyone should be the Only-begotten of the Father. Therefore\nno greater grace can be or can be thought than that of which Christ\nwas full.\n\n_I answer that,_ For a form to be incapable of increase happens in\ntwo ways: First on the part of the subject; secondly, on the part of\nthe form itself. On the part of the subject, indeed, when the subject\nreaches the utmost limit wherein it partakes of this form, after its\nown manner, e.g. if we say that air cannot increase in heat, when it\nhas reached the utmost limit of heat which can exist in the nature of\nair, although there may be greater heat in actual existence, viz. the\nheat of fire. But on the part of the form, the possibility of\nincrease is excluded when a subject reaches the utmost perfection\nwhich this form can have by nature, e.g. if we say the heat of fire\ncannot be increased because there cannot be a more perfect grade of\nheat than that to which fire attains. Now the proper measure of\ngrace, like that of other forms, is determined by the Divine wisdom,\naccording to Wis. 11:21: \"Thou hast ordered all things in number,\nweight and measure.\" And it is with reference to its end that a\nmeasure is set to every form, as there is no greater gravity than\nthat of the earth, because there is no lower place than that of the\nearth. Now the end of grace is the union of the rational creature\nwith God. But there can neither be nor be thought a greater union of\nthe rational creature with God than that which is in the Person. And\nhence the grace of Christ reached the highest measure of grace. Hence\nit is clear that the grace of Christ cannot be increased on the part\nof grace. But neither can it be increased on the part of the subject,\nsince Christ as man was a true and full comprehensor from the first\ninstant of His conception. Hence there could have been no increase of\ngrace in Him, as there could be none in the rest of the blessed,\nwhose grace could not increase, seeing that they have reached their\nlast end. But as regards men who are wholly wayfarers, their grace\ncan be increased not merely on the part of the form, since they have\nnot attained the highest degree of grace, but also on the part of the\nsubject, since they have not yet attained their end.\n\nReply Obj. 1: If we speak of mathematical quantity, addition can be\nmade to any finite quantity, since there is nothing on the part of\nfinite quantity which is repugnant to addition. But if we speak of\nnatural quantity, there may be repugnance on the part of the form to\nwhich a determined quantity is due, even as other accidents are\ndetermined. Hence the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 41) that \"there\nis naturally a term of all things, and a fixed limit of magnitude and\nincrease.\" And hence to the quantity of the whole there can be no\naddition. And still more must we suppose a term in the forms\nthemselves, beyond which they may not go. Hence it is not necessary\nthat addition should be capable of being made to Christ's grace,\nalthough it is finite in its essence.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although the Divine power can make something greater\nand better than the habitual grace of Christ, yet it could not make\nit to be ordained to anything greater than the personal union with\nthe Only-begotten Son of the Father; and to this union, by the\npurpose of the Divine wisdom, the measure of grace is sufficient.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Anyone may increase in wisdom and grace in two ways.\nFirst inasmuch as the very habits of wisdom and grace are increased;\nand in this way Christ did not increase. Secondly, as regards the\neffects, i.e. inasmuch as they do wiser and greater works; and in\nthis way Christ increased in wisdom and grace even as in age, since\nin the course of time He did more perfect works, to prove Himself\ntrue man, both in the things of God, and in the things of man.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRTEENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 7, Art. 13]\n\nWhether the Habitual Grace of Christ Followed After the Union?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the habitual grace did not follow\nafter the union. For nothing follows itself. But this habitual grace\nseems to be the same as the grace of union; for Augustine says (De\nPraedest. Sanct. xv): \"Every man becomes a Christian from the\nbeginning of his belief, by the same grace whereby this Man from His\nbeginning became Christ\"; and of these two the first pertains to\nhabitual grace and the second to the grace of union. Therefore it\nwould seem that habitual grace did not follow upon the union.\n\nObj. 2: Further, disposition precedes perfection, if not in time, at\nleast in thought. But the habitual grace seems to be a disposition in\nhuman nature for the personal union. Therefore it seems that the\nhabitual grace did not follow but rather preceded the union.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the common precedes the proper. But habitual grace\nis common to Christ and other men; and the grace of union is proper\nto Christ. Therefore habitual grace is prior in thought to the union.\nTherefore it does not follow it.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 42:1): \"Behold my servant, I\nwill uphold Him . . . \"and farther on: \"I have given My Spirit upon\nHim\"; and this pertains to the gift of habitual grace. Hence it\nremains that the assumption of human nature to the unity of the\nPerson preceded the habitual grace of Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ The union of the human nature with the Divine\nPerson, which, as we have said above (Q. 2, A. 10; Q. 6, A. 6), is\nthe grace of union, precedes the habitual grace of Christ, not in\norder of time, but by nature and in thought; and this for a triple\nreason: First, with reference to the order of the principles of both.\nFor the principle of the union is the Person of the Son assuming\nhuman nature, Who is said to be sent into the world, inasmuch as He\nassumed human nature; but the principle of habitual grace, which is\ngiven with charity, is the Holy Ghost, Who is said to be sent\ninasmuch as He dwells in the mind by charity. Now the mission of the\nSon is prior, in the order of nature, to the mission of the Holy\nGhost, even as in the order of nature the Holy Ghost proceeds from\nthe Son, and love from wisdom. Hence the personal union, according to\nwhich the mission of the Son took place, is prior in the order of\nnature to habitual grace, according to which the mission of the Holy\nGhost takes place. Secondly, the reason of this order may be taken\nfrom the relation of grace to its cause. For grace is caused in man\nby the presence of the Godhead, as light in the air by the presence\nof the sun. Hence it is written (Ezech. 43:2): \"The glory of the God\nof Israel came in by the way of the east . . . and the earth shone\nwith His majesty.\" But the presence of God in Christ is by the union\nof human nature with the Divine Person. Hence the habitual grace of\nChrist is understood to follow this union, as light follows the sun.\nThirdly, the reason of this union can be taken from the end of grace,\nsince it is ordained to acting rightly, and action belongs to the\nsuppositum and the individual. Hence action and, in consequence,\ngrace ordaining thereto, presuppose the hypostasis which operates.\nNow the hypostasis did not exist in the human nature before the\nunion, as is clear from Q. 4, A. 2. Therefore the grace of union\nprecedes, in thought, habitual grace.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Augustine here means by grace the gratuitous will of\nGod, bestowing benefits gratis; and hence every man is said to be\nmade a Christian by the same grace whereby a Man became Christ, since\nboth take place by the gratuitous will of God without merits.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As disposition in the order of generation precedes the\nperfection to which it disposes, in such things as are gradually\nperfected; so it naturally follows the perfection which one has\nalready obtained; as heat, which was a disposition to the form of\nfire, is an effect flowing from the form of already existing fire.\nNow the human nature in Christ is united to the Person of the Word\nfrom the beginning without succession. Hence habitual grace is not\nunderstood to have preceded the union, but to have followed it; as a\nnatural property. Hence, as Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): \"Grace\nis in a manner natural to the Man Christ.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The common precedes the proper, when both are of the\nsame genus; but when they are of divers genera, there is nothing to\nprevent the proper being prior to the common. Now the grace of union\nis not in the same genus as habitual grace; but is above all genera\neven as the Divine Person Himself. Hence there is nothing to prevent\nthis proper from being before the common since it does not result\nfrom something being added to the common, but is rather the principle\nand source of that which is common.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 8\n\nOF THE GRACE OF CHRIST, AS HE IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the grace of Christ as the Head of the Church;\nand under this head there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ is the Head of the Church?\n\n(2) Whether He is the Head of men as regards their bodies or only as\nregards their souls?\n\n(3) Whether He is the Head of all men?\n\n(4) Whether He is the Head of the angels?\n\n(5) Whether the grace of Christ as Head of the Church is the same as\nHis habitual grace as an individual man?\n\n(6) Whether to be Head of the Church is proper to Christ?\n\n(7) Whether the devil is the head of all the wicked?\n\n(8) Whether Antichrist can be called the head of all the wicked?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Is the Head of the Church?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man\nto be Head of the Church. For the head imparts sense and motion to\nthe members. Now spiritual sense and motion which are by grace, are\nnot imparted to us by the Man Christ, because, as Augustine says (De\nTrin. i, 12; xv, 24), \"not even Christ, as man, but only as God,\nbestows the Holy Ghost.\" Therefore it does not belong to Him as man\nto be Head of the Church.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is not fitting for the head to have a head. But\nGod is the Head of Christ, as man, according to 1 Cor. 11:3, \"The\nHead of Christ is God.\" Therefore Christ Himself is not a head.\n\nObj. 3: Furthermore, the head of a man is a particular member,\nreceiving an influx from the heart. But Christ is the universal\nprinciple of the whole Church. Therefore He is not the Head of the\nChurch.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 1:22): \"And He . . . hath made\nHim head over all the Church.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As the whole Church is termed one mystic body from\nits likeness to the natural body of a man, which in divers members\nhas divers acts, as the Apostle teaches (Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12), so\nlikewise Christ is called the Head of the Church from a likeness with\nthe human head, in which we may consider three things, viz. order,\nperfection, and power: \"Order,\" indeed; for the head is the first\npart of man, beginning from the higher part; and hence it is that\nevery principle is usually called a head according to Ezech. 16:25:\n\"At every head of the way, thou hast set up a sign of thy\nprostitution\"--\"Perfection,\"    inasmuch as in the head dwell all the\nsenses, both interior and exterior, whereas in the other members\nthere is only touch, and hence it is said (Isa. 9:15): \"The aged and\nhonorable, he is the head\"--\"Power,\" because the power and movement\nof the other members, together with the direction of them in their\nacts, is from the head, by reason of the sensitive and motive power\nthere ruling; hence the ruler is called the head of a people,\naccording to 1 Kings 15:17: \"When thou wast a little one in thy own\neyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel?\" Now these\nthree things belong spiritually to Christ. First, on account of His\nnearness to God His grace is the highest and first, though not in\ntime, since all have received grace on account of His grace,\naccording to Rom. 8:29: \"For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated\nto be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He might be the\nfirst-born amongst many brethren.\" Secondly, He had perfection as\nregards the fulness of all graces, according to John 1:14, \"We saw\nHim [Vulg.: 'His glory'] . . . full of grace and truth,\" as was shown\n(Q. 7, A. 9). Thirdly, He has the power of bestowing grace on all the\nmembers of the Church, according to John 1:16: \"Of His fulness we\nhave all received.\" And thus it is plain that Christ is fittingly\ncalled the Head of the Church.\n\nReply Obj. 1: To give grace or the Holy Ghost belongs to Christ as He\nis God, authoritatively; but instrumentally it belongs also to Him as\nman, inasmuch as His manhood is the instrument of His Godhead. And\nhence by the power of the Godhead His actions were beneficial, i.e.\nby causing grace in us, both meritoriously and efficiently. But\nAugustine denies that Christ as man gives the Holy Ghost\nauthoritatively. Even other saints are said to give the Holy Ghost\ninstrumentally, or ministerially, according to Gal. 3:5: \"He . . .\nwho giveth to you the Spirit.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: In metaphorical speech we must not expect a likeness in\nall respects; for thus there would be not likeness but identity.\nAccordingly a natural head has not another head because one human\nbody is not part of another; but a metaphorical body, i.e. an ordered\nmultitude, is part of another multitude as the domestic multitude is\npart of the civil multitude; and hence the father who is head of the\ndomestic multitude has a head above him, i.e. the civil governor. And\nhence there is no reason why God should not be the Head of Christ,\nalthough Christ Himself is Head of the Church.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The head has a manifest pre-eminence over the other\nexterior members; but the heart has a certain hidden influence. And\nhence the Holy Ghost is likened to the heart, since He invisibly\nquickens and unifies the Church; but Christ is likened to the Head in\nHis visible nature in which man is set over man.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Is the Head of Men As to Their Bodies or Only As to\nTheir Souls?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ is not the Head of men as to\ntheir bodies. For Christ is said to be the Head of the Church\ninasmuch as He bestows spiritual sense and the movement of grace on\nthe Church. But a body is not capable of this spiritual sense and\nmovement. Therefore Christ is not the Head of men as regards their\nbodies.\n\nObj. 2: Further, we share bodies with the brutes. If therefore Christ\nwas the Head of men as to their bodies, it would follow that He was\nthe Head of brute animals; and this is not fitting.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ took His body from other men, as is clear\nfrom Matt. 1 and Luke 3. But the head is the first of the members, as\nwas said above (A. 1, ad 3). Therefore Christ is not the Head of the\nChurch as regards bodies.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 3:21): \"Who will reform the\nbody of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The human body has a natural relation to the\nrational soul, which is its proper form and motor. Inasmuch as the\nsoul is its form, it receives from the soul life and the other\nproperties which belong specifically to man; but inasmuch as the soul\nis its motor, the body serves the soul instrumentally. Therefore we\nmust hold that the manhood of Christ had the power of _influence,_\ninasmuch as it is united to the Word of God, to Whom His body is\nunited through the soul, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 1). Hence the\nwhole manhood of Christ, i.e. according to soul and body, influences\nall, both in soul and body; but principally the soul, and secondarily\nthe body: First, inasmuch as the \"members of the body are presented\nas instruments of justice\" in the soul that lives through Christ, as\nthe Apostle says (Rom. 6:13): secondly, inasmuch as the life of glory\nflows from the soul on to the body, according to Rom. 8:11: \"He that\nraised up Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies,\nbecause of His Spirit that dwelleth in you.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The spiritual sense of grace does not reach to the body\nfirst and principally, but secondarily and instrumentally, as was\nsaid above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The body of an animal has no relation to a rational\nsoul, as the human body has. Hence there is no parity.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although Christ drew the matter of His body from other\nmen, yet all draw from Him the immortal life of their body, according\nto 1 Cor. 15:22: \"And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall\nbe made alive.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Is the Head of All Men?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ is not the Head of all men.\nFor the head has no relation except to the members of its body. Now\nthe unbaptized are nowise members of the Church which is the body of\nChrist, as it is written (Eph. 1:23). Therefore Christ is not the\nHead of all men.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Apostle writes to the Ephesians (5:25, 27):\n\"Christ delivered Himself up for\" the Church \"that He might present\nit to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any\nsuch thing.\" But there are many of the faithful in whom is found the\nspot or the wrinkle of sin. Therefore Christ is not the Head of all\nthe faithful.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the Old Law are compared to Christ\nas the shadow to the body, as is written (Col. 2:17). But the fathers\nof the Old Testament in their day served unto these sacraments,\naccording to Heb. 8:5: \"Who serve unto the example and shadow of\nheavenly things.\" Hence they did not pertain to Christ's body, and\ntherefore Christ is not the Head of all men.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Tim. 4:10): \"Who is the Saviour\nof all men, especially of the faithful,\" and (1 John 2:2): \"He is the\npropitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those\nof the whole world.\" Now to save men and to be a propitiation for\ntheir sins belongs to Christ as Head. Therefore Christ is the Head of\nall men.\n\n_I answer that,_ This is the difference between the natural body of\nman and the Church's mystical body, that the members of the natural\nbody are all together, and the members of the mystical are not all\ntogether--neither as regards their natural being, since the body of\nthe Church is made up of the men who have been from the beginning of\nthe world until its end--nor as regards their supernatural being,\nsince, of those who are at any one time, some there are who are\nwithout grace, yet will afterwards obtain it, and some have it\nalready. We must therefore consider the members of the mystical body\nnot only as they are in act, but as they are in potentiality.\nNevertheless, some are in potentiality who will never be reduced to\nact, and some are reduced at some time to act; and this according to\nthe triple class, of which the first is by faith, the second by the\ncharity of this life, the third by the fruition of the life to come.\nHence we must say that if we take the whole time of the world in\ngeneral, Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and\nprincipally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by glory;\nsecondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity;\nthirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly,\nof those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not\nyet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine\npredestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in\npotentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men\nexisting in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on\ntheir departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of\nChrist, as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the\nChurch, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is\nrooted in two things--first and principally, in the power of Christ,\nwhich is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race;\nsecondly, in free-will.\n\nReply Obj. 2: To be \"a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle\" is\nthe ultimate end to which we are brought by the Passion of Christ.\nHence this will be in heaven, and not on earth, in which \"if we say\nwe have no sin, we deceive ourselves,\" as is written (1 John 1:8).\nNevertheless, there are some, viz. mortal, sins from which they are\nfree who are members of Christ by the actual union of charity; but\nsuch as are tainted with these sins are not members of Christ\nactually, but potentially; except, perhaps, imperfectly, by formless\nfaith, which unites to God, relatively but not simply, viz. so that\nman partake of the life of grace. For, as is written (James 2:20):\n\"Faith without works is dead.\" Yet such as these receive from Christ\na certain vital act, i.e. to believe, as if a lifeless limb were\nmoved by a man to some extent.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The holy Fathers made use of the legal sacraments, not\nas realities, but as images and shadows of what was to come. Now it\nis the same motion to an image as image, and to the reality, as is\nclear from the Philosopher (De Memor. et Remin. ii). Hence the\nancient Fathers, by observing the legal sacraments, were borne to\nChrist by the same faith and love whereby we also are borne to Him,\nand hence the ancient Fathers belong to the same Church as we.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Is the Head of the Angels?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ as man is not the head of the\nangels. For the head and members are of one nature. But Christ as man\nis not of the same nature with the angels, but only with men, since,\nas is written (Heb. 2:16): \"For nowhere doth He take hold of the\nangels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold.\" Therefore Christ\nas man is not the head of the angels.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ is the head of such as belong to the Church,\nwhich is His Body, as is written (Eph. 1:23). But the angels do not\nbelong to the Church. For the Church is the congregation of the\nfaithful: and in the angels there is no faith, for they do not \"walk\nby faith\" but \"by sight,\" otherwise they would be \"absent from the\nLord,\" as the Apostle argues (2 Cor. 5:6, 7). Therefore Christ as man\nis not head of the angels.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. xix; xxiii in Joan.), that as\n\"the Word\" which \"was in the beginning with the Father\" quickens\nsouls, so the \"Word made flesh\" quickens bodies, which angels lack.\nBut the Word made flesh is Christ as man. Therefore Christ as man\ndoes not give life to angels, and hence as man He is not the head of\nthe angels.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Col. 2:10), \"Who is the head of\nall Principality and Power,\" and the same reason holds good with the\nother orders of angels. Therefore Christ is the Head of the angels.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1, ad 2), where there is one\nbody we must allow that there is one head. Now a multitude ordained\nto one end, with distinct acts and duties, may be metaphorically\ncalled one body. But it is manifest that both men and angels are\nordained to one end, which is the glory of the Divine fruition. Hence\nthe mystical body of the Church consists not only of men but of\nangels. Now of all this multitude Christ is the Head, since He is\nnearer God, and shares His gifts more fully, not only than man, but\neven than angels; and of His influence not only men but even angels\npartake, since it is written (Eph. 1:20-22): that God the Father set\n\"Him,\" namely Christ, \"on His right hand in the heavenly places,\nabove all Principality and Power and Virtue and Dominion and every\nname that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is\nto come. And He hath subjected all things under His feet.\" Therefore\nChrist is not only the Head of men, but of angels. Hence we read\n(Matt. 4:11) that \"angels came and ministered to Him.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's influence over men is chiefly with regard to\ntheir souls; wherein men agree with angels in generic nature, though\nnot in specific nature. By reason of this agreement Christ can be\nsaid to be the Head of the angels, although the agreement falls short\nas regards the body.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Church, on earth, is the congregation of the\nfaithful; but, in heaven, it is the congregation of comprehensors.\nNow Christ was not merely a wayfarer, but a comprehensor. And\ntherefore He is the Head not merely of the faithful, but of\ncomprehensors, as having grace and glory most fully.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Augustine here uses the similitude of cause and effect,\ni.e. inasmuch as corporeal things act on bodies, and spiritual things\non spiritual things. Nevertheless, the humanity of Christ, by virtue\nof the spiritual nature, i.e. the Divine, can cause something not\nonly in the spirits of men, but also in the spirits of angels, on\naccount of its most close conjunction with God, i.e. by personal\nunion.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Grace of Christ, As Head of the Church, Is the Same As\nHis Habitual Grace, Inasmuch As He Is Man?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the grace whereby Christ is Head of\nthe Church and the individual grace of the Man are not the same. For\nthe Apostle says (Rom. 5:15): \"If by the offense of one many died,\nmuch more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man,\nJesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.\" But the actual sin of Adam is\ndistinct from original sin which he transmitted to his posterity.\nHence the personal grace which is proper to Christ is distinct from\nHis grace, inasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, which flows to\nothers from Him.\n\nObj. 2: Further, habits are distinguished by acts. But the personal\ngrace of Christ is ordained to one act, viz. the sanctification of\nHis soul; and the capital grace is ordained to another, viz. to\nsanctifying others. Therefore the personal grace of Christ is\ndistinct from His grace as He is the Head of the Church.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as was said above (Q. 6, A. 6), in Christ we\ndistinguish a threefold grace, viz. the grace of union, capital\ngrace, and the individual grace of the Man. Now the individual grace\nof Christ is distinct from the grace of union. Therefore it is also\ndistinct from the capital grace.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:16): \"Of His fulness we all\nhave received.\" Now He is our Head, inasmuch as we receive from Him.\nTherefore He is our Head, inasmuch as He has the fulness of grace.\nNow He had the fulness of grace, inasmuch as personal grace was in\nHim in its perfection, as was said above (Q. 7, A. 9). Hence His\ncapital and personal grace are not distinct.\n\n_I answer that,_ Since everything acts inasmuch as it is a being in\nact, it must be the same act whereby it is in act and whereby it\nacts, as it is the same heat whereby fire is hot and whereby it\nheats. Yet not every act whereby anything is in act suffices for its\nbeing the principle of acting upon others. For since the agent is\nnobler than the patient, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16) and\nthe Philosopher (De Anima iii, 19), the agent must act on others by\nreason of a certain pre-eminence. Now it was said above (A. 1; Q. 7,\nA. 9) grace was received by the soul of Christ in the highest way;\nand therefore from this pre-eminence of grace which He received, it\nis from Him that this grace is bestowed on others--and this belongs\nto the nature of head. Hence the personal grace, whereby the soul of\nChrist is justified, is essentially the same as His grace, as He is\nthe Head of the Church, and justifies others; but there is a\ndistinction of reason between them.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Original sin in Adam, which is a sin of the nature, is\nderived from his actual sin, which is a personal sin, because in him\nthe person corrupted the nature; and by means of this corruption the\nsin of the first man is transmitted to posterity, inasmuch as the\ncorrupt nature corrupts the person. Now grace is not vouchsafed us by\nmeans of human nature, but solely by the personal action of Christ\nHimself. Hence we must not distinguish a twofold grace in Christ, one\ncorresponding to the nature, the other to the person as in Adam we\ndistinguish the sin of the nature and of the person.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Different acts, one of which is the reason and the\ncause of the other, do not diversify a habit. Now the act of the\npersonal grace which is formally to sanctify its subject, is the\nreason of the justification of others, which pertains to capital\ngrace. Hence it is that the essence of the habit is not diversified\nby this difference.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Personal and capital grace are ordained to an act; but\nthe grace of union is not ordained to an act, but to the personal\nbeing. Hence the personal and the capital grace agree in the essence\nof the habit; but the grace of union does not, although the personal\ngrace can be called in a manner the grace of union, inasmuch as it\nbrings about a fitness for the union; and thus the grace of union,\nthe capital, and the personal grace are one in essence, though there\nis a distinction of reason between them.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 6]\n\nWhether It Is Proper to Christ to Be Head of the Church?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that it is not proper to Christ to be Head of\nthe Church. For it is written (1 Kings 15:17): \"When thou wast a\nlittle one in thy own eyes, wast thou not made the head of the tribes\nof Israel?\" Now there is but one Church in the New and the Old\nTestament. Therefore it seems that with equal reason any other man\nthan Christ might be head of the Church.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ is called Head of the Church from His\nbestowing grace on the Church's members. But it belongs to others\nalso to grant grace to others, according to Eph. 4:29: \"Let no evil\nspeech proceed from your mouth; but that which is good to the\nedification of faith, that it may administer grace to the hearers.\"\nTherefore it seems to belong also to others than Christ to be head of\nthe Church.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ by His ruling over the Church is not only\ncalled \"Head,\" but also \"Shepherd\" and \"Foundation.\" Now Christ did\nnot retain for Himself alone the name of Shepherd, according to 1\nPet. 5:4, \"And when the prince of pastors shall appear, you shall\nreceive a never-fading crown of glory\"; nor the name of Foundation,\naccording to Apoc. 21:14: \"And the wall of the city had twelve\nfoundations.\" Therefore it seems that He did not retain the name of\nHead for Himself alone.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Col. 2:19): \"The head\" of the\nChurch is that \"from which the whole body, by joints and bands being\nsupplied with nourishment and compacted groweth unto the increase of\nGod.\" But this belongs only to Christ. Therefore Christ alone is Head\nof the Church.\n\n_I answer that,_ The head influences the other members in two ways.\nFirst, by a certain intrinsic influence, inasmuch as motive and\nsensitive force flow from the head to the other members; secondly, by\na certain exterior guidance, inasmuch as by sight and the senses,\nwhich are rooted in the head, man is guided in his exterior acts. Now\nthe interior influx of grace is from no one save Christ, Whose\nmanhood, through its union with the Godhead, has the power of\njustifying; but the influence over the members of the Church, as\nregards their exterior guidance, can belong to others; and in this\nway others may be called heads of the Church, according to Amos 6:1,\n\"Ye great men, heads of the people\"; differently, however, from\nChrist. First, inasmuch as Christ is the Head of all who pertain to\nthe Church in every place and time and state; but all other men are\ncalled heads with reference to certain special places, as bishops of\ntheir Churches. Or with reference to a determined time as the Pope is\nthe head of the whole Church, viz. during the time of his\nPontificate, and with reference to a determined state, inasmuch as\nthey are in the state of wayfarers. Secondly, because Christ is the\nHead of the Church by His own power and authority; while others are\ncalled heads, as taking Christ's place, according to 2 Cor. 2:10,\n\"For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your\nsakes I have done it in the person of Christ,\" and 2 Cor. 5:20, \"For\nChrist therefore we are ambassadors, God, as it were, exhorting by\nus.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The word \"head\" is employed in that passage in regard\nto exterior government; as a king is said to be the head of his\nkingdom.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Man does not distribute grace by interior influx, but\nby exteriorly persuading to the effects of grace.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Tract. xlvi in Joan.): \"If the\nrulers of the Church are Shepherds, how is there one Shepherd, except\nthat all these are members of one Shepherd?\" So likewise others may\nbe called foundations and heads, inasmuch as they are members of the\none Head and Foundation. Nevertheless, as Augustine says (Tract.\nxlvii), \"He gave to His members to be shepherds; yet none of us\ncalleth himself the Door. He kept this for Himself alone.\" And this\nbecause by door is implied the principal authority, inasmuch as it is\nby the door that all enter the house; and it is Christ alone by \"Whom\nalso we have access . . . into this grace, wherein we stand\" (Rom.\n5:2); but by the other names above-mentioned there may be implied not\nmerely the principal but also the secondary authority.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Devil Is the Head of All the Wicked?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the devil is not the head of the\nwicked. For it belongs to the head to diffuse sense and movement into\nthe members, as a gloss says, on Eph. 1:22, \"And made Him head,\" etc.\nBut the devil has no power of spreading the evil of sin, which\nproceeds from the will of the sinner. Therefore the devil cannot be\ncalled the head of the wicked.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by every sin a man is made evil. But not every sin\nis from the devil; and this is plain as regards the demons, who did\nnot sin through the persuasion of another; so likewise not every sin\nof man proceeds from the devil, for it is said (De Eccles. Dogm.\nlxxxii): \"Not all our wicked thoughts are always raised up by the\nsuggestion of the devil; but sometimes they spring from the movement\nof our will.\" Therefore the devil is not the head of all the wicked.\n\nObj. 3: Further, one head is placed on one body. But the whole\nmultitude of the wicked do not seem to have anything in which they\nare united, for evil is contrary to evil and springs from divers\ndefects, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore the devil cannot\nbe called the head of all the wicked.\n\n_On the contrary,_ A gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xiv] on Job 18:17,\n\"Let the memory of him perish from the earth,\" says: \"This is said of\nevery evil one, yet so as to be referred to the head,\" i.e. the devil.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 6), the head not only\ninfluences the members interiorly, but also governs them exteriorly,\ndirecting their actions to an end. Hence it may be said that anyone\nis the head of a multitude, either as regards both, i.e. by interior\ninfluence and exterior governance, and thus Christ is the Head of the\nChurch, as was stated (A. 6); or as regards exterior governance, and\nthus every prince or prelate is head of the multitude subject to him.\nAnd in this way the devil is head of all the wicked. For, as is\nwritten (Job 41:25): \"He is king over all the children of pride.\" Now\nit belongs to a governor to lead those whom he governs to their end.\nBut the end of the devil is the aversion of the rational creature\nfrom God; hence from the beginning he has endeavored to lead man from\nobeying the Divine precept. But aversion from God has the nature of\nan end, inasmuch as it is sought for under the appearance of liberty,\naccording to Jer. 2:20: \"Of old time thou hast broken my yoke, thou\nhast burst my bands, and thou saidst, 'I will not serve.'\" Hence,\ninasmuch as some are brought to this end by sinning, they fall under\nthe rule and government of the devil, and therefore he is called\ntheir head.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although the devil does not influence the rational mind\ninteriorly, yet he beguiles it to evil by persuasion.\n\nReply Obj. 2: A governor does not always suggest to his subjects to\nobey his will; but proposes to all the sign of his will, in\nconsequence of which some are incited by inducement, and some of\ntheir own free-will, as is plain in the leader of an army, whose\nstandard all the soldiers follow, though no one persuades them.\nTherefore in the same way, the first sin of the devil, who \"sinneth\nfrom the beginning\" (1 John 3:8), is held out to all to be followed,\nand some imitate at his suggestion, and some of their own will\nwithout any suggestion. And hence the devil is the head of all the\nwicked, inasmuch as they imitate Him, according to Wis. 2:24, 25: \"By\nthe envy of the devil, death came into the world. And they follow him\nthat are of his side.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: All sins agree in aversion from God, although they\ndiffer by conversion to different changeable goods.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 8, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Antichrist May Be Called the Head of All the Wicked?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Antichrist is not the head of the\nwicked. For there are not several heads of one body. But the devil is\nthe head of the multitude of the wicked. Therefore Antichrist is not\ntheir head.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Antichrist is a member of the devil. Now the head is\ndistinguished from the members. Therefore Antichrist is not the head\nof the wicked.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the head has an influence over the members. But\nAntichrist has no influence over the wicked who have preceded him.\nTherefore Antichrist is not the head of the wicked.\n\n_On the contrary,_ A gloss [*St. Gregory, Moral. xv] on Job 21:29,\n\"Ask any of them that go by the way,\" says: \"Whilst he was speaking\nof the body of all the wicked, suddenly he turned his speech to\nAntichrist the head of all evil-doers.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1), in the head are found\nthree things: order, perfection, and the power of influencing. But as\nregards the order of the body, Antichrist is not said to be the head\nof the wicked as if his sin had preceded, as the sin of the devil\npreceded. So likewise he is not called the head of the wicked from\nthe power of influencing, although he will pervert some in his day by\nexterior persuasion; nevertheless those who were before him were not\nbeguiled into wickedness by him nor have imitated his wickedness.\nHence he cannot be called the head of all the wicked in this way, but\nof some. Therefore it remains to be said that he is the head of all\nthe wicked by reason of the perfection of his wickedness. Hence, on 2\nThess. 2:4, \"Showing himself as if he were God,\" a gloss says: \"As in\nChrist dwelt the fulness of the Godhead, so in Antichrist the fulness\nof all wickedness.\" Not indeed as if his humanity were assumed by the\ndevil into unity of person, as the humanity of Christ by the Son of\nGod; but that the devil by suggestion infuses his wickedness more\ncopiously into him than into all others. And in this way all the\nwicked who have gone before are signs of Antichrist, according to 2\nThess. 2:7, \"For the mystery of iniquity already worketh.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The devil and Antichrist are not two heads, but one;\nsince Antichrist is called the head, inasmuch as the wickedness of\nthe devil is most fully impressed on him. Hence, on 2 Thess. 2:4,\n\"Showing himself as if he were God,\" a gloss says: \"The head of all\nthe wicked, namely the devil, who is king over all the children of\npride will be in him.\" Now he is said to be in him not by personal\nunion, nor by indwelling, since \"the Trinity alone dwells in the\nmind\" (as is said De Eccles. Dogm. lxxxiii), but by the effect of\nwickedness.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As the head of Christ is God, and yet He is the Head of\nthe Church, as was said above (A. 1, ad 2), so likewise Antichrist is\na member of the devil and yet is head of the wicked.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Antichrist is said to be the head of all the wicked not\nby a likeness of influence, but by a likeness of perfection. For in\nhim the devil, as it were, brings his wickedness to a head, in the\nsame way that anyone is said to bring his purpose to a head when he\nexecutes it.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 9\n\nOF CHRIST'S KNOWLEDGE IN GENERAL\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider Christ's knowledge; concerning which the\nconsideration will be twofold. First, of Christ's knowledge in\ngeneral; secondly, of each particular kind of knowledge He had.\n\nUnder the first head there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ had any knowledge besides the Divine?\n\n(2) Whether He had the knowledge which the blessed or comprehensors\nhave?\n\n(3) Whether He had an imprinted or infused knowledge?\n\n(4) Whether He had any acquired knowledge?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Had Any Knowledge Besides the Divine?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no knowledge\nexcept the Divine. For knowledge is necessary that things may be\nknown thereby. But by His Divine knowledge Christ knew all things.\nTherefore any other knowledge would have been superfluous in Him.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the lesser light is dimmed by the greater. But all\ncreated knowledge in comparison with the uncreated knowledge of God\nis as the lesser to the greater light. Therefore there shone in\nChrist no other knowledge except the Divine.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the union of the human nature with the Divine took\nplace in the Person, as is clear from Q. 2, A. 2. Now, according to\nsome there is in Christ a certain \"knowledge of the union,\" whereby\nChrist knew what belongs to the mystery of the Incarnation more fully\nthan anyone else. Hence, since the personal union contains two\nnatures, it would seem that there are not two knowledges in Christ,\nbut one only, pertaining to both natures.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Incarnat. vii): \"God assumed the\nperfection of human nature in the flesh; He took upon Himself the\nsense of man, but not the swollen sense of the flesh.\" But created\nknowledge pertains to the sense of man. Therefore in Christ there was\ncreated knowledge.\n\n_I answer that,_ As said above (Q. 5), the Son of God assumed an\nentire human nature, i.e. not only a body, but also a soul, and not\nonly a sensitive, but also a rational soul. And therefore it behooved\nHim to have created knowledge, for three reasons. First, on account\nof the soul's perfection. For the soul, considered in itself, is in\npotentiality to knowing intelligible things. since it is like \"a\ntablet on which nothing is written,\" and yet it may be written upon\nthrough the possible intellect, whereby it may become all things, as\nis said _De Anima_ iii, 18. Now what is in potentiality is imperfect\nunless reduced to act. But it was fitting that the Son of God should\nassume, not an imperfect, but a perfect human nature, since the whole\nhuman race was to be brought back to perfection by its means. Hence\nit behooved the soul of Christ to be perfected by a knowledge, which\nwould be its proper perfection. And therefore it was necessary that\nthere should be another knowledge in Christ besides the Divine\nknowledge, otherwise the soul of Christ would have been more\nimperfect than the souls of the rest of men. Secondly, because, since\neverything is on account of its operation, as stated De Coel. ii, 17,\nChrist would have had an intellective soul to no purpose if He had\nnot understood by it; and this pertains to created knowledge.\nThirdly, because some created knowledge pertains to the nature of the\nhuman soul, viz. that whereby we naturally know first principles;\nsince we are here taking knowledge for any cognition of the human\nintellect. Now nothing natural was wanting to Christ, since He took\nthe whole human nature, as stated above (Q. 5). And hence the Sixth\nCouncil [*Third Council of Constantinople, Act. 4] condemned the\nopinion of those who denied that in Christ there are two knowledges\nor wisdoms.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ knew all things with the Divine knowledge by an\nuncreated operation which is the very Essence of God; since God's\nunderstanding is His substance, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph.\nxii, text. 39). Hence this act could not belong to the human soul of\nChrist, seeing that it belongs to another nature. Therefore, if there\nhad been no other knowledge in the soul of Christ, it would have\nknown nothing; and thus it would have been assumed to no purpose,\nsince everything is on account of its operation.\n\nReply Obj. 2: If the two lights are supposed to be in the same order,\nthe lesser is dimmed by the greater, as the light of the sun dims the\nlight of a candle, both being in the class of illuminants. But if we\nsuppose two lights, one of which is in the class of illuminants and\nthe other in the class of illuminated, the lesser light is not dimmed\nby the greater, but rather is strengthened, as the light of the air\nby the light of the sun. And in this manner the light of knowledge is\nnot dimmed, but rather is heightened in the soul of Christ by the\nlight of the Divine knowledge, which is \"the true light which\nenlighteneth every man that cometh into this world,\" as is written\nJohn 1:9.\n\nReply Obj. 3: On the part of what are united we hold there is a\nknowledge in Christ, both as to His Divine and as to His human\nnature; so that, by reason of the union whereby there is one\nhypostasis of God and man, the things of God are attributed to man,\nand the things of man are attributed to God, as was said above (Q. 3,\nAA. 1, 6). But on the part of the union itself we cannot admit any\nknowledge in Christ. For this union is in personal being, and\nknowledge belongs to person only by reason of a nature.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Had the Knowledge Which the Blessed or Comprehensors\nHave?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was not the knowledge\nof the blessed or comprehensors. For the knowledge of the blessed is\na participation of Divine light, according to Ps. 35:10: \"In Thy\nlight we shall see light.\" Now Christ had not a participated light,\nbut He had the Godhead Itself substantially abiding in Him, according\nto Col. 2:9: \"For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead\ncorporeally.\" Therefore in Christ there was not the knowledge of the\nblessed.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the knowledge of the blessed makes them blessed,\naccording to John 17:3: \"This is eternal life: that they may know\nThee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent.\" But\nthis Man was blessed through being united to God in person, according\nto Ps. 64:5: \"Blessed is He Whom Thou hast chosen and taken to Thee.\"\nTherefore it is not necessary to suppose the knowledge of the blessed\nin Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, to man belongs a double knowledge--one by nature,\none above nature. Now the knowledge of the blessed, which consists in\nthe vision of God, is not natural to man, but above his nature. But\nin Christ there was another and much higher supernatural knowledge,\ni.e. the Divine knowledge. Therefore there was no need of the\nknowledge of the blessed in Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The knowledge of the blessed consists in the\nknowledge of God. But He knew God fully, even as He was man,\naccording to John 8:55: \"I do know Him, and do keep His word.\"\nTherefore in Christ there was the knowledge of the blessed.\n\n_I answer that,_ What is in potentiality is reduced to act by what is\nin act; for that whereby things are heated must itself be hot. Now\nman is in potentiality to the knowledge of the blessed, which\nconsists in the vision of God; and is ordained to it as to an end;\nsince the rational creature is capable of that blessed knowledge,\ninasmuch as he is made in the image of God. Now men are brought to\nthis end of beatitude by the humanity of Christ, according to Heb.\n2:10: \"For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and by Whom are\nall things, Who had brought many children unto glory, to perfect the\nauthor of their salvation by His passion.\" And hence it was necessary\nthat the beatific knowledge, which consists in the vision of God,\nshould belong to Christ pre-eminently, since the cause ought always\nto be more efficacious than the effect.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Godhead is united to the manhood of Christ in\nPerson, not in essence or nature; yet with the unity of Person\nremains the distinction of natures. And therefore the soul of Christ,\nwhich is a part of human nature, through a light participated from\nthe Divine Nature, is perfected with the beatific knowledge whereby\nit sees God in essence.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By the union this Man is blessed with the uncreated\nbeatitude, even as by the union He is God; yet besides the uncreated\nbeatitude it was necessary that there should be in the human nature\nof Christ a created beatitude, whereby His soul was established in\nthe last end of human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The beatific vision and knowledge are to some extent\nabove the nature of the rational soul, inasmuch as it cannot reach it\nof its own strength; but in another way it is in accordance with its\nnature, inasmuch as it is capable of it by nature, having been made\nto the likeness of God, as stated above. But the uncreated knowledge\nis in every way above the nature of the human soul.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Had an Imprinted or Infused Knowledge?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was not in Christ another\ninfused knowledge besides the beatific knowledge. For all other\nknowledge compared to the beatific knowledge is like imperfect to\nperfect. But imperfect knowledge is removed by the presence of\nperfect knowledge, as the clear \"face-to-face\" vision removes the\nenigmatical vision of faith, as is plain from 1 Cor. 13:10, 12.\nSince, therefore, in Christ there was the beatific knowledge, as\nstated above (A. 2), it would seem that there could not be any other\nimprinted knowledge.\n\nObj. 2: Further, an imperfect mode of cognition disposes towards a\nmore perfect, as opinion, the result of dialectical syllogisms,\ndisposes towards science, which results from demonstrative\nsyllogisms. Now, when perfection is reached, there is no further need\nof the disposition, even as on reaching the end motion is no longer\nnecessary. Hence, since every created cognition is compared to\nbeatific cognition, as imperfect to perfect and as disposition to its\nterm, it seems that since Christ had beatific knowledge, it was not\nnecessary for Him to have any other knowledge.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as corporeal matter is in potentiality to sensible\nforms, so the possible intellect is in potentiality to intelligible\nforms. Now corporeal matter cannot receive two forms at once, one\nmore perfect and the other less perfect. Therefore neither can the\nsoul receive a double knowledge at once, one more perfect and the\nother less perfect; and hence the same conclusion as above.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Col. 2:3) that in Christ \"are hid\nall the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), it was fitting that the\nhuman nature assumed by the Word of God should not be imperfect. Now\neverything in potentiality is imperfect unless it be reduced to act.\nBut the passive intellect of man is in potentiality to all\nintelligible things, and it is reduced to act by intelligible\nspecies, which are its completive forms, as is plain from what is\nsaid _De Anima_ iii, 32, 38. And hence we must admit in the soul of\nChrist an infused knowledge, inasmuch as the Word of God imprinted\nupon the soul of Christ, which is personally united to Him,\nintelligible species of all things to which the possible intellect is\nin potentiality; even as in the beginning of the creation of things,\nthe Word of God imprinted intelligible species upon the angelic mind,\nas is clear from Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8). And therefore, even\nas in the angels, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22, 24,\n30), there is a double knowledge--one the morning knowledge, whereby\nthey know things in the Word; the other the evening knowledge,\nwhereby they know things in their proper natures by infused species;\nso likewise, besides the Divine and uncreated knowledge in Christ,\nthere is in His soul a beatific knowledge, whereby He knows the Word,\nand things in the Word; and an infused or imprinted knowledge,\nwhereby He knows things in their proper nature by intelligible\nspecies proportioned to the human mind.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The imperfect vision of faith is essentially opposed to\nmanifest vision, seeing that it is of the essence of faith to have\nreference to the unseen, as was said above (II-II, Q. 1, A. 4). But\ncognition by infused species includes no opposition to beatific\ncognition. Therefore there is no parity.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Disposition is referred to perfection in two ways:\nfirst, as a way leading to perfection; secondly, as an effect\nproceeding from perfection; thus matter is disposed by heat to\nreceive the form of fire, and, when this comes, the heat does not\ncease, but remains as an effect of this form. So, too, opinion caused\nby a dialectical syllogism is a way to knowledge, which is acquired\nby demonstration, yet, when this has been acquired, there may still\nremain the knowledge gained by the dialectical syllogism, following,\nso to say, the demonstrative knowledge, which is based on the cause,\nsince he who knows the cause is thereby enabled the better to\nunderstand the probable signs from which dialectical syllogisms\nproceed. So likewise in Christ, together with the beatific knowledge,\nthere still remains infused knowledge, not as a way to beatitude, but\nas strengthened by beatitude.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The beatific knowledge is not by a species, that is a\nsimilitude of the Divine Essence, or of whatever is known in the\nDivine Essence, as is plain from what has been said in the First Part\n(Q. 12, A. 2); but it is a knowledge of the Divine Essence\nimmediately, inasmuch as the Divine Essence itself is united to the\nbeatified mind as an intelligible to an intelligent being; and the\nDivine Essence is a form exceeding the capacity of any creature\nwhatsoever. Hence, together with this super-exceeding form, there is\nnothing to hinder from being in the rational mind, intelligible\nspecies, proportioned to its nature.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 9, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Had Any Acquired Knowledge?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no empiric and\nacquired knowledge. For whatever befitted Christ, He had most\nperfectly. Now Christ did not possess acquired knowledge most\nperfectly, since He did not devote Himself to the study of letters,\nby which knowledge is acquired in its perfection; for it is said\n(John 7:15): \"The Jews wondered, saying: How doth this Man know\nletters, having never learned?\" Therefore it seems that in Christ\nthere was no acquired knowledge.\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing can be added to what is full. But the power\nof Christ's soul was filled with intelligible species divinely\ninfused, as was said above (A. 3). Therefore no acquired species\ncould accrue to His soul.\n\nObj. 3: Further, he who already has the habit of knowledge, acquires\nno new habit, through what he receives from the senses (otherwise two\nforms of the same species would be in the same thing together); but\nthe habit which previously existed is strengthened and increased.\nTherefore, since Christ had the habit of infused knowledge, it does\nnot seem that He acquired a new knowledge through what He perceived\nby the senses.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 5:8): \"Whereas . . . He was\nthe Son of God, He learned obedience by the things which He\nsuffered,\" i.e. \"experienced,\" says a gloss. Therefore there was in\nthe soul of Christ an empiric knowledge, which is acquired knowledge.\n\n_I answer that,_ As is plain from A. 1, nothing that God planted in\nour nature was wanting to the human nature assumed by the Word of\nGod. Now it is manifest that God planted in human nature not only a\npassive, but an active intellect. Hence it is necessary to say that\nin the soul of Christ there was not merely a passive, but also an\nactive intellect. But if in other things God and nature make nothing\nin vain, as the Philosopher says (De Coel. i, 31; ii, 59), still less\nin the soul of Christ is there anything in vain. Now what has not its\nproper operation is useless, as is said in _De Coel._ ii, 17. Now the\nproper operation of the active intellect is to make intelligible\nspecies in act, by abstracting them from phantasms; hence, it is said\n(De Anima iii, 18) that the active intellect is that \"whereby\neverything is made actual.\" And thus it is necessary to say that in\nChrist there were intelligible species received in the passive\nintellect by the action of the active intellect--which means that\nthere was acquired knowledge in Him, which some call empiric. And\nhence, although I wrote differently (Sent. iii, D, xiv, A. 3; D,\nxviii, A. 3), it must be said that in Christ there was acquired\nknowledge, which is properly knowledge in a human fashion, both as\nregards the subject receiving and as regards the active cause. For\nsuch knowledge springs from Christ's active intellect, which is\nnatural to the human soul. But infused knowledge is attributed to the\nsoul, on account of a light infused from on high, and this manner of\nknowing is proportioned to the angelic nature. But the beatific\nknowledge, whereby the very Essence of God is seen, is proper and\nnatural to God alone, as was said in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 4).\n\nReply Obj. 1: Since there is a twofold way of acquiring knowledge--by\ndiscovery and by being taught--the way of discovery is the higher,\nand the way of being taught is secondary. Hence it is said (Ethic. i,\n4): \"He indeed is the best who knows everything by himself: yet he is\ngood who obeys him that speaks aright.\" And hence it was more fitting\nfor Christ to possess a knowledge acquired by discovery than by being\ntaught, especially since He was given to be the Teacher of all,\naccording to Joel 2:23: \"Be joyful in the Lord your God, because He\nhath given you a Teacher of justice.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The human mind has two relations--one to higher things,\nand in this respect the soul of Christ was full of the infused\nknowledge. The other relation is to lower things, i.e. to phantasms,\nwhich naturally move the human mind by virtue of the active\nintellect. Now it was necessary that even in this respect the soul of\nChrist should be filled with knowledge, not that the first fulness\nwas insufficient for the human mind in itself, but that it behooved\nit to be also perfected with regard to phantasms.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Acquired and infused habits are not to be classed\ntogether; for the habit of knowledge is acquired by the relation of\nthe human mind to phantasms; hence, another habit of the same kind\ncannot be again acquired. But the habit of infused knowledge is of a\ndifferent nature, as coming down to the soul from on high, and not\nfrom phantasms. And hence there is no parity between these habits.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 10\n\nOF THE BEATIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST'S SOUL\n(In Four Articles)\n\nNow we must consider each of the aforesaid knowledges. Since,\nhowever, we have treated of the Divine knowledge in the First Part\n(Q. 14), it now remains to speak of the three others: (1) of the\nbeatific knowledge; (2) of the infused knowledge; (3) of the acquired\nknowledge.\n\nBut again, because much has been said in the First Part (Q. 12) of\nthe beatific knowledge, which consists in the vision of God, we shall\nspeak here only of such things as belong properly to the soul of\nChrist. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the soul of Christ comprehended the Word or the Divine\nEssence?\n\n(2) Whether it knew all things in the Word?\n\n(3) Whether the soul of Christ knew the infinite in the Word?\n\n(4) Whether it saw the Word or the Divine Essence clearer than did\nany other creature?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 10, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Soul of Christ Comprehended the Word or the Divine\nEssence?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ comprehended and\ncomprehends the Word or Divine Essence. For Isidore says (De Summo\nBono i, 3) that \"the Trinity is known only to Itself and to the Man\nassumed.\" Therefore the Man assumed communicates with the Holy\nTrinity in that knowledge of Itself which is proper to the Trinity.\nNow this is the knowledge of comprehension. Therefore the soul of\nChrist comprehends the Divine Essence.\n\nObj. 2: Further, to be united to God in personal being is greater\nthan to be united by vision. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth.\niii, 6), \"the whole Godhead in one Person is united to the human\nnature in Christ.\" Therefore much more is the whole Divine Nature\nseen by the soul of Christ; and hence it would seem that the soul of\nChrist comprehended the Divine Essence.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what belongs by nature to the Son of God belongs by\ngrace to the Son of Man, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 13). But to\ncomprehend the Divine Essence belongs by nature to the Son of God.\nTherefore it belongs by grace to the Son of Man; and thus it seems\nthat the soul of Christ comprehended the Divine Essence by grace.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 14): \"Whatsoever\ncomprehends itself is finite to itself.\" But the Divine Essence is\nnot finite with respect to the soul of Christ, since It infinitely\nexceeds it. Therefore the soul of Christ does not comprehend the Word.\n\n_I answer that,_ As is plain from Q. 2, AA. 1, 6, the union of the\ntwo natures in the Person of Christ took place in such a way that the\nproperties of both natures remained unconfused, i.e. \"the uncreated\nremained uncreated, and the created remained within the limits of the\ncreature,\" as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3, 4). Now it is\nimpossible for any creature to comprehend the Divine Essence, as was\nshown in the First Part (Q. 12, AA. 1, 4, 7), seeing that the\ninfinite is not comprehended by the finite. And hence it must be said\nthat the soul of Christ nowise comprehends the Divine Essence.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Man assumed is reckoned with the Divine Trinity in\nthe knowledge of Itself, not indeed as regards comprehension, but by\nreason of a certain most excellent knowledge above the rest of\ncreatures.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Not even in the union by personal being does the human\nnature comprehend the Word of God or the Divine Nature, for although\nit was wholly united to the human nature in the one Person of the\nSon, yet the whole power of the Godhead was not circumscribed by the\nhuman nature. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): \"I\nwould have you know that it is not the Christian doctrine that God\nwas united to flesh in such a manner as to quit or lose the care of\nthe world's government, neither did He narrow or reduce it when He\ntransferred it to that little body.\" So likewise the soul of Christ\nsees the whole Essence of God, yet does not comprehend It; since it\ndoes not see It totally, i.e. not as perfectly as It is knowable, as\nwas said in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 7).\n\nReply Obj. 3: This saying of Augustine is to be understood of the\ngrace of union, by reason of which all that is said of the Son of God\nin His Divine Nature is also said of the Son of Man on account of the\nidentity of suppositum. And in this way it may be said that the Son\nof Man is a comprehensor of the Divine Essence, not indeed by His\nsoul, but in His Divine Nature; even as we may also say that the Son\nof Man is the Creator.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 10, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Son of God Knew All Things in the Word?\n\nObj. 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ does not know all\nthings in the Word. For it is written (Mk. 13:32): \"But of that day\nor hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but\nthe Father.\" Therefore He does not know all things in the Word.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the more perfectly anyone knows a principle the more\nhe knows in the principle. But God sees His Essence more perfectly\nthan the soul of Christ does. Therefore He knows more than the soul\nof Christ knows in the Word. Therefore the soul of Christ does not\nknow all things in the Word.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the extent depends on the number of things known.\nIf, therefore, the soul of Christ knew in the Word all that the Word\nknows, it would follow that the knowledge of the soul of Christ would\nequal the Divine knowledge, i.e. the created would equal the\nuncreated, which is impossible.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on Apoc. 5:12, \"The Lamb that was slain is worthy\nto receive . . . divinity and wisdom,\" a gloss says, i.e. \"the\nknowledge of all things.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ When it is inquired whether Christ knows all things\nin the Word, \"all things\" may be taken in two ways: First, properly,\nto stand for all that in any way whatsoever is, will be, or was done,\nsaid, or thought, by whomsoever and at any time. And in this way it\nmust be said that the soul of Christ knows all things in the Word.\nFor every created intellect knows in the Word, not all simply, but so\nmany more things the more perfectly it sees the Word. Yet no\nbeatified intellect fails to know in the Word whatever pertains to\nitself. Now to Christ and to His dignity all things to some extent\nbelong, inasmuch as all things are subject to Him. Moreover, He has\nbeen appointed Judge of all by God, \"because He is the Son of Man,\"\nas is said John 5:27; and therefore the soul of Christ knows in the\nWord all things existing in whatever time, and the thoughts of men,\nof which He is the Judge, so that what is said of Him (John 2:25),\n\"For He knew what was in man,\" can be understood not merely of the\nDivine knowledge, but also of His soul's knowledge, which it had in\nthe Word. Secondly, \"all things\" may be taken widely, as extending\nnot merely to such things as are in act at some time, but even to\nsuch things as are in potentiality, and never have been nor ever will\nbe reduced to act. Now some of these are in the Divine power alone,\nand not all of these does the soul of Christ know in the Word. For\nthis would be to comprehend all that God could do, which would be to\ncomprehend the Divine power, and, consequently, the Divine Essence.\nFor every power is known from the knowledge of all it can do. Some,\nhowever, are not only in the power of God, but also in the power of\nthe creature; and all of these the soul of Christ knows in the Word;\nfor it comprehends in the Word the essence of every creature, and,\nconsequently, its power and virtue, and all things that are in the\npower of the creature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Arius and Eunomius understood this saying, not of the\nknowledge of the soul, which they did not hold to be in Christ, as\nwas said above (Q. 9, A. 1), but of the Divine knowledge of the Son,\nWhom they held to be less than the Father as regards knowledge. But\nthis will not stand, since all things were made by the Word of God,\nas is said John 1:3, and, amongst other things, all times were made\nby Him. Now He is not ignorant of anything that was made by Him.\n\nHe is said, therefore, not to know the day and the hour of the\nJudgment, for that He does not make it known, since, on being asked\nby the apostles (Acts 1:7), He was unwilling to reveal it; and, on\nthe contrary, we read (Gen. 22:12): \"Now I know that thou fearest\nGod,\" i.e. \"Now I have made thee know.\" But the Father is said to\nknow, because He imparted this knowledge to the Son. Hence, by saying\n\"but the Father,\" we are given to understand that the Son knows, not\nmerely in the Divine Nature, but also in the human, because, as\nChrysostom argues (Hom. lxxviii in Matth.), if it is given to Christ\nas man to know how to judge--which is greater--much more is it given\nto Him to know the less, viz. the time of Judgment. Origen, however\n(in Matth. Tract. xxx), expounds it of His body, which is the Church,\nwhich is ignorant of this time. Lastly, some say this is to be\nunderstood of the adoptive, and not of the natural Son of God.\n\nReply Obj. 2: God knows His Essence so much the more perfectly than\nthe soul of Christ, as He comprehends it. And hence He knows all\nthings, not merely whatever are in act at any time, which things He\nis said to know by knowledge of vision, but also what ever He Himself\ncan do, which He is said to know by simple intelligence, as was shown\nin the First Part (Q. 14, A. 9). Therefore the soul of Christ knows\nall things that God knows in Himself by the knowledge of vision, but\nnot all that God knows in Himself by knowledge of simple\nintelligence; and thus in Himself God knows many more things than the\nsoul of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The extent of knowledge depends not merely on\nthe number of knowable things, but also on the clearness of the\nknowledge. Therefore, although the knowledge of the soul of Christ\nwhich He has in the Word is equal to the knowledge of vision as\nregards the number of things known, nevertheless the knowledge of God\ninfinitely exceeds the knowledge of the soul of Christ in clearness of\ncognition, since the uncreated light of the Divine intellect\ninfinitely exceeds any created light received by the soul of Christ;\nalthough, absolutely speaking, the Divine knowledge exceeds the\nknowledge of the soul of Christ, not only as regards the mode of\nknowing, but also as regards the number of things known, as was stated\nabove.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 10, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Soul of Christ Can Know the Infinite in the Word?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ cannot know the\ninfinite in the Word. For that the infinite should be known is\nrepugnant to the definition of the infinite which (Phys. iii, 63) is\nsaid to be that \"from which, however much we may take, there always\nremains something to be taken.\" But it is impossible for the\ndefinition to be separated from the thing defined, since this would\nmean that contradictories exist together. Therefore it is impossible\nthat the soul of Christ knows the infinite.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the knowledge of the infinite is infinite. But the\nknowledge of the soul of Christ cannot be infinite, because its\ncapacity is finite, since it is created. Therefore the soul of Christ\ncannot know the infinite.\n\nObj. 3: Further, there can be nothing greater than the infinite. But\nmore is contained in the Divine knowledge, absolutely speaking, than\nin the knowledge of Christ's soul, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore\nthe soul of Christ does not know the infinite.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The soul of Christ knows all its power and all it\ncan do. Now it can cleanse infinite sins, according to 1 John 2:2:\n\"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also\nfor those of the whole world.\" Therefore the soul of Christ knows the\ninfinite.\n\n_I answer that,_ Knowledge regards only being, since being and truth\nare convertible. Now a thing is said to be a being in two ways:\nFirst, simply, i.e. whatever is a being in act; secondly, relatively,\ni.e. whatever is a being in potentiality. And because, as is said\n_Metaph._ ix, 20, everything is known as it is in act, and not as it\nis in potentiality, knowledge primarily and essentially regards being\nin act, and secondarily regards being in potentiality, which is not\nknowable of itself, but inasmuch as that in whose power it exists is\nknown. Hence, with regard to the first mode of knowledge, the soul of\nChrist does not know the infinite. Because there is not an infinite\nnumber in act, even though we were to reckon all that are in act at\nany time whatsoever, since the state of generation and corruption\nwill not last for ever: consequently there is a certain number not\nonly of things lacking generation and corruption, but also of things\ncapable of generation and corruption. But with regard to the other\nmode of knowing, the soul of Christ knows infinite things in the\nWord, for it knows, as stated above (A. 2), all that is in the power\nof the creature. Hence, since in the power of the creature there is\nan infinite number of things, it knows the infinite, as it were, by a\ncertain knowledge of simple intelligence, and not by a knowledge of\nvision.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As we said in the First Part (Q. 8, A. 1), the infinite\nis taken in two ways. First, on the part of a form, and thus we have\nthe negatively infinite, i.e. a form or act not limited by being\nreceived into matter or a subject; and this infinite of itself is\nmost knowable on account of the perfection of the act, although it is\nnot comprehensible by the finite power of the creature; for thus God\nis said to be infinite. And this infinite the soul of Christ knows,\nyet does not comprehend. Secondly, there is the infinite as regards\nmatter, which is taken privatively, i.e. inasmuch as it has not the\nform it ought naturally to have, and in this way we have infinite in\nquantity. Now such an infinite of itself, is unknown: inasmuch as it\nis, as it were, matter with privation of form as is said _Phys._ iii,\n65. But all knowledge is by form or act. Therefore if this infinite\nis to be known according to its mode of being, it cannot be known.\nFor its mode is that part be taken after part, as is said _Phys._\niii, 62, 63. And in this way it is true that, if we take something\nfrom it, i.e. taking part after part, there always remains something\nto be taken. But as material things can be received by the intellect\nimmaterially, and many things unitedly, so can infinite things be\nreceived by the intellect, not after the manner of infinite, but\nfinitely; and thus what are in themselves infinite are, in the\nintellect of the knower, finite. And in this way the soul of Christ\nknows an infinite number of things, inasmuch as it knows them not by\ndiscoursing from one to another, but in a certain unity, i.e. in any\ncreature in whose potentiality infinite things exist, and principally\nin the Word Himself.\n\nReply Obj. 2: There is nothing to hinder a thing from being infinite\nin one way and finite in another, as when in quantities we imagine a\nsurface infinite in length and finite in breadth. Hence, if there\nwere an infinite number of men, they would have a relative infinity,\ni.e. in multitude; but, as regards the essence, they would be finite,\nsince the essence of all would be limited to one specific nature. But\nwhat is simply infinite in its essence is God, as was said in the\nFirst Part (Q. 7, A. 2). Now the proper object of the intellect is\n\"what a thing is,\" as is said _De Anima_ iii, 26, to which pertains\nthe notion of the species. And thus the soul of Christ, since it has\na finite capacity, attains to, but does not comprehend, what is\nsimply infinite in essence, as stated above (A. 1). But the infinite\nin potentiality which is in creatures can be comprehended by the soul\nof Christ, since it is compared to that soul according to its\nessence, in which respect it is not infinite. For even our intellect\nunderstands a universal--for example, the nature of a genus or\nspecies, which in a manner has infinity, inasmuch as it can be\npredicated of an infinite number.\n\nReply Obj. 3: That which is infinite in every way can be but one.\nHence the Philosopher says (De Coel. i, 2, 3) that, since bodies have\ndimensions in every part, there cannot be several infinite bodies.\nYet if anything were infinite in one way only, nothing would hinder\nthe existence of several such infinite things; as if we were to\nsuppose several lines of infinite length drawn on a surface of finite\nbreadth. Hence, because infinitude is not a substance, but is\naccidental to things that are said to be infinite, as the Philosopher\nsays (Phys. iii, 37, 38); as the infinite is multiplied by different\nsubjects, so, too, a property of the infinite must be multiplied, in\nsuch a way that it belongs to each of them according to that\nparticular subject. Now it is a property of the infinite that nothing\nis greater than it. Hence, if we take one infinite line, there is\nnothing greater in it than the infinite; so, too, if we take any one\nof other infinite lines, it is plain that each has infinite parts.\nTherefore of necessity in this particular line there is nothing\ngreater than all these infinite parts; yet in another or a third line\nthere will be more infinite parts besides these. We observe this in\nnumbers also, for the species of even numbers are infinite, and\nlikewise the species of odd numbers are infinite; yet there are more\neven and odd numbers than even. And thus it must be said that nothing\nis greater than the simply and in every way infinite; but than the\ninfinite which is limited in some respect, nothing is greater in that\norder; yet we may suppose something greater outside that order. In\nthis way, therefore, there are infinite things in the potentiality of\nthe creature, and yet there are more in the power of God than in the\npotentiality of the creature. So, too, the soul of Christ knows\ninfinite things by the knowledge of simple intelligence; yet God\nknows more by this manner of knowledge or understanding.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 10, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Soul of Christ Sees the Word or the Divine Essence More\nClearly Than Does Any Other Creature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ does not see the\nWord more perfectly than does any other creature. For the perfection\nof knowledge depends upon the medium of knowing; as the knowledge we\nhave by means of a demonstrative syllogism is more perfect than that\nwhich we have by means of a probable syllogism. But all the blessed\nsee the Word immediately in the Divine Essence Itself, as was said in\nthe First Part (Q. 12, A. 2). Therefore the soul of Christ does not\nsee the Word more perfectly than any other creature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the perfection of vision does not exceed the power\nof seeing. But the rational power of a soul such as is the soul of\nChrist is below the intellective power of an angel, as is plain from\nDionysius (Coel. Hier. iv). Therefore the soul of Christ did not see\nthe Word more perfectly than the angels.\n\nObj. 3: Further, God sees His Word infinitely more perfectly than\ndoes the soul of Christ. Hence there are infinite possible mediate\ndegrees between the manner in which God sees His Word, and the manner\nin which the soul of Christ sees the Word. Therefore we cannot assert\nthat the soul of Christ sees the Word or the Divine Essence more\nperfectly than does every other creature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 1:20, 21) that God set\nChrist \"on His right hand in the heavenly places, above all\nprincipality and power and virtue and dominion and every name that is\nnamed not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.\" But\nin that heavenly glory the higher anyone is the more perfectly does\nhe know God. Therefore the soul of Christ sees God more perfectly\nthan does any other creature.\n\n_I answer that,_ The vision of the Divine Essence is granted to all\nthe blessed by a partaking of the Divine light which is shed upon\nthem from the fountain of the Word of God, according to Ecclus. 1:5:\n\"The Word of God on high is the fountain of Wisdom.\" Now the soul of\nChrist, since it is united to the Word in person, is more closely\njoined to the Word of God than any other creature. Hence it more\nfully receives the light in which God is seen by the Word Himself\nthan any other creature. And therefore more perfectly than the rest\nof creatures it sees the First Truth itself, which is the Essence of\nGod; hence it is written (John 1:14): \"And we saw His glory, the\nglory as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father,\" \"full\" not only\nof \"grace\" but also of \"truth.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Perfection of knowledge, on the part of the thing\nknown, depends on the medium; but as regards the knower, it depends\non the power or habit. And hence it is that even amongst men one sees\na conclusion in a medium more perfectly than another does. And in\nthis way the soul of Christ, which is filled with a more abundant\nlight, knows the Divine Essence more perfectly than do the other\nblessed, although all see the Divine Essence in itself.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The vision of the Divine Essence exceeds the natural\npower of any creature, as was said in the First Part (Q. 12, A. 4).\nAnd hence the degrees thereof depend rather on the order of grace in\nwhich Christ is supreme, than on the order of nature, in which the\nangelic nature is placed before the human.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 7, A. 12), there cannot be a\ngreater grace than the grace of Christ with respect to the union with\nthe Word; and the same is to be said of the perfection of the Divine\nvision; although, absolutely speaking, there could be a higher and\nmore sublime degree by the infinity of the Divine power.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 11\n\nOF THE KNOWLEDGE IMPRINTED OR INFUSED IN THE SOUL OF CHRIST\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the knowledge imprinted or infused in the soul\nof Christ, and under this head there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ knows all things by this knowledge?\n\n(2) Whether He could use this knowledge by turning to phantasms?\n\n(3) Whether this knowledge was collative?\n\n(4) Of the comparison of this knowledge with the angelic knowledge;\n\n(5) Whether it was a habitual knowledge?\n\n(6) Whether it was distinguished by various habits?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 1]\n\nWhether by This Imprinted or Infused Knowledge Christ Knew All Things?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that by this knowledge Christ did not know\nall things. For this knowledge is imprinted upon Christ for the\nperfection of the passive intellect. Now the passive intellect of the\nhuman soul does not seem to be in potentiality to all things simply,\nbut only to those things with regard to which it can be reduced to\nact by the active intellect, which is its proper motor; and these are\nknowable by natural reason. Therefore by this knowledge Christ did\nnot know what exceeded the natural reason.\n\nObj. 2: Further, phantasms are to the human intellect as colors to\nsight, as is said _De Anima_ iii, 18, 31, 39. But it does not pertain\nto the perfection of the power of seeing to know what is without\ncolor. Therefore it does not pertain to the perfection of human\nintellect to know things of which there are no phantasms, such as\nseparate substances. Hence, since this knowledge was in Christ for\nthe perfection of His intellective soul, it seems that by this\nknowledge He did not know separate substances.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it does not belong to the perfection of the\nintellect to know singulars. Hence it would seem that by this\nknowledge the soul of Christ did not know singulars.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 11:2) that \"the Spirit of\nwisdom and understanding, of knowledge and counsel shall fill Him\n[*Vulg.: 'The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of\nwisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel . . . the Spirit of\nknowledge . . . '; cf. Ecclus. 15:5,\" under which are included all\nthat may be known; for the knowledge of all Divine things belongs to\nwisdom, the knowledge of all immaterial things to understanding, the\nknowledge of all conclusions to knowledge (_scientia_), the knowledge\nof all practical things to counsel. Hence it would seem that by this\nknowledge Christ had the knowledge of all things.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 9, A. 1), it was fitting that\nthe soul of Christ should be wholly perfected by having each of its\npowers reduced to act. Now it must be borne in mind that in the human\nsoul, as in every creature, there is a double passive power: one in\ncomparison with a natural agent; the other in comparison with the\nfirst agent, which can reduce any creature to a higher act than a\nnatural agent can reduce it, and this is usually called the\nobediential power of a creature. Now both powers of Christ's soul\nwere reduced to act by this divinely imprinted knowledge. And hence,\nby it the soul of Christ knew: First, whatever can be known by force\nof a man's active intellect, e.g. whatever pertains to human\nsciences; secondly, by this knowledge Christ knew all things made\nknown to man by Divine revelation, whether they belong to the gift of\nwisdom or the gift of prophecy, or any other gift of the Holy Ghost;\nsince the soul of Christ knew these things more fully and completely\nthan others. Yet He did not know the Essence of God by this\nknowledge, but by the first alone, of which we spoke above (Q. 10).\n\nReply Obj. 1: This reason refers to the natural power of an\nintellective soul in comparison with its natural agent, which is the\nactive intellect.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The human soul in the state of this life, since it is\nsomewhat fettered by the body, so as to be unable to understand\nwithout phantasms, cannot understand separate substances. But after\nthe state of this life the separated soul will be able, in a measure,\nto know separate substances by itself, as was said in the First Part\n(Q. 89, AA. 1, 2), and this is especially clear as regards the souls\nof the blessed. Now before His Passion, Christ was not merely a\nwayfarer but also a comprehensor; hence His soul could know separate\nsubstances in the same way that a separated soul could.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The knowledge of singulars pertains to the perfection\nof the intellective soul, not in speculative knowledge, but in\npractical knowledge, which is imperfect without the knowledge of\nsingulars, in which operations exist, as is said _Ethic._ vi, 7.\nHence for prudence are required the remembrance of past things,\nknowledge of present things, and foresight of future things, as Tully\nsays (De Invent. ii). Therefore, since Christ had the fulness of\nprudence by the gift of counsel, He consequently knew all singular\nthings--present, past, and future.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Could Use This Knowledge by Turning to Phantasms?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ could not\nunderstand by this knowledge except by turning to phantasms, because,\nas is stated _De Anima_ iii, 18, 31, 39, phantasms are compared to\nman's intellective soul as colors to sight. But Christ's power of\nseeing could not become actual save by turning to colors. Therefore\nHis intellective soul could understand nothing except by turning to\nphantasms.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's soul is of the same nature as ours.\notherwise He would not be of the same species as we, contrary to what\nthe Apostle says (Phil. 2:7) \" . . . being made in the likeness of\nmen.\" But our soul cannot understand except by turning to phantasms.\nHence, neither can Christ's soul otherwise understand.\n\nObj. 3: Further, senses are given to man to help his intellect.\nHence, if the soul of Christ could understand without turning to\nphantasms, which arise in the senses, it would follow that in the\nsoul of Christ the senses were useless, which is not fitting.\nTherefore it seems that the soul of Christ can only understand by\nturning to phantasms.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The soul of Christ knew certain things which could\nnot be known by the senses, viz. separate substances. Therefore it\ncould understand without turning to phantasms.\n\n_I answer that,_ In the state before His Passion Christ was at the\nsame time a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as will be more clearly\nshown (Q. 15, A. 10). Especially had He the conditions of a wayfarer\non the part of the body, which was passible; but the conditions of a\ncomprehensor He had chiefly on the part of the soul. Now this is the\ncondition of the soul of a comprehensor, viz. that it is nowise\nsubject to its body, or dependent upon it, but wholly dominates it.\nHence after the resurrection glory will flow from the soul to the\nbody. But the soul of man on earth needs to turn to phantasms,\nbecause it is fettered by the body and in a measure subject to and\ndependent upon it. And hence the blessed both before and after the\nresurrection can understand without turning to phantasms. And this\nmust be said of the soul of Christ, which had fully the capabilities\nof a comprehensor.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This likeness which the Philosopher asserts is not with\nregard to everything. For it is manifest that the end of the power of\nseeing is to know colors; but the end of the intellective power is\nnot to know phantasms, but to know intelligible species, which it\napprehends from and in phantasms, according to the state of the\npresent life. Therefore there is a likeness in respect of what both\npowers regard, but not in respect of that in which the condition of\nboth powers is terminated. Now nothing prevents a thing in different\nstates from reaching its end by different ways: albeit there is never\nbut one proper end of a thing. Hence, although the sight knows\nnothing without color; nevertheless in a certain state the intellect\ncan know without phantasms, but not without intelligible species.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although the soul of Christ was of the same nature as\nour souls, yet it had a state which our souls have not yet in fact,\nbut only in hope, i.e. the state of comprehension.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although the soul of Christ could understand without\nturning to phantasms, yet it could also understand by turning to\nphantasms. Hence the senses were not useless in it; especially as the\nsenses are not afforded to man solely for intellectual knowledge, but\nfor the need of animal life.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 3]\n\nWhether This Knowledge Is Collative?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had not this\nknowledge by way of comparison. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth.\niii, 14): \"We do not uphold counsel or choice in Christ.\" Now these\nthings are withheld from Christ only inasmuch as they imply\ncomparison and discursion. Therefore it seems that there was no\ncollative or discursive knowledge in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, man needs comparison and discursion of reason in\norder to find out the unknown. But the soul of Christ knew\neverything, as was said above (Q. 10, A. 2). Hence there was no\ndiscursive or collative knowledge in Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the knowledge in Christ's soul was like that of\ncomprehensors, who are likened to the angels, according to Matt.\n22:30. Now there is no collative or discursive knowledge in the\nangels, as Dionysius shows (Div. Nom. vii). Therefore there was no\ndiscursive or collative knowledge in the soul of Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Christ had a rational soul, as was shown (Q. 5, A.\n4). Now the proper operation of a rational soul consists in\ncomparison and discursion from one thing to another. Therefore there\nwas collative and discursive knowledge in Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ Knowledge may be discursive or collative in two\nways. First, in the acquisition of the knowledge, as happens to us,\nwho proceed from one thing to the knowledge of another, as from\ncauses to effects, and conversely. And in this way the knowledge in\nChrist's soul was not discursive or collative, since this knowledge\nwhich we are now considering was divinely infused, and not acquired\nby a process of reasoning. Secondly, knowledge may be called\ndiscursive or collative in use; as at times those who know, reason\nfrom cause to effect, not in order to learn anew, but wishing to use\nthe knowledge they have. And in this way the knowledge in Christ's\nsoul could be collative or discursive; since it could conclude one\nthing from another, as it pleased, as in Matt. 17:24, 25, when our\nLord asked Peter: \"Of whom do the kings of the earth receive tribute,\nof their own children, or of strangers?\" On Peter replying: \"Of\nstrangers,\" He concluded: \"Then the children are free.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: From Christ is excluded that counsel which is with\ndoubt; and consequently choice, which essentially includes such\ncounsel; but the practice of using counsel is not excluded from\nChrist.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This reason rests upon discursion and comparison, as\nused to acquire knowledge.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The blessed are likened to the angels in the gifts of\ngraces; yet there still remains the difference of natures. And hence\nto use comparison and discursion is connatural to the souls of the\nblessed, but not to angels.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 4]\n\nWhether in Christ This Knowledge Was Greater Than the Knowledge of\nthe Angels?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this knowledge was not greater in\nChrist than in the angels. For perfection is proportioned to the\nthing perfected. But the human soul in the order of nature is below\nthe angelic nature. Therefore since the knowledge we are now speaking\nof is imprinted upon Christ's soul for its perfection, it seems that\nthis knowledge is less than the knowledge by which the angelic nature\nis perfected.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the knowledge of Christ's soul was in a measure\ncomparative and discursive, which cannot be said of the angelic\nknowledge. Therefore the knowledge of Christ's soul was less than the\nknowledge of the angels.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the more immaterial knowledge is, the greater it is.\nBut the knowledge of the angels is more immaterial than the knowledge\nof Christ's soul, since the soul of Christ is the act of a body, and\nturns to phantasms, which cannot be said of the angels. Therefore the\nknowledge of angels is greater than the knowledge of Christ's soul.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 2:9): \"For we see Jesus,\nWho was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of\ndeath, crowned with glory and honor\"; from which it is plain that\nChrist is said to be lower than the angels only in regard to the\nsuffering of death. And hence, not in knowledge.\n\n_I answer that,_ The knowledge imprinted on Christ's soul may be\nlooked at in two ways: First, as regards what it has from the\ninflowing cause; secondly, as regards what it has from the subject\nreceiving it. Now with regard to the first, the knowledge imprinted\nupon the soul of Christ was more excellent than the knowledge of the\nangels, both in the number of things known and in the certainty of\nthe knowledge; since the spiritual light, which is imprinted on the\nsoul of Christ, is much more excellent than the light which pertains\nto the angelic nature. But as regards the second, the knowledge\nimprinted on the soul of Christ is less than the angelic knowledge,\nin the manner of knowing that is natural to the human soul, i.e. by\nturning to phantasms, and by comparison and discursion.\n\nAnd hereby the reply to the objections is made clear.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 5]\n\nWhether This Knowledge Was Habitual?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no habitual\nknowledge. For it has been said (Q. 9, A. 1) that the highest\nperfection of knowledge befitted Christ's soul. But the perfection of\nan actually existing knowledge is greater than that of a potentially\nor habitually existing knowledge. Therefore it was fitting for Him to\nknow all things actually. Therefore He had not habitual knowledge.\n\nObj. 2: Further, since habits are ordained to acts, a habitual\nknowledge which is never reduced to act would seem useless. Now,\nsince Christ knew all things, as was said (Q. 10, A. 2), He could not\nhave considered all things actually, thinking over one after another,\nsince the infinite cannot be passed over by enumeration. Therefore\nthe habitual knowledge of certain things would have been useless to\nHim--which is unfitting. Therefore He had an actual and not a\nhabitual knowledge of what He knew.\n\nObj. 3: Further, habitual knowledge is a perfection of the knower.\nBut perfection is more noble than the thing perfected. If, therefore,\nin the soul of Christ there was any created habit of knowledge, it\nwould follow that this created thing was nobler than the soul of\nChrist. Therefore there was no habitual knowledge in Christ's soul.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The knowledge of Christ we are now speaking about\nwas univocal with our knowledge, even as His soul was of the same\nspecies as ours. But our knowledge is in the genus of habit.\nTherefore the knowledge of Christ was habitual.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4), the mode of the knowledge\nimpressed on the soul of Christ befitted the subject receiving it.\nFor the received is in the recipient after the mode of the recipient.\nNow the connatural mode of the human soul is that it should\nunderstand sometimes actually, and sometimes potentially. But the\nmedium between a pure power and a completed act is a habit: and\nextremes and medium are of the same genus. Thus it is plain that it\nis the connatural mode of the human soul to receive knowledge as a\nhabit. Hence it must be said that the knowledge imprinted on the soul\nof Christ was habitual, for He could use it when He pleased.\n\nReply Obj. 1: In Christ's soul there was a twofold knowledge--each\nmost perfect of its kind: the first exceeding the mode of human\nnature, as by it He saw the Essence of God, and other things in It,\nand this was the most perfect, simply. Nor was this knowledge\nhabitual, but actual with respect to everything He knew in this way.\nBut the second knowledge was in Christ in a manner proportioned to\nhuman nature, i.e. inasmuch as He knew things by species divinely\nimprinted upon Him, and of this knowledge we are now speaking. Now\nthis knowledge was not most perfect, simply, but merely in the genus\nof human knowledge; hence it did not behoove it to be always in act.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Habits are reduced to act by the command of the will,\nsince a habit is that \"with which we act when we wish.\" Now the will\nis indeterminate in regard to infinite things. Yet it is not useless,\neven when it does not actually tend to all; provided it actually\ntends to everything in fitting place and time. And hence neither is a\nhabit useless, even if all that it extends to is not reduced to act;\nprovided that that which befits the due end of the will be reduced to\nact according as the matter in hand and the time require.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Goodness and being are taken in two ways: First,\nsimply; and thus a substance, which subsists in its being and\ngoodness, is a good and a being; secondly, being and goodness are\ntaken relatively, and in this way an accident is a being and a good,\nnot that it has being and goodness, but that its subject is a being\nand a good. And hence habitual knowledge is not simply better or more\nexcellent than the soul of Christ; but relatively, since the whole\ngoodness of habitual knowledge is added to the goodness of the\nsubject.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 11, Art. 6]\n\nWhether This Knowledge Was Distinguished by Divers Habits?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in the soul of Christ there was only\none habit of knowledge. For the more perfect knowledge is, the more\nunited it is; hence the higher angels understand by the more\nuniversal forms, as was said in the First Part (Q. 55, A. 3). Now\nChrist's knowledge was most perfect. Therefore it was most one.\nTherefore it was not distinguished by several habits.\n\nObj. 2: Further, our faith is derived from Christ's knowledge; hence\nit is written (Heb. 12:2): \"Looking on Jesus the author and finisher\nof faith.\" But there is only one habit of faith about all things\nbelieved, as was said in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 4, A. 6). Much\nmore, therefore, was there only one habit of knowledge in Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, knowledge is distinguished by the divers formalities\nof knowable things. But the soul of Christ knew everything under one\nformality, i.e. by a divinely infused light. Therefore in Christ\nthere was only one habit of knowledge.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Zech. 3:9) that on \"one\" stone,\ni.e. Christ, \"there are seven eyes.\" Now by the eye is understood\nknowledge. Therefore it would seem that in Christ there were several\nhabits of knowledge.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 4, 5), the knowledge imprinted\non Christ's soul has a mode connatural to a human soul. Now it is\nconnatural to a human soul to receive species of a lesser\nuniversality than the angels receive; so that it knows different\nspecific natures by different intelligible species. But it so happens\nthat we have different habits of knowledge, because there are\ndifferent classes of knowable things, inasmuch as what are in one\ngenus are known by one habit; thus it is said (Poster. i, 42) that\n\"one science is of one class of object.\" And hence the knowledge\nimprinted on Christ's soul was distinguished by different habits.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As was said (A. 4), the knowledge of Christ's soul is\nmost perfect, and exceeds the knowledge of angels with regard to what\nis in it on the part of God's gift; but it is below the angelic\nknowledge as regards the mode of the recipient. And it pertains to\nthis mode that this knowledge is distinguished by various habits,\ninasmuch as it regards more particular species.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Our faith rests upon the First Truth; and hence Christ\nis the author of our faith by the Divine knowledge, which is simply\none.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The divinely infused light is the common formality for\nunderstanding what is divinely revealed, as the light of the active\nintellect is with regard to what is naturally known. Hence, in the\nsoul of Christ there must be the proper species of singular things,\nin order to know each with proper knowledge; and in this way there\nmust be divers habits of knowledge in Christ's soul, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 12\n\nOF THE ACQUIRED OR EMPIRIC KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST'S SOUL\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the acquired or empiric knowledge of Christ's\nsoul; and under this head there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ knew all things by this knowledge?\n\n(2) Whether He advanced in this knowledge?\n\n(3) Whether He learned anything from man?\n\n(4) Whether He received anything from angels?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 12, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Knew All Things by This Acquired or Empiric Knowledge?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not know everything by\nthis knowledge. For this knowledge is acquired by experience. But\nChrist did not experience everything. Therefore He did not know\neverything by this knowledge.\n\nObj. 2: Further, man acquires knowledge through the senses. But not\nall sensible things were subjected to Christ's bodily senses.\nTherefore Christ did not know everything by this knowledge.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the extent of knowledge depends on the things\nknowable. Therefore if Christ knew all things by this knowledge, His\nacquired knowledge would have been equal to His infused and beatific\nknowledge; which is not fitting. Therefore Christ did not know all\nthings by this knowledge.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Nothing imperfect was in Christ's soul. Now this\nknowledge of His would have been imperfect if He had not known all\nthings by it, since the imperfect is that to which addition may be\nmade. Hence Christ knew all things by this knowledge.\n\n_I answer that,_ Acquired knowledge is held to be in Christ's soul,\nas we have said (Q. 9, A. 4), by reason of the active intellect, lest\nits action, which is to make things actually intelligible, should be\nwanting; even as imprinted or infused knowledge is held to be in\nChrist's soul for the perfection of the passive intellect. Now as the\npassive intellect is that by which \"all things are in potentiality,\"\nso the active intellect is that by which \"all are in act,\" as is said\n_De Anima_ iii, 18. And hence, as the soul of Christ knew by infused\nknowledge all things to which the passive intellect is in any way in\npotentiality, so by acquired knowledge it knew whatever can be known\nby the action of the active intellect.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The knowledge of things may be acquired not merely by\nexperiencing the things themselves, but by experiencing other things;\nsince by virtue of the light of the active intellect man can go on to\nunderstand effects from causes, and causes from effects, like from\nlike, contrary from contrary. Therefore Christ, though He did not\nexperience all things, came to the knowledge of all things from what\nHe did experience.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although all sensible things were not subjected to\nChrist's bodily senses, yet other sensible things were subjected to\nHis senses; and from this He could come to know other things by the\nmost excellent force of His reason, in the manner described in the\nprevious reply; just as in seeing heavenly bodies He could comprehend\ntheir powers and the effects they have upon things here below, which\nwere not subjected to His senses; and for the same reason, from any\nother things whatsoever, He could come to the knowledge of yet other\nthings.\n\nReply Obj. 3: By this knowledge the soul of Christ did not know all\nthings simply, but all such as are knowable by the light of man's\nactive intellect. Hence by this knowledge He did not know the\nessences of separate substances, nor past, present, or future\nsingulars, which, nevertheless, He knew by infused knowledge, as\nwas said above (Q. 11).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 12, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Advanced in Acquired or Empiric Knowledge?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not advance in this\nknowledge. For even as Christ knew all things by His beatific and His\ninfused knowledge, so also did He by this acquired knowledge, as is\nplain from what has been said (A. 1). But He did not advance in these\nknowledges. Therefore neither in this.\n\nObj. 2: Further, to advance belongs to the imperfect, since the\nperfect cannot be added to. Now we cannot suppose an imperfect\nknowledge in Christ. Therefore Christ did not advance in this\nknowledge.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 22): \"Whoever say\nthat Christ advanced in wisdom and grace, as if receiving additional\nsensations, do not venerate the union which is in hypostasis.\" But it\nis impious not to venerate this union. Therefore it is impious to say\nthat His knowledge received increase.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 2:52): \"Jesus advanced in\nwisdom and age and grace with God and men\"; and Ambrose says (De\nIncar. Dom. vii) that \"He advanced in human wisdom.\" Now human wisdom\nis that which is acquired in a human manner, i.e. by the light of the\nactive intellect. Therefore Christ advanced in this knowledge.\n\n_I answer that,_ There is a twofold advancement in knowledge: one in\nessence, inasmuch as the habit of knowledge is increased; the other\nin effect--e.g. if someone were with one and the same habit of\nknowledge to prove to someone else some minor truths at first, and\nafterwards greater and more subtle conclusions. Now in this second\nway it is plain that Christ advanced in knowledge and grace, even as\nin age, since as His age increased He wrought greater deeds, and\nshowed greater knowledge and grace.\n\nBut as regards the habit of knowledge, it is plain that His habit of\ninfused knowledge did not increase, since from the beginning He had\nperfect infused knowledge of all things; and still less could His\nbeatific knowledge increase; while in the First Part (Q. 14, A. 15),\nwe have already said that His Divine knowledge could not increase.\nTherefore, if in the soul of Christ there was no habit of acquired\nknowledge, beyond the habit of infused knowledge, as appears to some\n[*Blessed Albert the Great, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure], and\nsometime appeared to me (Sent. iii, D, xiv), no knowledge in Christ\nincreased in essence, but merely by experience, i.e. by comparing the\ninfused intelligible species with phantasms. And in this way they\nmaintain that Christ's knowledge grew in experience, e.g. by\ncomparing the infused intelligible species with what He received\nthrough the senses for the first time. But because it seems unfitting\nthat any natural intelligible action should be wanting to Christ, and\nbecause to extract intelligible species from phantasms is a natural\naction of man's active intellect, it seems becoming to place even\nthis action in Christ. And it follows from this that in the soul of\nChrist there was a habit of knowledge which could increase by this\nabstraction of species; inasmuch as the active intellect, after\nabstracting the first intelligible species from phantasms, could\nabstract others, and others again.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Both the infused knowledge and the beatific knowledge\nof Christ's soul were the effects of an agent of infinite power,\nwhich could produce the whole at once; and thus in neither knowledge\ndid Christ advance; since from the beginning He had them perfectly.\nBut the acquired knowledge of Christ is caused by the active\nintellect which does not produce the whole at once, but successively;\nand hence by this knowledge Christ did not know everything from the\nbeginning, but step by step, and after a time, i.e. in His perfect\nage; and this is plain from what the Evangelist says, viz. that He\nincreased in \"knowledge and age\" together.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Even this knowledge was always perfect for the time\nbeing, although it was not always perfect, simply and in comparison\nto the nature; hence it could increase.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This saying of Damascene regards those who say\nabsolutely that addition was made to Christ's knowledge, i.e. as\nregards any knowledge of His, and especially as regards the infused\nknowledge which is caused in Christ's soul by union with the Word;\nbut it does not regard the increase of knowledge caused by the\nnatural agent.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 12, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Learned Anything from Man?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ learned something from man.\nFor it is written (Luke 2:46, 47) that, \"They found Him in the temple\nin the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them\nquestions.\" But to ask questions and to reply pertains to a learner.\nTherefore Christ learned something from man.\n\nObj. 2: Further, to acquire knowledge from a man's teaching seems\nmore noble than to acquire it from sensible things, since in the soul\nof the man who teaches the intelligible species are in act; but in\nsensible things the intelligible species are only in potentiality.\nNow Christ received empiric knowledge from sensible things, as stated\nabove (A. 2). Much more, therefore, could He receive knowledge by\nlearning from men.\n\nObj. 3: Further, by empiric knowledge Christ did not know everything\nfrom the beginning, but advanced in it, as was said above (A. 2). But\nanyone hearing words which mean something, may learn something he\ndoes not know. Therefore Christ could learn from men something He did\nnot know by this knowledge.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 45:4): \"Behold, I have given\nHim for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the\nGentiles.\" Now a master is not taught, but teaches. Therefore Christ\ndid not receive any knowledge by the teaching of any man.\n\n_I answer that,_ In every genus that which is the first mover is not\nmoved according to the same species of movement; just as the first\nalterative is not itself altered. Now Christ is established by God\nthe Head of the Church--yea, of all men, as was said above (Q. 8, A.\n3), so that not only all might receive grace through Him, but that\nall might receive the doctrine of Truth from Him. Hence He Himself\nsays (John 18:37): \"For this was I born, and for this came I into the\nworld; that I should give testimony to the truth.\" And thus it did\nnot befit His dignity that He should be taught by any man.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Origen says (Hom. xix in Luc.): \"Our Lord asked\nquestions not in order to learn anything, but in order to teach by\nquestioning. For from the same well of knowledge came the question\nand the wise reply.\" Hence the Gospel goes on to say that \"all that\nheard Him were astonished at His wisdom and His answers.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Whoever learns from man does not receive knowledge\nimmediately from the intelligible species which are in his mind, but\nthrough sensible words, which are signs of intelligible concepts. Now\nas words formed by a man are signs of his intellectual knowledge; so\nare creatures, formed by God, signs of His wisdom. Hence it is\nwritten (Ecclus. 1:10) that God \"poured\" wisdom \"out upon all His\nworks.\" Hence, just as it is better to be taught by God than by man,\nso it is better to receive our knowledge from sensible creatures and\nnot by man's teaching.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Jesus advanced in empiric knowledge, as in age, as\nstated above (A. 2). Now as a fitting age is required for a man to\nacquire knowledge by discovery, so also that he may acquire it by\nbeing taught. But our Lord did nothing unbecoming to His age; and\nhence He did not give ear to hearing the lessons of doctrine until\nsuch time as He was able to have reached that grade of knowledge by\nway of experience. Hence Gregory says (Sup. Ezech. Lib. i, Hom. ii):\n\"In the twelfth year of His age He deigned to question men on earth,\nsince in the course of reason, the word of doctrine is not vouchsafed\nbefore the age of perfection.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 12, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Received Knowledge from the Angels?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ received knowledge from the\nangels. For it is written (Luke 22:43) that \"there appeared to Him an\nangel from heaven, strengthening Him.\" But we are strengthened by the\ncomforting words of a teacher, according to Job 4:3, 4: \"Behold thou\nhast taught many and hast strengthened the weary hand. Thy words have\nconfirmed them that were staggering.\" Therefore Christ was taught by\nangels.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): \"For I see that\neven Jesus--the super-substantial substance of supercelestial\nsubstances--when without change He took our substance upon Himself,\nwas subject in obedience to the instructions of the Father and God by\nthe angels.\" Hence it seems that even Christ wished to be subject to\nthe ordinations of the Divine law, whereby men are taught by means of\nangels.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as in the natural order the human body is subject to\nthe celestial bodies, so likewise is the human mind to angelic minds.\nNow Christ's body was subject to the impressions of the heavenly\nbodies, for He felt the heat in summer and the cold in winter, and\nother human passions. Therefore His human mind was subject to the\nilluminations of supercelestial spirits.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that \"the highest\nangels question Jesus, and learn the knowledge of His Divine work,\nand of the flesh assumed for us; and Jesus teaches them directly.\"\nNow to teach and to be taught do not belong to the same. Therefore\nChrist did not receive knowledge from the angels.\n\n_I answer that,_ Since the human soul is midway between spiritual\nsubstances and corporeal things, it is perfected naturally in two\nways. First by knowledge received from sensible things; secondly, by\nknowledge imprinted or infused by the illumination of spiritual\nsubstances. Now in both these ways the soul of Christ was perfected;\nfirst by empirical knowledge of sensible things, for which there is\nno need of angelic light, since the light of the active intellect\nsuffices; secondly, by the higher impression of infused knowledge,\nwhich He received directly from God. For as His soul was united to\nthe Word above the common mode, in unity of person, so above the\ncommon manner of men was it filled with knowledge and grace by the\nWord of God Himself; and not by the medium of angels, who in their\nbeginning received the knowledge of things by the influence of the\nWord, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8).\n\nReply Obj. 1: This strengthening by the angel was for the purpose not\nof instructing Him, but of proving the truth of His human nature.\nHence Bede says (on Luke 22:43): \"In testimony of both natures are\nthe angels said to have ministered to Him and to have strengthened\nHim. For the Creator did not need help from His creature; but having\nbecome man, even as it was for our sake that He was sad, so was it\nfor our sake that He was strengthened,\" i.e. in order that our faith\nin the Incarnation might be strengthened.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Dionysius says that Christ was subject to the angelic\ninstructions, not by reason of Himself, but by reason of what\nhappened at His Incarnation, and as regards the care of Him whilst He\nwas a child. Hence in the same place he adds that \"Jesus' withdrawal\nto Egypt decreed by the Father is announced to Joseph by angels, and\nagain His return to Judaea from Egypt.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Son of God assumed a passible body (as will be said\nhereafter (Q. 14, A. 1)) and a soul perfect in knowledge and grace (Q.\n14, A. 1, ad 1; A. 4). Hence His body was rightly subject to the\nimpression of heavenly bodies; but His soul was not subject to the\nimpression of heavenly spirits.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 13\n\nOF THE POWER OF CHRIST'S SOUL\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the power of Christ's soul; and under this head\nthere are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether He had omnipotence simply?\n\n(2) Whether He had omnipotence with regard to corporeal creatures?\n\n(3) Whether He had omnipotence with regard to His own body?\n\n(4) Whether He had omnipotence as regards the execution of His own\nwill?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 13, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had omnipotence.\nFor Ambrose [*Gloss, Ord.] says on Luke 1:32: \"The power which the\nSon of God had naturally, the Man was about to receive in time.\" Now\nthis would seem to regard the soul principally, since it is the chief\npart of man. Hence since the Son of God had omnipotence from all\neternity, it would seem that the soul of Christ received omnipotence\nin time.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as the power of God is infinite, so is His\nknowledge. But the soul of Christ in a manner had the knowledge of\nall that God knows, as was said above (Q. 10, A. 2). Therefore He had\nall power; and thus He was omnipotent.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the soul of Christ has all knowledge. Now knowledge\nis either practical or speculative. Therefore He has a practical\nknowledge of what He knows, i.e. He knew how to do what He knows; and\nthus it seems that He can do all things.\n\n_On the contrary,_ What is proper to God cannot belong to any\ncreature. But it is proper to God to be omnipotent, according to Ex.\n15:2, 3: \"He is my God and I will glorify Him,\" and further on,\n\"Almighty is His name.\" Therefore the soul of Christ, as being a\ncreature, has not omnipotence.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 2, A. 1; Q. 10, A. 1) in the\nmystery of the Incarnation the union in person so took place that\nthere still remained the distinction of natures, each nature still\nretaining what belonged to it. Now the active principle of a thing\nfollows its form, which is the principle of action. But the form is\neither the very nature of the thing, as in simple things; or is the\nconstituent of the nature of the thing; as in such as are composed of\nmatter and form.\n\nAnd it is in this way that omnipotence flows, so to say, from the\nDivine Nature. For since the Divine Nature is the very\nuncircumscribed Being of God, as is plain from Dionysius (Div. Nom.\nv), it has an active power over everything that can have the nature\nof being; and this is to have omnipotence; just as every other thing\nhas an active power over such things as the perfection of its nature\nextends to; as what is hot gives heat. Therefore since the soul of\nChrist is a part of human nature, it cannot possibly have omnipotence.\n\nReply Obj. 1: By union with the Person, the Man receives omnipotence\nin time, which the Son of God had from eternity; the result of which\nunion is that as the Man is said to be God, so is He said to be\nomnipotent; not that the omnipotence of the Man is distinct (as\nneither is His Godhead) from that of the Son of God, but because\nthere is one Person of God and man.\n\nReply Obj. 2: According to some, knowledge and active power are not\nin the same ratio; for an active power flows from the very nature of\nthe thing, inasmuch as action is considered to come forth from the\nagent; but knowledge is not always possessed by the very essence or\nform of the knower, since it may be had by assimilation of the knower\nto the thing known by the aid of received species. But this reason\nseems not to suffice, because even as we may understand by a likeness\nobtained from another, so also may we act by a form obtained from\nanother, as water or iron heats, by heat borrowed from fire. Hence\nthere would be no reason why the soul of Christ, as it can know all\nthings by the similitudes of all things impressed upon it by God,\ncannot do these things by the same similitudes.\n\nIt has, therefore, to be further considered that what is received in\nthe lower nature from the higher is possessed in an inferior manner;\nfor heat is not received by water in the perfection and strength it\nhad in fire. Therefore, since the soul of Christ is of an inferior\nnature to the Divine Nature, the similitudes of things are not\nreceived in the soul of Christ in the perfection and strength they\nhad in the Divine Nature. And hence it is that the knowledge of\nChrist's soul is inferior to Divine knowledge as regards the manner\nof knowing, for God knows (things) more perfectly than the soul of\nChrist; and also as regards the number of things known, since the\nsoul of Christ does not know all that God can do, and these God knows\nby the knowledge of simple intelligence; although it knows all things\npresent, past, and future, which God knows by the knowledge of\nvision. So, too, the similitudes of things infused into Christ's soul\ndo not equal the Divine power in acting, i.e. so as to do all that\nGod can do, or to do in the same manner as God does, Who acts with an\ninfinite might whereof the creature is not capable. Now there is no\nthing, to know which in some way an infinite power is needed,\nalthough a certain kind of knowledge belongs to an infinite power;\nyet there are things which can be done only by an infinite power, as\ncreation and the like, as is plain from what has been said in the\nFirst Part (Q. 45). Hence Christ's soul which, being a creature, is\nfinite in might, can know, indeed, all things, but not in every way;\nyet it cannot do all things, which pertains to the nature of\nomnipotence; and, amongst other things, it is clear it cannot create\nitself.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's soul has practical and speculative knowledge;\nyet it is not necessary that it should have practical knowledge of\nthose things of which it has speculative knowledge. Because for\nspeculative knowledge a mere conformity or assimilation of the knower\nto the thing known suffices; whereas for practical knowledge it is\nrequired that the forms of the things in the intellect should be\noperative. Now to have a form and to impress this form upon something\nelse is more than merely to have the form; as to be lightsome and to\nenlighten is more than merely to be lightsome. Hence the soul of\nChrist has a speculative knowledge of creation (for it knows the mode\nof God's creation), but it has no practical knowledge of this mode,\nsince it has no knowledge operative of creation.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 13, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence with Regard to the\nTransmutation of Creatures?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had omnipotence\nwith regard to the transmutation of creatures. For He Himself says\n(Matt. 28:18): \"All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth.\" Now\nby the words \"heaven and earth\" are meant all creatures, as is plain\nfrom Gen. 1:1: \"In the beginning God created heaven and earth.\"\nTherefore it seems that the soul of Christ had omnipotence with\nregard to the transmutation of creatures.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the soul of Christ is the most perfect of all\ncreatures. But every creature can be moved by another creature; for\nAugustine says (De Trin. iii, 4) that \"even as the denser and lower\nbodies are ruled in a fixed way by the subtler and stronger bodies;\nso are all bodies by the spirit of life, and the irrational spirit of\nlife by the rational spirit of life, and the truant and sinful\nrational spirit of life by the rational, loyal, and righteous spirit\nof life.\" But the soul of Christ moves even the highest spirits,\nenlightening them, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii). Therefore it\nseems that the soul of Christ has omnipotence with regard to the\ntransmutation of creatures.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's soul had in its highest degree the \"grace\nof miracles\" or works of might. But every transmutation of the\ncreature can belong to the grace of miracles; since even the heavenly\nbodies were miraculously changed from their course, as Dionysius\nproves (Ep. ad Polycarp). Therefore Christ's soul had omnipotence\nwith regard to the transmutation of creatures.\n\n_On the contrary,_ To transmute creatures belongs to Him Who\npreserves them. Now this belongs to God alone, according to Heb. 1:3:\n\"Upholding all things by the word of His power.\" Therefore God alone\nhas omnipotence with regard to the transmutation of creatures.\nTherefore this does not belong to Christ's soul.\n\n_I answer that,_ Two distinctions are here needed. Of these the first\nis with respect to the transmutation of creatures, which is\nthree-fold. The first is natural, being brought about by the proper\nagent naturally; the second is miraculous, being brought about by a\nsupernatural agent above the wonted order and course of nature, as to\nraise the dead; the third is inasmuch as every creature may be\nbrought to nothing.\n\nThe second distinction has to do with Christ's soul, which may be\nlooked at in two ways: first in its proper nature and with its power\nof nature or of grace; secondly, as it is the instrument of the Word\nof God, personally united to Him. Therefore if we speak of the soul\nof Christ in its proper nature and with its power of nature or of\ngrace, it had power to cause those effects proper to a soul (e.g. to\nrule the body and direct human acts, and also, by the fulness of\ngrace and knowledge to enlighten all rational creatures falling short\nof its perfection), in a manner befitting a rational creature. But if\nwe speak of the soul of Christ as it is the instrument of the Word\nunited to Him, it had an instrumental power to effect all the\nmiraculous transmutations ordainable to the end of the Incarnation,\nwhich is \"to re-establish all things that are in heaven and on earth\"\n[*Eph. 1:10]. But the transmutation of creatures, inasmuch as they\nmay be brought to nothing, corresponds to their creation, whereby\nthey were brought from nothing. And hence even as God alone can\ncreate, so, too, He alone can bring creatures to nothing, and He\nalone upholds them in being, lest they fall back to nothing. And thus\nit must be said that the soul of Christ had not omnipotence with\nregard to the transmutation of creatures.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Jerome says (on the text quoted): \"Power is given\nHim,\" i.e. to Christ as man, \"Who a little while before was\ncrucified, buried in the tomb, and afterwards rose again.\" But power\nis said to have been given Him, by reason of the union whereby it was\nbrought about that a Man was omnipotent, as was said above (A. 1, ad\n1). And although this was made known to the angels before the\nResurrection, yet after the Resurrection it was made known to all\nmen, as Remigius says (cf. Catena Aurea). Now, \"things are said to\nhappen when they are made known\" [*Hugh of St. Victor: Qq. in Ep. ad\nPhilip.]. Hence after the Resurrection our Lord says \"that all power\nis given\" to Him \"in heaven and on earth.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although every creature is transmutable by some other\ncreature, except, indeed, the highest angel, and even it can be\nenlightened by Christ's soul; yet not every transmutation that can be\nmade in a creature can be made by a creature; since some\ntransmutations can be made by God alone. Yet all transmutations that\ncan be made in creatures can be made by the soul of Christ, as the\ninstrument of the Word, but not in its proper nature and power, since\nsome of these transmutations pertain to the soul neither in the order\nof nature nor in the order of grace.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As was said in the Second Part (Q. 178, A. 1, ad 1),\nthe grace of mighty works or miracles is given to the soul of a\nsaint, so that these miracles are wrought not by his own, but by\nDivine power. Now this grace was bestowed on Christ's soul most\nexcellently, i.e. not only that He might work miracles, but also that\nHe might communicate this grace to others. Hence it is written (Matt.\n10:1) that, \"having called His twelve disciples together, He gave\nthem power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all\nmanner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 13, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence with Regard to His Own\nBody?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's soul had omnipotence with\nregard to His own body. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20,\n23) that \"all natural things were voluntary to Christ; He willed to\nhunger, He willed to thirst, He willed to fear, He willed to die.\"\nNow God is called omnipotent because \"He hath done all things\nwhatsoever He would\" (Ps. 113:11). Therefore it seems that Christ's\nsoul had omnipotence with regard to the natural operations of the\nbody.\n\nObj. 2: Further, human nature was more perfect in Christ than in\nAdam, who had a body entirely subject to the soul, so that nothing\ncould happen to the body against the will of the soul--and this on\naccount of the original justice which it had in the state of\ninnocence. Much more, therefore, had Christ's soul omnipotence with\nregard to His body.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the body is naturally changed by the imaginations of\nthe soul; and so much more changed, the stronger the soul's\nimagination, as was said in the First Part (Q. 117, A. 3, ad 3). Now\nthe soul of Christ had most perfect strength as regards both the\nimagination and the other powers. Therefore the soul of Christ was\nomnipotent with regard to His own body.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 2:17) that \"it behooved Him in\nall things to be made like unto His brethren,\" and especially as\nregards what belongs to the condition of human nature. But it belongs\nto the condition of human nature that the health of the body and its\nnourishment and growth are not subject to the bidding of reason or\nwill, since natural things are subject to God alone Who is the author\nof nature. Therefore they were not subject in Christ. Therefore\nChrist's soul was not omnipotent with regard to His own body.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), Christ's soul may be viewed\nin two ways. First, in its proper nature and power; and in this way,\nas it was incapable of making exterior bodies swerve from the course\nand order of nature, so, too, was it incapable of changing its own\nbody from its natural disposition, since the soul, of its own nature,\nhas a determinate relation to its body. Secondly, Christ's soul may\nbe viewed as an instrument united in person to God's Word; and thus\nevery disposition of His own body was wholly subject to His power.\nNevertheless, since the power of an action is not properly attributed\nto the instrument, but to the principal agent, this omnipotence is\nattributed to the Word of God rather than to Christ's soul.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This saying of Damascene refers to the Divine will of\nChrist, since, as he says in the preceding chapter (De Fide Orth.\nxix, 14, 15), it was by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh\nwas allowed to suffer and do what was proper to it.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It was no part of the original justice which Adam had\nin the state of innocence that a man's soul should have the power of\nchanging his own body to any form, but that it should keep it from\nany hurt. Yet Christ could have assumed even this power if He had\nwished. But since man has three states--viz. innocence, sin, and\nglory, even as from the state of glory He assumed comprehension and\nfrom the state of innocence, freedom from sin--so also from the state\nof sin did He assume the necessity of being under the penalties of\nthis life, as will be said (Q. 14, A. 2).\n\nReply Obj. 3: If the imagination be strong, the body obeys naturally\nin some things, e.g. as regards falling from a beam set on high,\nsince the imagination was formed to be a principle of local motion,\nas is said _De Anima_ iii, 9, 10. So, too, as regards alteration in\nheat and cold, and their consequences; for the passions of the soul,\nwherewith the heart is moved, naturally follow the imagination, and\nthus by commotion of the spirits the whole body is altered. But the\nother corporeal dispositions which have no natural relation to the\nimagination are not transmuted by the imagination, however strong it\nis, e.g. the shape of the hand, or foot, or such like.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 13, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Soul of Christ Had Omnipotence As Regards the Execution\nof His Will?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ had not\nomnipotence as regards the execution of His own will. For it is\nwritten (Mk. 7:24) that \"entering into a house, He would that no man\nshould know it, and He could not be hid.\" Therefore He could not\ncarry out the purpose of His will in all things.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a command is a sign of will, as was said in the\nFirst Part (Q. 19, A. 12). But our Lord commanded certain things to\nbe done, and the contrary came to pass, for it is written (Matt.\n9:30, 31) that Jesus strictly charged them whose eyes had been\nopened, saying: \"See that no man know this. But they going out spread\nHis fame abroad in all that country.\" Therefore He could not carry\nout the purpose of His will in everything.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a man does not ask from another for what he can do\nhimself. But our Lord besought the Father, praying for what He wished\nto be done, for it is written (Luke 6:12): \"He went out into a\nmountain to pray, and He passed the whole night in the prayer of\nGod.\" Therefore He could not carry out the purpose of His will in all\nthings.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. 77):\n\"It is impossible for the will of the Saviour not to be fulfilled:\nnor is it possible for Him to will what He knows ought not to come to\npass.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ's soul willed things in two ways. First, what\nwas to be brought about by Himself; and it must be said that He was\ncapable of whatever He willed thus, since it would not befit His\nwisdom if He willed to do anything of Himself that was not subject to\nHis will. Secondly, He wished things to be brought about by the\nDivine power, as the resurrection of His own body and such like\nmiraculous deeds, which He could not effect by His own power, except\nas the instrument of the Godhead, as was said above (A. 2).\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., qu. 77):\n\"What came to pass, this Christ must be said to have willed. For it\nmust be remarked that this happened in the country of the Gentiles,\nto whom it was not yet time to preach. Yet it would have been\ninvidious not to welcome such as came spontaneously for the faith.\nHence He did not wish to be heralded by His own, and yet He wished to\nbe sought; and so it came to pass.\" Or it may be said that this will\nof Christ was not with regard to what was to be carried out by it,\nbut with regard to what was to be done by others, which did not come\nunder His human will. Hence in the letter of Pope Agatho, which was\napproved in the Sixth Council [*Third Council of Constantinople, Act.\niv], we read: \"When He, the Creator and Redeemer of all, wished to be\nhid and could not, must not this be referred only to His human will\nwhich He deigned to assume in time?\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Gregory says (Moral. xix), by the fact that\n\"Our Lord charged His mighty works to be kept secret, He gave an\nexample to His servants coming after Him that they should wish their\nmiracles to be hidden; and yet, that others may profit by their\nexample, they are made public against their will.\" And thus this\ncommand signified His will to fly from human glory, according to John\n8:50, \"I seek not My own glory.\" Yet He wished absolutely, and\nespecially by His Divine will, that the miracle wrought should be\npublished for the good of others.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ prayed both for things that were to be\nbrought about by the Divine power, and for what He Himself was to do\nby His human will, since the power and operation of Christ's soul\ndepended on God, \"Who works in all [Vulg.: 'you'], both to will and to\naccomplish\" (Phil. 2:13).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 14\n\nOF THE DEFECTS OF BODY ASSUMED BY THE SON OF GOD\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the defects Christ assumed in the human nature;\nand first, of the defects of body; secondly, of the defects of soul.\n\nUnder the first head there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the Son of God should have assumed in human nature\ndefects of body?\n\n(2) Whether He assumed the obligation of being subject to these\ndefects?\n\n(3) Whether He contracted these defects?\n\n(4) Whether He assumed all these defects?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Son of God in Human Nature Ought to Have Assumed Defects\nof Body?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Son of God ought not to have\nassumed human nature with defects of body. For as His soul is\npersonally united to the Word of God, so also is His body. But the\nsoul of Christ had every perfection, both of grace and truth, as was\nsaid above (Q. 7, A. 9; Q. 9, seqq.). Hence, His body also ought to\nhave been in every way perfect, not having any imperfection in it.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the soul of Christ saw the Word of God by the vision\nwherein the blessed see, as was said above (Q. 9, A. 2), and thus the\nsoul of Christ was blessed. Now by the beatification of the soul the\nbody is glorified; since, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dios. cxviii),\n\"God made the soul of a nature so strong that from the fulness of its\nblessedness there pours over even into the lower nature\" (i.e. the\nbody), \"not indeed the bliss proper to the beatific fruition and\nvision, but the fulness of health\" (i.e. the vigor of\nincorruptibility). Therefore the body of Christ was incorruptible and\nwithout any defect.\n\nObj. 3: Further, penalty is the consequence of fault. But there was\nno fault in Christ, according to 1 Pet. 2:22: \"Who did no guile.\"\nTherefore defects of body, which are penalties, ought not to have\nbeen in Him.\n\nObj. 4: Further, no reasonable man assumes what keeps him from his\nproper end. But by such like bodily defects, the end of the\nIncarnation seems to be hindered in many ways. First, because by\nthese infirmities men were kept back from knowing Him, according to\nIsa. 53:2, 3: \"[There was no sightliness] that we should be desirous\nof Him. Despised and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows and\nacquainted with infirmity, and His look was, as it were, hidden and\ndespised, whereupon we esteemed Him not.\" Secondly, because the\ndesire of the Fathers would not seem to be fulfilled, in whose person\nit is written (Isa. 51:9): \"Arise, arise, put on Thy strength, O Thou\nArm of the Lord.\" Thirdly, because it would seem more fitting for the\ndevil's power to be overcome and man's weakness healed, by strength\nthan by weakness. Therefore it does not seem to have been fitting\nthat the Son of God assumed human nature with infirmities or defects\nof body.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 2:18): \"For in that, wherein\nHe Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them\nalso that are tempted.\" Now He came to succor us. Hence David said of\nHim (Ps. 120:1): \"I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from\nwhence help shall come to me.\" Therefore it was fitting for the Son\nof God to assume flesh subject to human infirmities, in order to\nsuffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to us.\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of\nGod to be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially\nfor three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the\nsin of the human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, came\ninto the world. Now one satisfies for another's sin by taking on\nhimself the punishment due to the sin of the other. But these bodily\ndefects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the\npunishment of sin, which was brought into the world by Adam,\naccording to Rom. 5:12: \"By one man sin entered into this world, and\nby sin death.\" Hence it was useful for the end of the Incarnation\nthat He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead,\naccording to Isa. 53:4, \"Surely He hath borne our infirmities.\"\nSecondly, in order to cause belief in the Incarnation. For since\nhuman nature is known to men only as it is subject to these defects,\nif the Son of God had assumed human nature without these defects, He\nwould not have seemed to be true man, nor to have true, but\nimaginary, flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is said, Phil.\n2:7: \"He . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being\nmade in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.\" Hence,\nThomas, by the sight of His wounds, was recalled to the faith, as\nrelated John 20:26. Thirdly, in order to show us an example of\npatience by valiantly bearing up against human passibility and\ndefects. Hence it is said (Heb. 12:3) that He \"endured such\nopposition from sinners against Himself, that you be not wearied,\nfainting in your minds.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The penalties one suffers for another's sin are the\nmatter, as it were, of the satisfaction for that sin; but the\nprinciple is the habit of soul, whereby one is inclined to wish to\nsatisfy for another, and from which the satisfaction has its\nefficacy, for satisfaction would not be efficacious unless it\nproceeded from charity, as will be explained (Supp., Q. 14, A. 2).\nHence, it behooved the soul of Christ to be perfect as regards the\nhabit of knowledge and virtue, in order to have the power of\nsatisfying; but His body was subject to infirmities, that the matter\nof satisfaction should not be wanting.\n\nReply Obj. 2: From the natural relationship which is between the soul\nand the body, glory flows into the body from the soul's glory. Yet\nthis natural relationship in Christ was subject to the will of His\nGodhead, and thereby it came to pass that the beatitude remained in\nthe soul, and did not flow into the body; but the flesh suffered what\nbelongs to a passible nature; thus Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii,\n15) that, \"it was by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh\nwas allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Punishment always follows sin actual or original,\nsometimes of the one punished, sometimes of the one for whom he who\nsuffers the punishment satisfies. And so it was with Christ,\naccording to Isa. 53:5: \"He was wounded for our iniquities, He was\nbruised for our sins.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: The infirmity assumed by Christ did not impede, but\ngreatly furthered the end of the Incarnation, as above stated. And\nalthough these infirmities concealed His Godhead, they made known His\nManhood, which is the way of coming to the Godhead, according to Rom.\n5:1, 2: \"By Jesus Christ we have access to God.\" Moreover, the\nancient Fathers did not desire bodily strength in Christ, but\nspiritual strength, wherewith He vanquished the devil and healed\nhuman weakness.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Was of Necessity Subject to These Defects?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was not of necessity subject\nto these defects. For it is written (Isa. 53:7): \"He was offered\nbecause it was His own will\"; and the prophet is speaking of the\noffering of the Passion. But will is opposed to necessity. Therefore\nChrist was not of necessity subject to bodily defects.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20): \"Nothing\nobligatory is seen in Christ: all is voluntary.\" Now what is\nvoluntary is not necessary. Therefore these defects were not of\nnecessity in Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, necessity is induced by something more powerful. But\nno creature is more powerful than the soul of Christ, to which it\npertained to preserve its own body. Therefore these defects were not\nof necessity in Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 8:3) that \"God\" sent \"His\nown Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.\" Now it is a condition of\nsinful flesh to be under the necessity of dying, and suffering other\nlike passions. Therefore the necessity of suffering these defects was\nin Christ's flesh.\n\n_I answer that,_ Necessity is twofold. One is a necessity of\n_constraint,_ brought about by an external agent; and this necessity\nis contrary to both nature and will, since these flow from an\ninternal principle. The other is _natural_ necessity, resulting from\nthe natural principles--either the form (as it is necessary for fire\nto heat), or the matter (as it is necessary for a body composed of\ncontraries to be dissolved). Hence, with this necessity, which\nresults from the matter, Christ's body was subject to the necessity\nof death and other like defects, since, as was said (A. 1, ad 2), \"it\nwas by the consent of the Divine will that the flesh was allowed to\ndo and suffer what belonged to it.\" And this necessity results from\nthe principles of human nature, as was said above in this article.\nBut if we speak of necessity of constraint, as repugnant to the\nbodily nature, thus again was Christ's body in its own natural\ncondition subject to necessity in regard to the nail that pierced and\nthe scourge that struck. Yet inasmuch as such necessity is repugnant\nto the will, it is clear that in Christ these defects were not of\nnecessity as regards either the Divine will, or the human will of\nChrist considered absolutely, as following the deliberation of\nreason; but only as regards the natural movement of the will,\ninasmuch as it naturally shrinks from death and bodily hurt.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ is said to be \"offered because it was His own\nwill,\" i.e. Divine will and deliberate human will; although death was\ncontrary to the natural movement of His human will, as Damascene says\n(De Fide Orth. iii, 23, 24).\n\nReply Obj. 2: This is plain from what has been said.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Nothing was more powerful than Christ's soul,\nabsolutely; yet there was nothing to hinder a thing being more\npowerful in regard to this or that effect, as a nail for piercing.\nAnd this I say, in so far as Christ's soul is considered in its own\nproper nature and power.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Contracted These Defects?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ contracted bodily defects. For\nwe are said to contract what we derive with our nature from birth.\nBut Christ, together with human nature, derived His bodily defects\nand infirmities through His birth from His mother, whose flesh was\nsubject to these defects. Therefore it seems that He contracted these\ndefects.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what is caused by the principles of nature is\nderived together with nature, and hence is contracted. Now these\npenalties are caused by the principles of human nature. Therefore\nChrist contracted them.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ is likened to other men in these defects, as\nis written Heb. 2:17. But other men contract these defects. Therefore\nit seems that Christ contracted these defects.\n\n_On the contrary,_ These defects are contracted through sin,\naccording to Rom. 5:12: \"By one man sin entered into this world and\nby sin, death.\" Now sin had no place in Christ. Therefore Christ did\nnot contract these defects.\n\n_I answer that,_ In the verb \"to contract\" is understood the relation\nof effect to cause, i.e. that is said to be contracted which is\nderived of necessity together with its cause. Now the cause of death\nand such like defects in human nature is sin, since \"by sin death\nentered into this world,\" according to Rom. 5:12. And hence they who\nincur these defects, as due to sin, are properly said to contract\nthem. Now Christ had not these defects, as due to sin, since, as\nAugustine [*Alcuin in the Gloss, Ord.], expounding John 3:31, \"He that\ncometh from above, is above all,\" says: \"Christ came from above, i.e.\nfrom the height of human nature, which it had before the fall of the\nfirst man.\" For He received human nature without sin, in the purity\nwhich it had in the state of innocence. In the same way He might have\nassumed human nature without defects. Thus it is clear that Christ\ndid not contract these defects as if taking them upon Himself as due\nto sin, but by His own will.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin,\n[*See introductory note to Q. 27] and therefore contracted these\ndefects. But from the Virgin, Christ's flesh assumed the nature\nwithout sin, and He might likewise have assumed the nature without\nits penalties. But He wished to bear its penalties in order to carry\nout the work of our redemption, as stated above (A. 1). Therefore He\nhad these defects--not that He contracted them, but that He assumed\nthem.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The cause of death and other corporeal defects of human\nnature is twofold: the first is remote, and results from the material\nprinciples of the human body, inasmuch as it is made up of\ncontraries. But this cause was held in check by original justice.\nHence the proximate cause of death and other defects is sin, whereby\noriginal justice is withdrawn. And thus, because Christ was without\nsin, He is said not to have contracted these defects, but to have\nassumed them.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ was made like to other men in the quality and\nnot in the cause of these defects; and hence, unlike others, He did\nnot contract them.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 14, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Ought to Have Assumed All the Bodily Defects of Men?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ ought to have assumed all the\nbodily defects of men. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6, 18):\n\"What is unassumable is incurable.\" But Christ came to cure all our\ndefects. Therefore He ought to have assumed all our defects.\n\nObj. 2: Further it was said (A. 1), that in order to satisfy for us,\nChrist ought to have had perfective habits of soul and defects of\nbody. Now as regards the soul, He assumed the fulness of all grace.\nTherefore as regards the body, He ought to have assumed all defects.\n\nObj. 3: Further, amongst all bodily defects death holds the chief\nplace. Now Christ assumed death. Much more, therefore, ought He to\nhave assumed other defects.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Contraries cannot take place simultaneously in the\nsame. Now some infirmities are contrary to each other, being caused\nby contrary principles. Hence it could not be that Christ assumed all\nhuman infirmities.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 2), Christ assumed human\ndefects in order to satisfy for the sin of human nature, and for this\nit was necessary for Him to have the fulness of knowledge and grace\nin His soul. Hence Christ ought to have assumed those defects which\nflow from the common sin of the whole nature, yet are not\nincompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace. And thus it\nwas not fitting for Him to assume all human defects or infirmities.\nFor there are some defects that are incompatible with the perfection\nof knowledge and grace, as ignorance, a proneness towards evil, and a\ndifficulty in well-doing. Some other defects do not flow from the\nwhole of human nature in common on account of the sin of our first\nparent, but are caused in some men by certain particular causes, as\nleprosy, epilepsy, and the like; and these defects are sometimes\nbrought about by the fault of the man, e.g. from inordinate eating;\nsometimes by a defect in the formative power. Now neither of these\npertains to Christ, since His flesh was conceived of the Holy Ghost,\nWho has infinite wisdom and power, and cannot err or fail; and He\nHimself did nothing wrong in the order of His life. But there are\nsome third defects, to be found amongst all men in common, by reason\nof the sin of our first parent, as death, hunger, thirst, and the\nlike; and all these defects Christ assumed, which Damascene (De Fide\nOrth. i, 11; iii, 20) calls \"natural and indetractible passions\"\n--natural, as following all human nature in common; indetractible, as\nimplying no defect of knowledge or grace.\n\nReply Obj. 1: All particular defects of men are caused by the\ncorruptibility and passibility of the body, some particular causes\nbeing added; and hence, since Christ healed the passibility and\ncorruptibility of our body by assuming it, He consequently healed all\nother defects.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The fulness of all grace and knowledge was due to\nChrist's soul of itself, from the fact of its being assumed by the\nWord of God; and hence Christ assumed all the fulness of knowledge\nand wisdom absolutely. But He assumed our defects economically, in\norder to satisfy for our sin, and not that they belonged to Him of\nHimself. Hence it was not necessary for Him to assume them all, but\nonly such as sufficed to satisfy for the sin of the whole nature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Death comes to all men from the sin of our first\nparent; but not other defects, although they are less than death.\nHence there is no parity.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 15\n\nOF THE DEFECTS OF SOUL ASSUMED BY CHRIST\n(In Ten Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the defects pertaining to the soul; and under\nthis head there are ten points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether there was sin in Christ?\n\n(2) Whether there was the _fomes_ of sin in Him?\n\n(3) Whether there was ignorance?\n\n(4) Whether His soul was passible?\n\n(5) Whether in Him there was sensible pain?\n\n(6) Whether there was sorrow?\n\n(7) Whether there was fear?\n\n(8) Whether there was wonder?\n\n(9) Whether there was anger?\n\n(10) Whether He was at once wayfarer and comprehensor?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 1]\n\nWhether There Was Sin in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was sin in Christ. For it is\nwritten (Ps. 21:2): \"O God, My God . . . why hast Thou forsaken Me?\nFar from My salvation are the words of My sins.\" Now these words are\nsaid in the person of Christ Himself, as appears from His having\nuttered them on the cross. Therefore it would seem that in Christ\nthere were sins.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12) that \"in Adam all have\nsinned\"--namely, because all were in Adam by origin. Now Christ also\nwas in Adam by origin. Therefore He sinned in him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 2:18) that \"in that, wherein\nHe Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them\nalso that are tempted.\" Now above all do we require His help against\nsin. Therefore it seems that there was sin in Him.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it is written (2 Cor. 5:21) that \"Him that knew no\nsin\" (i.e. Christ), \"for us\" God \"hath made sin.\" But that really is,\nwhich has been made by God. Therefore there was really sin in Christ.\n\nObj. 5: Further, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi), \"in the man\nChrist the Son of God gave Himself to us as a pattern of living.\" Now\nman needs a pattern not merely of right living, but also of\nrepentance for sin. Therefore it seems that in Christ there ought to\nhave been sin, that He might repent of His sin, and thus afford us a\npattern of repentance.\n\n_On the contrary,_ He Himself says (John 8:46): \"Which of you shall\nconvince Me of sin?\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 14, A. 1), Christ assumed our\ndefects that He might satisfy for us, that He might prove the truth\nof His human nature, and that He might become an example of virtue to\nus. Now it is plain that by reason of these three things He ought not\nto have assumed the defect of sin. First, because sin nowise works\nour satisfaction; rather, it impedes the power of satisfying, since,\nas it is written (Ecclus. 34:23), \"The Most High approveth not the\ngifts of the wicked.\" Secondly, the truth of His human nature is not\nproved by sin, since sin does not belong to human nature, whereof God\nis the cause; but rather has been sown in it against its nature by\nthe devil, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20). Thirdly,\nbecause by sinning He could afford no example of virtue, since sin is\nopposed to virtue. Hence Christ nowise assumed the defect of\nsin--either original or actual--according to what is written (1 Pet.\n2:22): \"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 25), things are\nsaid of Christ, first, with reference to His natural and hypostatic\nproperty, as when it is said that God became man, and that He\nsuffered for us; secondly, with reference to His personal and\nrelative property, when things are said of Him in our person which\nnowise belong to Him of Himself. Hence, in the seven rules of\nTichonius which Augustine quotes in _De Doctr. Christ._ iii, 31, the\nfirst regards \"Our Lord and His Body,\" since \"Christ and His Church\nare taken as one person.\" And thus Christ, speaking in the person of\nHis members, says (Ps. 21:2): \"The words of My sins\"--not that there\nwere any sins in the Head.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x, 20), Christ was in\nAdam and the other fathers not altogether as we were. For we were in\nAdam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance, since, as\nhe goes on to say: \"As in the seed there is a visible bulk and an\ninvisible virtue, both have come from Adam. Now Christ took the\nvisible substance of His flesh from the Virgin's flesh; but the\nvirtue of His conception did not spring from the seed of man, but far\notherwise--from on high.\" Hence He was not in Adam according to\nseminal virtue, but only according to bodily substance. And therefore\nChrist did not receive human nature from Adam actively, but only\nmaterially--and from the Holy Ghost actively; even as Adam received\nhis body materially from the slime of the earth--actively from God.\nAnd thus Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom He was only as regards\nHis matter.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In His temptation and passion Christ has succored us by\nsatisfying for us. Now sin does not further satisfaction, but hinders\nit, as has been said. Hence, it behooved Him not to have sin, but to\nbe wholly free from sin; otherwise the punishment He bore would have\nbeen due to Him for His own sin.\n\nReply Obj. 4: God \"made Christ sin\"--not, indeed, in such sort that\nHe had sin, but that He made Him a sacrifice for sin: even as it is\nwritten (Osee 4:8): \"They shall eat the sins of My people\"--they,\ni.e. the priests, who by the law ate the sacrifices offered for sin.\nAnd in that way it is written (Isa. 53:6) that \"the Lord hath laid on\nHim the iniquity of us all\" (i.e. He gave Him up to be a victim for\nthe sins of all men); or \"He made Him sin\" (i.e. made Him to have\n\"the likeness of sinful flesh\"), as is written (Rom. 8:3), and this\non account of the passible and mortal body He assumed.\n\nReply Obj. 5: A penitent can give a praiseworthy example, not by\nhaving sinned, but by freely bearing the punishment of sin. And hence\nChrist set the highest example to penitents, since He willingly bore\nthe punishment, not of His own sin, but of the sins of others.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 2]\n\nWhether There Was the _Fomes_ of Sin in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was the _fomes_ of\nsin. For the _fomes_ of sin, and the passibility and mortality of the\nbody spring from the same principle, to wit, from the withdrawal of\noriginal justice, whereby the inferior powers of the soul were\nsubject to the reason, and the body to the soul. Now passibility and\nmortality of body were in Christ. Therefore there was also the\n_fomes_ of sin.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 19), \"it was\nby consent of the Divine will that the flesh of Christ was allowed to\nsuffer and do what belonged to it.\" But it is proper to the flesh to\nlust after its pleasures. Now since the _fomes_ of sin is nothing\nmore than concupiscence, as the gloss says on Rom. 7:8, it seems that\nin Christ there was the _fomes_ of sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is by reason of the _fomes_ of sin that \"the\nflesh lusteth against the spirit,\" as is written (Gal. 5:17). But the\nspirit is shown to be so much the stronger and worthier to be crowned\naccording as the more completely it overcomes its enemy--to wit, the\nconcupiscence of the flesh, according to 2 Tim. 2:5, he \"is not\ncrowned except he strive lawfully.\" Now Christ had a most valiant and\nconquering spirit, and one most worthy of a crown, according to Apoc.\n6:2: \"There was a crown given Him, and He went forth conquering that\nHe might conquer.\" Therefore it would especially seem that the\n_fomes_ of sin ought to have been in Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:20): \"That which is\nconceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.\" Now the Holy Ghost drives out\nsin and the inclination to sin, which is implied in the word _fomes._\nTherefore in Christ there ought not to have been the _fomes_ of sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 7, AA. 2, 9), Christ had grace\nand all the virtues most perfectly. Now moral virtues, which are in\nthe irrational part of the soul, make it subject to reason, and so\nmuch the more as the virtue is more perfect; thus, temperance\ncontrols the concupiscible appetite, fortitude and meekness the\nirascible appetite, as was said in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 56, A.\n4). But there belongs to the very nature of the _fomes_ of sin an\ninclination of the sensual appetite to what is contrary to reason.\nAnd hence it is plain that the more perfect the virtues are in any\nman, the weaker the _fomes_ of sin becomes in him. Hence, since in\nChrist the virtues were in their highest degree, the _fomes_ of sin\nwas nowise in Him; inasmuch, also, as this defect cannot be ordained\nto satisfaction, but rather inclined to what is contrary to\nsatisfaction.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The inferior powers pertaining to the sensitive\nappetite have a natural capacity to be obedient to reason; but not\nthe bodily powers, nor those of the bodily humors, nor those of the\nvegetative soul, as is made plain _Ethic._ i, 13. And hence\nperfection of virtue, which is in accordance with right reason, does\nnot exclude passibility of body; yet it excludes the _fomes_ of sin,\nthe nature of which consists in the resistance of the sensitive\nappetite to reason.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The flesh naturally seeks what is pleasing to it by the\nconcupiscence of the sensitive appetite; but the flesh of man, who is\na rational animal, seeks this after the manner and order of reason.\nAnd thus with the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite Christ's\nflesh naturally sought food, drink, and sleep, and all else that is\nsought in right reason, as is plain from Damascene (De Fide Orth.\niii, 14). Yet it does not therefore follow that in Christ there was\nthe _fomes_ of sin, for this implies the lust after pleasurable\nthings against the order of reason.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The spirit gives evidence of fortitude to some\nextent by resisting that concupiscence of the flesh which is opposed\nto it; yet a greater fortitude of spirit is shown, if by its strength\nthe flesh is thoroughly overcome, so as to be incapable of lusting\nagainst the spirit. And hence this belonged to Christ, whose spirit\nreached the highest degree of fortitude. And although He suffered no\ninternal assault on the part of the _fomes_ of sin, He sustained an\nexternal assault on the part of the world and the devil, and won the\ncrown of victory by overcoming them.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 3]\n\nWhether in Christ There Was Ignorance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was ignorance in Christ. For\nthat is truly in Christ which belongs to Him in His human nature,\nalthough it does not belong to Him in His Divine Nature, as suffering\nand death. But ignorance belongs to Christ in His human nature; for\nDamascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 21) that \"He assumed an ignorant\nand enslaved nature.\" Therefore ignorance was truly in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, one is said to be ignorant through defect of\nknowledge. Now some kind of knowledge was wanting to Christ, for the\nApostle says (2 Cor. 5:21) \"Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made\nsin.\" Therefore there was ignorance in Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Isa. 8:4): \"For before the child know\nto call his Father and his mother, the strength of Damascus . . .\nshall be taken away.\" Therefore in Christ there was ignorance of\ncertain things.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ignorance is not taken away by ignorance. But\nChrist came to take away our ignorance; for \"He came to enlighten\nthem that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death\" (Luke 1:79).\nTherefore there was no ignorance in Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ As there was the fulness of grace and virtue in\nChrist, so too there was the fulness of all knowledge, as is plain\nfrom what has been said above (Q. 7, A. 9; Q. 9). Now as the fulness\nof grace and virtue in Christ excluded the _fomes_ of sin, so the\nfulness of knowledge excluded ignorance, which is opposed to\nknowledge. Hence, even as the _fomes_ of sin was not in Christ,\nneither was there ignorance in Him.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The nature assumed by Christ may be viewed in two ways.\nFirst, in its specific nature, and thus Damascene calls it \"ignorant\nand enslaved\"; hence he adds: \"For man's nature is a slave of Him\"\n(i.e. God) \"Who made it; and it has no knowledge of future things.\"\nSecondly, it may be considered with regard to what it has from its\nunion with the Divine hypostasis, from which it has the fulness of\nknowledge and grace, according to John 1:14: \"We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His\nglory'] as it were the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and\ntruth\"; and in this way the human nature in Christ was not affected\nwith ignorance.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ is said not to have known sin, because He did\nnot know it by experience; but He knew it by simple cognition.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The prophet is speaking in this passage of the human\nknowledge of Christ; thus he says: \"Before the Child\" (i.e. in His\nhuman nature) \"know to call His father\" (i.e. Joseph, who was His\nreputed father), \"and His mother\" (i.e. Mary), \"the strength of\nDamascus . . . shall be taken away.\" Nor are we to understand this as\nif He had been some time a man without knowing it; but \"before He\nknow\" (i.e. before He is a man having human knowledge)--literally,\n\"the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken\naway by the King of the Assyrians\"--or spiritually, \"before His birth\nHe will save His people solely by invocation,\" as a gloss expounds\nit. Augustine however (Serm. xxxii de Temp.) says that this was\nfulfilled in the adoration of the Magi. For he says: \"Before He\nuttered human words in human flesh, He received the strength of\nDamascus, i.e. the riches which Damascus vaunted (for in riches the\nfirst place is given to gold). They themselves were the spoils of\nSamaria. Because Samaria is taken to signify idolatry; since this\npeople, having turned away from the Lord, turned to the worship of\nidols. Hence these were the first spoils which the child took from\nthe domination of idolatry.\" And in this way \"before the child know\"\nmay be taken to mean \"before he show himself to know.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ's Soul Was Passible?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ was not passible.\nFor nothing suffers except by reason of something stronger; since\n\"the agent is greater than the patient,\" as is clear from Augustine\n(Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), and from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 5).\nNow no creature was stronger than Christ's soul. Therefore Christ's\nsoul could not suffer at the hands of any creature; and hence it was\nnot passible; for its capability of suffering would have been to no\npurpose if it could not have suffered at the hands of anything.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Tully (De Tusc. Quaes. iii) says that the soul's\npassions are ailments [*Cf. I-II, Q. 24, A. 2]. But Christ's soul had\nno ailment; for the soul's ailment results from sin, as is plain from\nPs. 40:5: \"Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.\" Therefore\nin Christ's soul there were no passions.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the soul's passions would seem to be the same as the\n_fomes_ of sin, hence the Apostle (Rom. 7:5) calls them the \"passions\nof sins.\" Now the _fomes_ of sin was not in Christ, as was said (A.\n2). Therefore it seems that there were no passions in His soul; and\nhence His soul was not passible.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 87:4) in the person of Christ:\n\"My soul is filled with evils\"--not sins, indeed, but human evils,\ni.e. \"pains,\" as a gloss expounds it. Hence the soul of Christ was\npassible.\n\n_I answer that,_ A soul placed in a body may suffer in two ways:\nfirst with a bodily passion; secondly, with an animal passion. It\nsuffers with a bodily passion through bodily hurt; for since the soul\nis the form of the body, soul and body have but one being; and hence,\nwhen the body is disturbed by any bodily passion, the soul, too, must\nbe disturbed, i.e. in the being which it has in the body. Therefore,\nsince Christ's body was passible and mortal, as was said above (Q.\n14, A. 2), His soul also was of necessity passible in like manner.\nBut the soul suffers with an animal passion, in its\noperations--either in such as are proper to the soul, or in such as\nare of the soul more than of the body. And although the soul is said\nto suffer in this way through sensation and intelligence, as was said\nin the Second Part (I-II, Q. 22, A. 3; I-II, Q. 41, A. 1);\nnevertheless the affections of the sensitive appetite are most\nproperly called passions of the soul. Now these were in Christ, even\nas all else pertaining to man's nature. Hence Augustine says (De Civ.\nDei xiv, 9): \"Our Lord having deigned to live in the form of a\nservant, took these upon Himself whenever He judged they ought to be\nassumed; for there was no false human affection in Him Who had a true\nbody and a true human soul.\"\n\nNevertheless we must know that the passions were in Christ otherwise\nthan in us, in three ways. First, as regards the object, since in us\nthese passions very often tend towards what is unlawful, but not so\nin Christ. Secondly, as regards the principle, since these passions\nin us frequently forestall the judgment of reason; but in Christ all\nmovements of the sensitive appetite sprang from the disposition of\nthe reason. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9), that \"Christ\nassumed these movements, in His human soul, by an unfailing\ndispensation, when He willed; even as He became man when He willed.\"\nThirdly, as regards the effect, because in us these movements, at\ntimes, do not remain in the sensitive appetite, but deflect the\nreason; but not so in Christ, since by His disposition the movements\nthat are naturally becoming to human flesh so remained in the\nsensitive appetite that the reason was nowise hindered in doing what\nwas right. Hence Jerome says (on Matt. 26:37) that \"Our Lord, in\norder to prove the reality of the assumed manhood, 'was sorrowful' in\nvery deed; yet lest a passion should hold sway over His soul, it is\nby a propassion that He is said to have 'begun to grow sorrowful and\nto be sad'\"; so that it is a perfect \"passion\" when it dominates the\nsoul, i.e. the reason; and a \"propassion\" when it has its beginning\nin the sensitive appetite, but goes no further.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The soul of Christ could have prevented these passions\nfrom coming upon it, and especially by the Divine power; yet of His\nown will He subjected Himself to these corporeal and animal passions.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Tully is speaking there according to the opinions of\nthe Stoics, who did not give the name of passions to all, but only to\nthe disorderly movements of the sensitive appetite. Now, it is\nmanifest that passions like these were not in Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The \"passions of sins\" are movements of the sensitive\nappetite that tend to unlawful things; and these were not in Christ,\nas neither was the _fomes_ of sin.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 5]\n\nWhether There Was Sensible Pain in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was no true sensible pain in\nChrist. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): \"Since with Christ to die was\nlife, what pain may He be supposed to have suffered in the mystery of\nHis death, Who bestows life on such as die for Him?\" And further on\nhe says: \"The Only-begotten assumed human nature, not ceasing to be\nGod; and although blows struck Him and wounds were inflicted on Him,\nand scourges fell upon Him, and the cross lifted Him up, yet these\nwrought in deed the vehemence of the passion, but brought no pain; as\na dart piercing the water.\" Hence there was no true pain in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it would seem to be proper to flesh conceived in\noriginal sin, to be subject to the necessity of pain. But the flesh\nof Christ was not conceived in sin, but of the Holy Ghost in the\nVirgin's womb. Therefore it lay under no necessity of suffering pain.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the delight of the contemplation of Divine things\ndulls the sense of pain; hence the martyrs in their passions bore up\nmore bravely by thinking of the Divine love. But Christ's soul was in\nthe perfect enjoyment of contemplating God, Whom He saw in essence,\nas was said above (Q. 9, A. 2). Therefore He could feel no pain.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 53:4): \"Surely He hath borne\nour infirmities and carried our sorrows.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As is plain from what has been said in the Second\nPart (I-II, Q. 35, A. 7), for true bodily pain are required bodily\nhurt and the sense of hurt. Now Christ's body was able to be hurt,\nsince it was passible and mortal, as above stated (Q. 14, AA. 1, 2);\nneither was the sense of hurt wanting to it, since Christ's soul\npossessed perfectly all natural powers. Therefore no one should doubt\nbut that in Christ there was true pain.\n\nReply Obj. 1: In all these and similar words, Hilary does not intend\nto exclude the reality of the pain, but the necessity of it. Hence\nafter the foregoing he adds: \"Nor, when He thirsted, or hungered, or\nwept, was the Lord seen to drink, or eat, or grieve. But in order to\nprove the reality of the body, the body's customs were assumed, so\nthat the custom of our body was atoned for by the custom of our\nnature. Or when He took drink or food, He acceded, not to the body's\nnecessity, but to its custom.\" And he uses the word \"necessity\" in\nreference to the first cause of these defects, which is sin, as above\nstated (Q. 14, AA. 1, 3), so that Christ's flesh is said not to have\nlain under the necessity of these defects, in the sense that there\nwas no sin in it. Hence he adds: \"For He\" (i.e. Christ) \"had a\nbody--one proper to His origin, which did not exist through the\nunholiness of our conception, but subsisted in the form of our body\nby the strength of His power.\" But as regards the proximate cause of\nthese defects, which is composition of contraries, the flesh of\nChrist lay under the necessity of these defects, as was said above\n(Q. 14, A. 2).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Flesh conceived in sin is subject to pain, not merely\non account of the necessity of its natural principles, but from the\nnecessity of the guilt of sin. Now this necessity was not in Christ;\nbut only the necessity of natural principles.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As was said above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2), by the power of\nthe Godhead of Christ the beatitude was economically kept in the\nsoul, so as not to overflow into the body, lest His passibility and\nmortality should be taken away; and for the same reason the delight\nof contemplation was so kept in the mind as not to overflow into the\nsensitive powers, lest sensible pain should thereby be prevented.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 6]\n\nWhether There Was Sorrow in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no sorrow. For it\nis written of Christ (Isa. 42:4): \"He shall not be sad nor\ntroublesome.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 12:21): \"Whatever shall befall\nthe just man, it shall not make him sad.\" And the reason of this the\nStoics asserted to be that no one is saddened save by the loss of his\ngoods. Now the just man esteems only justice and virtue as his goods,\nand these he cannot lose; otherwise the just man would be subject to\nfortune if he was saddened by the loss of the goods fortune has given\nhim. But Christ was most just, according to Jer. 23:6: \"This is the\nname that they shall call Him: The Lord, our just one.\" Therefore\nthere was no sorrow in Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 13, 14) that all\nsorrow is \"evil, and to be shunned.\" But in Christ there was no evil\nto be shunned. Therefore there was no sorrow in Christ.\n\nObj. 4: Furthermore, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6): \"Sorrow\nregards the things we suffer unwillingly.\" But Christ suffered\nnothing against His will, for it is written (Isa. 53:7): \"He was\noffered because it was His own will.\" Hence there was no sorrow in\nChrist.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 26:38): \"My soul is sorrowful\neven unto death.\" And Ambrose says (De Trin. ii.) that \"as a man He\nhad sorrow; for He bore my sorrow. I call it sorrow, fearlessly,\nsince I preach the cross.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 5, ad 3), by Divine\ndispensation the joy of contemplation remained in Christ's mind so as\nnot to overflow into the sensitive powers, and thereby shut out\nsensible pain. Now even as sensible pain is in the sensitive\nappetite, so also is sorrow. But there is a difference of motive or\nobject; for the object and motive of pain is hurt perceived by the\nsense of touch, as when anyone is wounded; but the object and motive\nof sorrow is anything hurtful or evil interiorly, apprehended by the\nreason or the imagination, as was said in the Second Part (I-II, Q.\n35, AA. 2, 7), as when anyone grieves over the loss of grace or\nmoney. Now Christ's soul could apprehend things as hurtful either to\nHimself, as His passion and death--or to others, as the sin of His\ndisciples, or of the Jews that killed Him. And hence, as there could\nbe true pain in Christ, so too could there be true sorrow; otherwise,\nindeed, than in us, in the three ways above stated (A. 4), when we\nwere speaking of the passions of Christ's soul in general.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Sorrow was not in Christ, as a perfect passion; yet it\nwas inchoatively in Him as a \"propassion.\" Hence it is written (Matt.\n26:37): \"He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad.\" For \"it is one\nthing to be sorrowful and another to grow sorrowful,\" as Jerome says,\non this text.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 8), \"for the three\npassions\"--desire, joy, and fear--the Stoics held three _eupatheias_\ni.e. good passions, in the soul of the wise man, viz. for desire,\nwill--for joy, delight--for fear, caution. But as regards sorrow,\nthey denied it could be in the soul of the wise man, for sorrow\nregards evil already present, and they thought that no evil could\nbefall a wise man; and for this reason, because they believed that\nonly the virtuous is good, since it makes men good, and that nothing\nis evil, except what is sinful, whereby men become wicked. Now\nalthough what is virtuous is man's chief good, and what is sinful is\nman's chief evil, since these pertain to reason which is supreme in\nman, yet there are certain secondary goods of man, which pertain to\nthe body, or to the exterior things that minister to the body. And\nhence in the soul of the wise man there may be sorrow in the\nsensitive appetite by his apprehending these evils; without this\nsorrow disturbing the reason. And in this way are we to understand\nthat \"whatsoever shall befall the just man, it shall not make him\nsad,\" because his reason is troubled by no misfortune. And thus\nChrist's sorrow was a propassion, and not a passion.\n\nReply Obj. 3: All sorrow is an evil of punishment; but it is not\nalways an evil of fault, except only when it proceeds from an\ninordinate affection. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9):\n\"Whenever these affections follow reason, and are caused when and\nwhere needed, who will dare to call them diseases or vicious\npassions?\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: There is no reason why a thing may not of itself be\ncontrary to the will, and yet be willed by reason of the end, to\nwhich it is ordained, as bitter medicine is not of itself desired,\nbut only as it is ordained to health. And thus Christ's death and\npassion were of themselves involuntary, and caused sorrow, although\nthey were voluntary as ordained to the end, which is the redemption\nof the human race.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 7]\n\nWhether There Was Fear in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was no fear in Christ. For it\nis written (Prov. 28:1): \"The just, bold as a lion, shall be without\ndread.\" But Christ was most just. Therefore there was no fear in\nChrist.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Hilary says (De Trin. x): \"I ask those who think\nthus, does it stand to reason that He should dread to die, Who by\nexpelling all dread of death from the Apostles, encouraged them to\nthe glory of martyrdom?\" Therefore it is unreasonable that there\nshould be fear in Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, fear seems only to regard what a man cannot avoid.\nNow Christ could have avoided both the evil of punishment which He\nendured, and the evil of fault which befell others. Therefore there\nwas no fear in Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 4:33): Jesus \"began to fear and\nto be heavy.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As sorrow is caused by the apprehension of a present\nevil, so also is fear caused by the apprehension of a future evil.\nNow the apprehension of a future evil, if the evil be quite certain,\ndoes not arouse fear. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that\nwe do not fear a thing unless there is some hope of avoiding it. For\nwhen there is no hope of avoiding it the evil is considered present,\nand thus it causes sorrow rather than fear. Hence fear may be\nconsidered in two ways. First, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite\nnaturally shrinks from bodily hurt, by sorrow if it is present, and\nby fear if it is future; and thus fear was in Christ, even as sorrow.\nSecondly, fear may be considered in the uncertainty of the future\nevent, as when at night we are frightened at a sound, not knowing\nwhat it is; and in this way there was no fear in Christ, as Damascene\nsays (De Fide Orth. iii, 23).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The just man is said to be \"without dread,\" in so far\nas dread implies a perfect passion drawing man from what reason\ndictates. And thus fear was not in Christ, but only as a propassion.\nHence it is said (Mk. 14:33) that Jesus \"began to fear and to be\nheavy,\" with a propassion, as Jerome expounds (Matt. 26:37).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Hilary excludes fear from Christ in the same way that\nhe excludes sorrow, i.e. as regards the necessity of fearing. And yet\nto show the reality of His human nature, He voluntarily assumed fear,\neven as sorrow.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although Christ could have avoided future evils by the\npower of His Godhead, yet they were unavoidable, or not easily\navoidable by the weakness of the flesh.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 8]\n\nWhether There Was Wonder in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no wonder. For\nthe Philosopher says (Metaph. i, 2) that wonder results when we see\nan effect without knowing its cause; and thus wonder belongs only to\nthe ignorant. Now there was no ignorance in Christ, as was said (A.\n3). Therefore there was no wonder in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15) that \"wonder\nis fear springing from the imagination of something great\"; and hence\nthe Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3) that the \"magnanimous man does\nnot wonder.\" But Christ was most magnanimous. Therefore there was no\nwonder in Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, no man wonders at what he himself can do. Now Christ\ncould do whatsoever was great. Therefore it seems that He wondered at\nnothing.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 8:10): \"Jesus hearing this,\"\ni.e. the words of the centurion, \"marveled.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Wonder properly regards what is new and unwonted.\nNow there could be nothing new and unwonted as regards Christ's\nDivine knowledge, whereby He saw things in the Word; nor as regards\nthe human knowledge, whereby He saw things by infused species. Yet\nthings could be new and unwonted with regard to His empiric\nknowledge, in regard to which new things could occur to Him day by\nday. Hence, if we speak of Christ with respect to His Divine\nknowledge, and His beatific and even His infused knowledge, there was\nno wonder in Christ. But if we speak of Him with respect to empiric\nknowledge, wonder could be in Him; and He assumed this affection for\nour instruction, i.e. in order to teach us to wonder at what He\nHimself wondered at. Hence Augustine says (Super Gen. Cont. Manich.\ni, 8): \"Our Lord wondered in order to show us that we, who still need\nto be so affected, must wonder. Hence all these emotions are not\nsigns of a disturbed mind, but of a master teaching.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although Christ was ignorant of nothing, yet new things\nmight occur to His empiric knowledge, and thus wonder would be caused.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ did not marvel at the Centurion's faith as if it\nwas great with respect to Himself, but because it was great with\nrespect to others.\n\nReply Obj. 3: He could do all things by the Divine power, for with\nrespect to this there was no wonder in Him, but only with respect to\nHis human empiric knowledge, as was said above.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 9]\n\nWhether There Was Anger in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was no anger in Christ. For it\nis written (James 1:20): \"The anger of man worketh not the justice of\nGod.\" Now whatever was in Christ pertained to the justice of God,\nsince of Him it is written (1 Cor. 1:30): \"For He [Vulg.: 'Who'] of\nGod is made unto us . . . justice.\" Therefore it seems that there was\nno anger in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, anger is opposed to meekness, as is plain from\n_Ethic._ iv, 5. But Christ was most meek. Therefore there was no\nanger in Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that \"anger that comes\nof evil blinds the eye of the mind, but anger that comes of zeal\ndisturbs it.\" Now the mind's eye in Christ was neither blinded nor\ndisturbed. Therefore in Christ there was neither sinful anger nor\nzealous anger.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 2:17) that the words of Ps.\n58:10, \"the zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up,\" were fulfilled in\nHim.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 46, A. 3,\nad 3, and II-II, Q. 158, A. 2, ad 3), anger is an effect of sorrow.\nFor when sorrow is inflicted upon someone, there arises within him a\ndesire of the sensitive appetite to repel this injury brought upon\nhimself or others. Hence anger is a passion composed of sorrow and\nthe desire of revenge. Now it was said (A. 6) that sorrow could be in\nChrist. As to the desire of revenge it is sometimes with sin, i.e.\nwhen anyone seeks revenge beyond the order of reason: and in this way\nanger could not be in Christ, for this kind of anger is sinful.\nSometimes, however, this desire is without sin--nay, is praiseworthy,\ne.g. when anyone seeks revenge according to justice, and this is\nzealous anger. For Augustine says (on John 2:17) that \"he is eaten up\nby zeal for the house of God, who seeks to better whatever He sees to\nbe evil in it, and if he cannot right it, bears with it and sighs.\"\nSuch was the anger that was in Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Gregory says (Moral. v), anger is in man in two\nways--sometimes it forestalls reason, and causes it to operate, and\nin this way it is properly said to work, for operations are\nattributed to the principal agent. It is in this way that we must\nunderstand that \"the anger of man worketh not the justice of God.\"\nSometimes anger follows reason, and is, as it were, its instrument,\nand then the operation, which pertains to justice, is not attributed\nto anger but to reason.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It is the anger which outsteps the bounds of reason\nthat is opposed to meekness, and not the anger which is controlled\nand brought within its proper bounds by reason, for meekness holds\nthe mean in anger.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In us the natural order is that the soul's powers\nmutually impede each other, i.e. if the operation of one power is\nintense, the operation of the other is weakened. This is the reason\nwhy any movement whatsoever of anger, even if it be tempered by\nreason, dims the mind's eye of him who contemplates. But in Christ,\nby control of the Divine power, \"every faculty was allowed to do what\nwas proper to it,\" and one power was not impeded by another. Hence,\nas the joy of His mind in contemplation did not impede the sorrow or\npain of the inferior part, so, conversely, the passions of the\ninferior part no-wise impeded the act of reason.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 10]\n\nWhether Christ Was at Once a Wayfarer and a Comprehensor?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was not at once a wayfarer and\na comprehensor. For it belongs to a wayfarer to be moving toward the\nend of beatitude, and to a comprehensor it belongs to be resting in\nthe end. Now to be moving towards the end and to be resting in the\nend cannot belong to the same. Therefore Christ could not be at once\nwayfarer and comprehensor.\n\nObj. 2: Further, to tend to beatitude, or to obtain it, does not\npertain to man's body, but to his soul; hence Augustine says (Ep. ad\nDios. cxviii) that \"upon the inferior nature, which is the body,\nthere overflows, not indeed the beatitude which belongs to such as\nenjoy and understand, the fulness of health, i.e. the vigor of\nincorruption.\" Now although Christ had a passible body, He fully\nenjoyed God in His mind. Therefore Christ was not a wayfarer but a\ncomprehensor.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Saints, whose souls are in heaven and whose\nbodies are in the tomb, enjoy beatitude in their souls, although\ntheir bodies are subject to death, yet they are called not wayfarers,\nbut only comprehensors. Hence, with equal reason, would it seem that\nChrist was a pure comprehensor and nowise a wayfarer, since His mind\nenjoyed God although His body was mortal.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Jer. 14:8): \"Why wilt Thou be as a\nstranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man turning in to lodge?\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A man is called a wayfarer from tending to\nbeatitude, and a comprehensor from having already obtained beatitude,\naccording to 1 Cor. 9:24: \"So run that you may comprehend [Douay:\n'obtain']\"; and Phil. 3:12: \"I follow after, if by any means I may\ncomprehend [Douay: 'obtain']\". Now man's perfect beatitude consists\nin both soul and body, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 4, A.\n6). In the soul, as regards what is proper to it, inasmuch as the\nmind sees and enjoys God; in the body, inasmuch as the body \"will\nrise spiritual in power and glory and incorruption,\" as is written 1\nCor. 15:42. Now before His passion Christ's mind saw God fully, and\nthus He had beatitude as far as it regards what is proper to the\nsoul; but beatitude was wanting with regard to all else, since His\nsoul was passible, and His body both passible and mortal, as is clear\nfrom the above (A. 4; Q. 14, AA. 1, 2). Hence He was at once\ncomprehensor, inasmuch as He had the beatitude proper to the soul,\nand at the same time wayfarer, inasmuch as He was tending to\nbeatitude, as regards what was wanting to His beatitude.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It is impossible to be moving towards the end and\nresting in the end, in the same respect; but there is nothing against\nthis under a different respect--as when a man is at once acquainted\nwith what he already knows, and yet is a learner with regard to what\nhe does not know.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Beatitude principally and properly belongs to the soul\nwith regard to the mind, yet secondarily and, so to say,\ninstrumentally, bodily goods are required for beatitude; thus the\nPhilosopher says (Ethic. i, 8), that exterior goods minister\n\"organically\" to beatitude.\n\nReply Obj. 3: There is no parity between the soul of a saint and of\nChrist, for two reasons: first, because the souls of saints are not\npassible, as Christ's soul was; secondly, because their bodies do\nnothing by which they tend to beatitude, as Christ by His bodily\nsufferings tended to beatitude as regards the glory of His body.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 16\n\nOF THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO CHRIST IN HIS BEING AND\nBECOMING\n(In Twelve Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the consequences of the union; and first as to\nwhat belongs to Christ in Himself; secondly, as to what belongs to\nChrist in relation with His Father; thirdly, as to what belongs to\nChrist in relation to us.\n\nConcerning the first, there occurs a double consideration. The first\nis about such things as belong to Christ in being and becoming; the\nsecond regards such things as belong to Christ by reason of unity.\n\nUnder the first head there are twelve points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether this is true: \"God is man\"?\n\n(2) Whether this is true: \"Man is God\"?\n\n(3) Whether Christ may be called a lordly man?\n\n(4) Whether what belongs to the Son of Man may be predicated of the\nSon of God, and conversely?\n\n(5) Whether what belongs to the Son of Man may be predicated of the\nDivine Nature, and what belongs to the Son of God of the human nature?\n\n(6) Whether this is true: \"The Son of God was made man\"?\n\n(7) Whether this is true: \"Man became God\"?\n\n(8) Whether this is true: \"Christ is a creature\"?\n\n(9) Whether this is true: \"This man,\" pointing out Christ, \"began to\nbe\"? or \"always was\"?\n\n(10) Whether this is true: \"Christ as man is a creature\"?\n\n(11) Whether this is true: \"Christ as man is God\"?\n\n(12) Whether this is true: \"Christ as man is a hypostasis or person\"?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 1]\n\nWhether This Is True: \"God Is Man\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this is false: \"God is man.\" For\nevery affirmative proposition of remote matter is false. Now this\nproposition, \"God is man,\" is on remote matter, since the forms\nsignified by the subject and predicate are most widely apart.\nTherefore, since the aforesaid proposition is affirmative, it would\nseem to be false.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the three Divine Persons are in greater mutual\nagreement than the human nature and the Divine. But in the mystery of\nthe Incarnation one Person is not predicated of another; for we do\nnot say that the Father is the Son, or conversely. Therefore it seems\nthat the human nature ought not to be predicated of God by saying\nthat God is man.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Athanasius says (Symb. Fid.) that, \"as the soul and\nthe flesh are one man, so are God and man one Christ.\" But this is\nfalse: \"The soul is the body.\" Therefore this also is false: \"God is\nman.\"\n\nObj. 4: Further, it was said in the First Part (Q. 39, A. 4) that\nwhat is predicated of God not relatively but absolutely, belongs to\nthe whole Trinity and to each of the Persons. But this word \"man\" is\nnot relative, but absolute. Hence, if it is predicated of God, it\nwould follow that the whole Trinity and each of the Persons is man;\nand this is clearly false.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:6, 7): \"Who being in the\nform of God . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,\nbeing made in the likeness of man, and in habit found as a man\"; and\nthus He Who is in the form of God is man. Now He Who is in the form\nof God is God. Therefore God is man.\n\n_I answer that,_ This proposition \"God is man,\" is admitted by all\nChristians, yet not in the same way by all. For some admit the\nproposition, but not in the proper acceptation of the terms. Thus the\nManicheans say the Word of God is man, not indeed true, but\nfictitious man, inasmuch as they say that the Son of God assumed an\nimaginary body, and thus God is called man as a bronze figure is\ncalled man if it has the figure of a man. So, too, those who held\nthat Christ's body and soul were not united, could not say that God\nis true man, but that He is figuratively called man by reason of the\nparts. Now both these opinions were disproved above (Q. 2, A. 5; Q.\n5, A. 1).\n\nSome, on the contrary, hold the reality on the part of man, but deny\nthe reality on the part of God. For they say that Christ, Who is God\nand man, is God not naturally, but by participation, i.e. by grace;\neven as all other holy men are called gods--Christ being more\nexcellently so than the rest, on account of His more abundant grace.\nAnd thus, when it is said that \"God is man,\" God does not stand for\nthe true and natural God. And this is the heresy of Photinus, which\nwas disproved above (Q. 2, AA. 10, 11). But some admit this\nproposition, together with the reality of both terms, holding that\nChrist is true God and true man; yet they do not preserve the truth\nof the predication. For they say that man is predicated of God by\nreason of a certain conjunction either of dignity, or of authority,\nor of affection or indwelling. It was thus that Nestorius held God to\nbe man--nothing further being meant than that God is joined to man by\nsuch a conjunction that man is dwelt in by God, and united to Him in\naffection, and in a share of the Divine authority and honor. And into\nthe same error fall those who suppose two supposita or hypostases in\nChrist, since it is impossible to understand how, of two things\ndistinct in suppositum or hypostasis, one can be properly predicated\nof the other: unless merely by a figurative expression, inasmuch as\nthey are united in something, as if we were to say that Peter is John\nbecause they are somehow mutually joined together. And these opinions\nalso were disproved above (Q. 2, AA. 3, 6).\n\nHence, supposing the truth of the Catholic belief, that the true\nDivine Nature is united with true human nature not only in person,\nbut also in suppositum or hypostasis; we say that this proposition is\ntrue and proper, \"God is man\"--not only by the truth of its terms,\ni.e. because Christ is true God and true man, but by the truth of the\npredication. For a word signifying the common nature in the concrete\nmay stand for all contained in the common nature, as this word \"man\"\nmay stand for any individual man. And thus this word \"God,\" from its\nvery mode of signification, may stand for the Person of the Son of\nGod, as was said in the First Part (Q. 39, A. 4). Now of every\nsuppositum of any nature we may truly and properly predicate a word\nsignifying that nature in the concrete, as \"man\" may properly and\ntruly be predicated of Socrates and Plato. Hence, since the Person of\nthe Son of God for Whom this word \"God\" stands, is a suppositum of\nhuman nature this word man may be truly and properly predicated of\nthis word \"God,\" as it stands for the Person of the Son of God.\n\nReply Obj. 1: When different forms cannot come together in one\nsuppositum, the proposition is necessarily in remote matter, the\nsubject signifying one form and the predicate another. But when two\nforms can come together in one suppositum, the matter is not remote,\nbut natural or contingent, as when I say: \"Something white is\nmusical.\" Now the Divine and human natures, although most widely\napart, nevertheless come together by the mystery of the Incarnation\nin one suppositum, in which neither exists accidentally, but [both]\nessentially. Hence this proposition is neither in remote nor in\ncontingent, but in natural matter; and man is not predicated of God\naccidentally, but essentially, as being predicated of its\nhypostasis--not, indeed, by reason of the form signified by this word\n\"God,\" but by reason of the suppositum, which is a hypostasis of\nhuman nature.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The three Divine Persons agree in one Nature, and are\ndistinguished in suppositum; and hence they are not predicated one of\nanother. But in the mystery of the Incarnation the natures, being\ndistinct, are not predicated one of the other, in the abstract. For\nthe Divine Nature is not the human nature. But because they agree in\nsuppositum, they are predicated of each other in the concrete.\n\nReply Obj. 3: \"Soul\" and \"flesh\" are taken in the abstract, even as\nGodhead and manhood; but in the concrete we say \"animate\" and\n\"carnal\" or \"corporeal,\" as, on the other hand, \"God\" and \"man.\"\nHence in both cases the abstract is not predicated of the abstract,\nbut only the concrete of the concrete.\n\nReply Obj. 4: This word \"man\" is predicated of God, because of the\nunion in person, and this union implies a relation. Hence it does not\nfollow the rule of those words which are absolutely predicated of God\nfrom eternity.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 2]\n\nWhether This Is True: \"Man Is God\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this is false: \"Man is God.\" For God\nis an incommunicable name; hence (Wis. 13:10; 14:21) idolaters are\nrebuked for giving the name of God, which is incommunicable, to wood\nand stones. Hence with equal reason does it seem unbecoming that this\nword \"God\" should be predicated of man.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whatever is predicated of the predicate may be\npredicated of the subject. But this is true: \"God is the Father,\" or\n\"God is the Trinity.\" Therefore, if it is true that \"Man is God,\" it\nseems that this also is true: \"Man is the Father,\" or \"Man is the\nTrinity.\" But these are false. Therefore the first is false.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Ps. 80:10): \"There shall be no new\nGod in thee.\" But man is something new; for Christ was not always\nman. Therefore this is false: \"Man is God.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 9:5): \"Of whom is Christ\naccording to the flesh, Who is over all things, God blessed for\never.\" Now Christ, according to the flesh, is man. Therefore this is\ntrue: \"Man is God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Granted the reality of both natures, i.e. Divine and\nhuman, and of the union in person and hypostasis, this is true and\nproper: \"Man is God,\" even as this: \"God is man.\" For this word \"man\"\nmay stand for any hypostasis of human nature; and thus it may stand\nfor the Person of the Son of God, Whom we say is a hypostasis of\nhuman nature. Now it is manifest that the word \"God\" is truly and\nproperly predicated of the Person of the Son of God, as was said in\nthe First Part (Q. 39, A. 4). Hence it remains that this is true and\nproper: \"Man is God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Idolaters attributed the name of the Deity to stones\nand wood, considered in their own nature, because they thought there\nwas something divine in them. But we do not attribute the name of the\nDeity to the man in His human nature, but in the eternal suppositum,\nwhich by union is a suppositum of human nature, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This word \"Father\" is predicated of this word \"God,\"\ninasmuch as this word \"God\" stands for the Person of the Father. And\nin this way it is not predicated of the Person of the Son, because\nthe Person of the Son is not the Person of the Father. And,\nconsequently, it is not necessary that this word \"Father\" be\npredicated of this word \"Man,\" of which the Word \"God\" is predicated,\ninasmuch as \"Man\" stands for the Person of the Son.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although the human nature in Christ is something new,\nyet the suppositum of the human nature is not new, but eternal. And\nbecause this word \"God\" is predicated of man not on account of the\nhuman nature, but by reason of the suppositum, it does not follow\nthat we assert a new God. But this would follow, if we held that\n\"Man\" stands for a created suppositum: even as must be said by those\nwho assert that there are two supposita in Christ [*Cf. Q. 2, AA. 3,\n6].\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Can Be Called a Lordly Man?*\n\n[*The question is hardly apposite in English. St. Thomas explains why\nwe can say in Latin, e.g. _oratio dominica_ (the Lord's Prayer) or\n_passio dominica_ (Our Lord's Passion), but not speak of our Lord as\n_homo dominicus_ (a lordly man)].\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ can be called a lordly man.\nFor Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 36) that \"we are to be counseled\nto hope for the goods that were in the Lordly Man\"; and he is\nspeaking of Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ was a lordly man.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as lordship belongs to Christ by reason of His\nDivine Nature, so does manhood belong to the human nature. Now God is\nsaid to be \"humanized,\" as is plain from Damascene (De Fide Orth.\niii, 11), where he says that \"being humanized manifests the\nconjunction with man.\" Hence with like reason may it be said\ndenominatively that this man is lordly.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as \"lordly\" is derived from \"lord,\" so is \"Divine\"\nderived from \"Deus\" [God]. But Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iv) calls\nChrist the \"most Divine Jesus.\" Therefore with like reason may Christ\nbe called a lordly man.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Retract. i, 19): \"I do not see\nthat we may rightly call Jesus Christ a lordly man, since He is the\nLord Himself.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 2, ad 3), when we say \"the Man\nChrist Jesus,\" we signify the eternal suppositum, which is the Person\nof the Son of God, because there is only one suppositum of both\nnatures. Now \"God\" and \"Lord\" are predicated essentially of the Son\nof God; and hence they ought not to be predicated denominatively,\nsince this is derogatory to the truth of the union. Hence, since we\nsay \"lordly\" denominatively from lord, it cannot truly and properly\nbe said that this Man is lordly, but rather that He is Lord. But if,\nwhen we say \"the Man Christ Jesus,\" we mean a created suppositum, as\nthose who assert two supposita in Christ, this man might be called\nlordly, inasmuch as he is assumed to a participation of Divine honor,\nas the Nestorians said. And, even in this way, the human nature is\nnot called \"divine\" by essence, but \"deified\"--not, indeed, by its\nbeing converted into the Divine Nature, but by its conjunction with\nthe Divine Nature in one hypostasis, as is plain from Damascene (De\nFide Orth. iii, 11, 17).\n\nReply Obj. 1: Augustine retracts these and the like words (Retract.\ni, 19); hence, after the foregoing words (Retract. i, 19), he adds:\n\"Wherever I have said this,\" viz. that Christ Jesus is a lordly man,\n\"I wish it unsaid, having afterwards seen that it ought not to be\nsaid although it may be defended with some reason,\" i.e. because one\nmight say that He was called a lordly man by reason of the human\nnature, which this word \"man\" signifies, and not by reason of the\nsuppositum.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This one suppositum, which is of the human and Divine\nnatures, was first of the Divine Nature, i.e. from eternity.\nAfterwards in time it was made a suppositum of human nature by the\nIncarnation. And for this reason it is said to be \"humanized\"--not\nthat it assumed a man, but that it assumed human nature. But the\nconverse of this is not true, viz. that a suppositum of human nature\nassumed the Divine Nature; hence we may not say a \"deified\" or\n\"lordly\" man.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This word Divine is wont to be predicated even of\nthings of which the word God is predicated essentially; thus we say\nthat \"the Divine Essence is God,\" by reason of identity; and that\n\"the Essence belongs to God,\" or is \"Divine,\" on account of the\ndifferent way of signifying; and we speak of the \"Divine Word,\"\nthough the Word is God. So, too, we say \"a Divine Person,\" just as we\nsay \"the person of Plato,\" on account of its different mode of\nsignification. But \"lordly\" is not predicated of those of which\n\"lord\" is predicated; for we are not wont to call a man who is a\nlord, lordly; but whatsoever belongs to a lord is called lordly, as\nthe \"lordly will,\" or the \"lordly hand,\" or the \"lordly possession.\"\nAnd hence the man Christ, Who is our Lord, cannot be called lordly;\nyet His flesh can be called \"lordly flesh\" and His passion the\n\"lordly passion.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 4]\n\nWhether What Belongs to the Human Nature Can Be Predicated of God?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that what belongs to the human nature\ncannot be said of God. For contrary things cannot be said of the\nsame. Now, what belongs to human nature is contrary to what is proper\nto God, since God is uncreated, immutable, and eternal, and it\nbelongs to the human nature to be created temporal and mutable.\nTherefore what belongs to the human nature cannot be said of God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, to attribute to God what is defective seems to be\nderogatory to the Divine honor, and to be a blasphemy. Now what\npertains to the human nature contains a kind of defect, as to suffer,\nto die, and the like. Hence it seems that what pertains to the human\nnature can nowise be said of God.\n\nObj. 3: Further, to be assumed pertains to the human nature; yet it\ndoes not pertain to God. Therefore what belongs to the human nature\ncannot be said of God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4) that \"God\nassumed the idioms,\" i.e. the properties, \"of flesh, since God is\nsaid to be passible, and the God of glory was crucified.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ On this question there was a difference of opinion\nbetween Nestorians and Catholics. The Nestorians wished to divide\nwords predicated of Christ, in this way, viz. that such as pertained\nto human nature should not be predicated of God, and that such as\npertained to the Divine Nature should not be predicated of the Man.\nHence Nestorius said: \"If anyone attempt to attribute sufferings to\nthe Word, let him be anathema\" [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 29].\nBut if there are any words applicable to both natures, of them they\npredicated what pertained to both natures, as \"Christ\" or \"Lord.\"\nHence they granted that Christ was born of a Virgin, and that He was\nfrom eternity; but they did not say that God was born of a virgin, or\nthat the Man was from eternity. Catholics on the other hand\nmaintained that words which are said of Christ either in His Divine\nor in His human nature may be said either of God or of man. Hence\nCyril says [*Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: \"If anyone ascribes\nto two persons or substances,\" i.e. hypostases, \"such words as are in\nthe evangelical and apostolic Scriptures, or have been said of Christ\nby the Saints, or by Himself of Himself, and believes that some are\nto be applied to the Man, and apportions some to the Word alone--let\nhim be anathema.\" And the reason of this is that, since there is one\nhypostasis of both natures, the same hypostasis is signified by the\nname of either nature. Thus whether we say \"man\" or \"God,\" the\nhypostasis of Divine and human nature is signified. And hence, of the\nMan may be said what belongs to the Divine Nature, as of a hypostasis\nof the Divine Nature; and of God may be said what belongs to the\nhuman nature, as of a hypostasis of human nature.\n\nNevertheless, it must be borne in mind that in a proposition in which\nsomething is predicated of another, we must not merely consider what\nthe predicate is predicated of, but also the reason of its being\npredicated. Thus, although we do not distinguish things predicated of\nChrist, yet we distinguish that by reason of which they are\npredicated, since those things that belong to the Divine Nature are\npredicated of Christ in His Divine Nature, and those that belong to\nthe human nature are predicated of Christ in His human nature. Hence\nAugustine says (De Trin. i, 11): \"We must distinguish what is said by\nScripture in reference to the form of God, wherein He is equal to the\nFather, and what in reference to the form of a servant, wherein He is\nless than the Father\": and further on he says (De Trin. i, 13): \"The\nprudent, careful, and devout reader will discern the reason and point\nof view of what is said.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: It is impossible for contraries to be predicated of the\nsame in the same respects, but nothing prevents their being\npredicated of the same in different aspects. And thus contraries are\npredicated of Christ, not in the same, but in different natures.\n\nReply Obj. 2: If the things pertaining to defect were attributed to\nGod in His Divine Nature, it would be a blasphemy, since it would be\nderogatory to His honor. But there is no kind of wrong done to God if\nthey are attributed to Him in His assumed nature. Hence in a\ndiscourse of the Council of Ephesus [*Part III, ch. 10] it is said:\n\"God accounts nothing a wrong which is the occasion of man's\nsalvation. For no lowliness that He assumed for us injures that\nNature which can be subject to no injury, yet makes lower things Its\nown, to save our nature. Therefore, since these lowly and worthless\nthings do no harm to the Divine Nature, but bring about our\nsalvation, how dost thou maintain that what was the cause of our\nsalvation was the occasion of harm to God?\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: To be assumed pertains to human nature, not in its\nsuppositum, but in itself; and thus it does not belong to God.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 5]\n\nWhether What Belongs to the Human Nature Can Be Predicated of the\nDivine Nature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that what belongs to the human nature can\nbe said of the Divine Nature. For what belongs to the human nature is\npredicated of the Son of God, and of God. But God is His own Nature.\nTherefore, what belongs to the human nature may be predicated of the\nDivine Nature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the flesh pertains to human nature. But as Damascene\nsays (De Fide Orth. iii, 6), \"we say, after the blessed Athanasius\nand Cyril, that the Nature of the Word was incarnate.\" Therefore it\nwould seem with equal reason that what belongs to the human nature\nmay be said of the Divine Nature.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what belongs to the Divine Nature belongs to\nChrist's human nature; such as to know future things and to possess\nsaving power. Therefore it would seem with equal reason that what\nbelongs to the human may be said of the Divine Nature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4): \"When we\nmention the Godhead we do not predicate of it the idioms,\" i.e. the\nproperties, \"of the humanity; for we do not say that the Godhead is\npassible or creatable.\" Now the Godhead is the Divine Nature.\nTherefore what is proper to the human nature cannot be said of the\nDivine Nature.\n\n_I answer that,_ What belongs to one cannot be said of another,\nunless they are both the same; thus \"risible\" can be predicated only\nof man. Now in the mystery of the Incarnation the Divine and human\nnatures are not the same; but the hypostasis of the two natures is\nthe same. And hence what belongs to one nature cannot be predicated\nof the other if they are taken in the abstract. Now concrete words\nstand for the hypostasis of the nature; and hence of concrete words\nwe may predicate indifferently what belongs to either nature--whether\nthe word of which they are predicated refers to one nature, as the\nword \"Christ,\" by which is signified \"both the Godhead anointing and\nthe manhood anointed\"; or to the Divine Nature alone, as this word\n\"God\" or \"the Son of God\"; or to the manhood alone, as this word\n\"Man\" or \"Jesus.\" Hence Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Palaest. cxxiv): \"It is\nof no consequence from what substance we name Christ; because since\nthe unity of person remains inseparably, one and the same is\naltogether Son of Man by His flesh, and altogether Son of God by the\nGodhead which He has with the Father.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: In God, Person and Nature are really the same; and by\nreason of this identity the Divine Nature is predicated of the Son of\nGod. Nevertheless, its mode of predication is different; and hence\ncertain things are said of the Son of God which are not said of the\nDivine Nature; thus we say that the Son of God is born, yet we do not\nsay that the Divine Nature is born; as was said in the First Part (Q.\n39, A. 5). So, too, in the mystery of the Incarnation we say that the\nSon of God suffered, yet we do not say that the Divine Nature\nsuffered.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Incarnation implies union with flesh, rather than any\nproperty of flesh. Now in Christ each nature is united to the other\nin person; and by reason of this union the Divine Nature is said to\nbe incarnate and the human nature deified, as stated above (Q. 2, A.\n1, ad 3).\n\nReply Obj. 3: What belongs to the Divine Nature is predicated of the\nhuman nature--not, indeed, as it belongs essentially to the Divine\nNature, but as it is participated by the human nature. Hence,\nwhatever cannot be participated by the human nature (as to be\nuncreated and omnipotent), is nowise predicated of the human nature.\nBut the Divine Nature received nothing by participation from the\nhuman nature; and hence what belongs to the human nature can nowise\nbe predicated of the Divine Nature.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 6]\n\nWhether This Is True: \"God Was Made Man\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this is false: \"God was made man.\"\nFor since man signifies a substance, to be made man is to be made\nsimply. But this is false: \"God was made simply.\" Therefore this is\nfalse: \"God was made man.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, to be made man is to be changed. But God cannot be\nthe subject of change, according to Malachi 3:6: \"I am the Lord, and\nI change not.\" Hence this is false: \"God was made man.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, man as predicated of Christ stands for the Person of\nthe Son of God. But this is false: \"God was made the Person of the\nSon of God.\" Therefore this is false: \"God was made man.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:14): \"The Word was made\nflesh\": and as Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epictetum), \"when he said,\n'The Word was made flesh,' it is as if it were said that God was\nmade man.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be made that which begins to be\npredicated of it for the first time. Now to be man is truly\npredicated of God, as stated above (A. 1), yet in such sort that it\npertains to God to be man, not from eternity, but from the time of\nHis assuming human nature. Hence, this is true, \"God was made man\";\nthough it is understood differently by some: even as this, \"God is\nman,\" as we said above (A. 1).\n\nReply Obj. 1: To be made man is to be made simply, in all those in\nwhom human nature begins to be in a newly created suppositum. But God\nis said to have been made man, inasmuch as the human nature began to\nbe in an eternally pre-existing suppositum of the Divine Nature. And\nhence for God to be made man does not mean that God was made simply.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated above, to be made implies that something is\nnewly predicated of another. Hence, whenever anything is predicated\nof another, and there is a change in that of which it is predicated,\nthen to be made is to be changed; and this takes place in whatever is\npredicated absolutely, for whiteness or greatness cannot newly affect\nanything, unless it be newly changed to whiteness or greatness. But\nwhatever is predicated relatively can be newly predicated of anything\nwithout its change, as a man may be made to be on the right side\nwithout being changed and merely by the change of him on whose left\nside he was. Hence in such cases, not all that is said to be made is\nchanged, since it may happen by the change of something else. And it\nis thus we say of God: \"Lord, Thou art made [Douay: 'hast been'] our\nrefuge\" (Ps. 89:1). Now to be man belongs to God by reason of the\nunion, which is a relation. And hence to be man is newly predicated\nof God without any change in Him, by a change in the human nature,\nwhich is assumed to a Divine Person. And hence, when it is said, \"God\nwas made man,\" we understand no change on the part of God, but only\non the part of the human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Man stands not for the bare Person of the Son of God,\nbut inasmuch as it subsists in human nature. Hence, although this is\nfalse, \"God was made the Person of the Son of God,\" yet this is true:\n\"God was made man\" by being united to human nature.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 7]\n\nWhether This Is True: \"Man Was Made God\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this is true: \"Man was made God.\" For\nit is written (Rom. 1:2, 3): \"Which He had promised before by His\nprophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Who was made to\nHim of the seed of David according to the flesh.\" Now Christ, as man,\nis of the seed of David according to the flesh. Therefore man was\nmade the Son of God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. i, 13) that \"such was this\nassumption, which made God man, and man God.\" But by reason of this\nassumption this is true: \"God was made man.\" Therefore, in like\nmanner, this is true: \"Man was made God.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, Gregory Nazianzen says (Ep. ad Chelid. ci): \"God was\nhumanized and man was deified, or whatever else one may like to call\nit.\" Now God is said to be humanized by being made man. Therefore\nwith equal reason man is said to be deified by being made God; and\nthus it is true that \"Man was made God.\"\n\nObj. 4: Further, when it is said that \"God was made man,\" the subject\nof the making or uniting is not God, but human nature, which the word\n\"man\" signifies. Now that seems to be the subject of the making, to\nwhich the making is attributed. Hence \"Man was made God\" is truer\nthan \"God was made man.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 2): \"We do not\nsay that man was deified, but that God was humanized.\" Now to be made\nGod is the same as to be deified. Hence this is false: \"Man was made\nGod.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ This proposition, Man was made God, may be\nunderstood in three ways. First, so that the participle \"made\"\nabsolutely determines either the subject or the predicate; and in\nthis sense it is false, since neither the Man of Whom it is\npredicated was made, nor is God made, as will be said (AA. 8, 9). And\nin the same sense this is false: \"God was made man.\" But it is not of\nthis sense that we are now speaking. Secondly, it may be so\nunderstood that the word \"made\" determines the composition, with this\nmeaning: \"Man was made God, i.e. it was brought about that Man is\nGod.\" And in this sense both are true, viz. that \"Man was made God\"\nand that \"God was made Man.\" But this is not the proper sense of\nthese phrases; unless, indeed, we are to understand that \"man\" has\nnot a personal but a simple supposition. For although \"this man\" was\nnot made God, because this suppositum, viz. the Person of the Son of\nGod, was eternally God, yet man, speaking commonly, was not always\nGod. Thirdly, properly understood, this participle \"made\" attaches\nmaking to man with relation to God, as the term of the making. And in\nthis sense, granted that the Person or hypostasis in Christ are the\nsame as the suppositum of God and Man, as was shown (Q. 2, AA. 2, 3),\nthis proposition is false, because, when it is said, \"Man was made\nGod,\" \"man\" has a personal suppositum: because, to be God is not\nverified of the Man in His human nature, but in His suppositum. Now\nthe suppositum of human nature, of Whom \"to be God\" is verified, is\nthe same as the hypostasis or Person of the Son of God, Who was\nalways God. Hence it cannot be said that this Man began to be God, or\nis made God, or that He was made God.\n\nBut if there were a different hypostasis of God and man, so that \"to\nbe God\" was predicated of the man, and, conversely, by reason of a\ncertain conjunction of supposita, or of personal dignity, or of\naffection or indwelling, as the Nestorians said, then with equal\nreason might it be said that Man was made God, i.e. joined to God,\nand that God was made Man, i.e. joined to man.\n\nReply Obj. 1: In these words of the Apostle the relative \"Who\" which\nrefers to the Person of the Son of God ought not to be considered as\naffecting the predicate, as if someone already existing of the \"seed\nof David according to the flesh\" was made the Son of God--and it is\nin this sense that the objection takes it. But it ought to be taken\nas affecting the subject, with this meaning--that the \"Son of God was\nmade to Him ('namely to the honor of the Father,' as a gloss expounds\nit), being of the seed of David according to the flesh,\" as if to say\n\"the Son of God having flesh of the seed of David to the honor of\nGod.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: This saying of Augustine is to be taken in the sense\nthat by the assumption that took place in the Incarnation it was\nbrought about that Man is God and God is Man; and in this sense both\nsayings are true as stated above.\n\nThe same is to be said in reply to the third, since to be deified is\nthe same as to be made God.\n\nReply Obj. 4: A term placed in the subject is taken materially, i.e.\nfor the suppositum; placed in the predicate it is taken formally,\ni.e. for the nature signified. Hence when it is said that \"Man was\nmade God,\" the being made is not attributed to the human nature but\nto the suppositum of the human nature, Which is God from eternity,\nand hence it does not befit Him to be made God. But when it is said\nthat \"God was made Man,\" the making is taken to be terminated in the\nhuman nature. Hence, properly speaking, this is true: \"God was made\nMan,\" and this is false: \"Man was made God\"; even as if Socrates, who\nwas already a man, were made white, and were pointed out, this would\nbe true: \"This man was made white today,\" and this would be false;\n\"This white thing was made man today.\" Nevertheless, if on the part\nof the subject there is added some word signifying human nature in\nthe abstract, it might be taken in this way for the subject of the\nmaking, e.g. if it were said that \"human nature was made the Son of\nGod's.\"\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 8]\n\nWhether This Is True: \"Christ Is a Creature\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this is true: \"Christ is a creature.\"\nFor Pope Leo says [*Cf. Append. Opp. August., Serm. xii de Nativ.]:\n\"A new and unheard of covenant: God Who is and was, is made a\ncreature.\" Now we may predicate of Christ whatever the Son of God\nbecame by the Incarnation. Therefore this is true; Christ is a\ncreature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the properties of both natures may be predicated of\nthe common hypostasis of both natures, no matter by what word they\nare signified, as stated above (A. 5). But it is the property of\nhuman nature to be created, as it is the property of the Divine\nNature to be Creator. Hence both may be said of Christ, viz. that He\nis a creature and that he is uncreated and Creator.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the principal part of a man is the soul rather than\nthe body. But Christ, by reason of the body which He took from the\nVirgin, is said simply to be born of the Virgin. Therefore by reason\nof the soul which is created by God, it ought simply to be said that\nHe is a creature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Trin. i): \"Was Christ made by a\nword? Was Christ created by a command?\" as if to say: \"No!\" Hence he\nadds: \"How can there be a creature in God? For God has a simple not a\ncomposite Nature.\" Therefore it must not be granted that \"Christ is a\ncreature.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As Jerome [*Gloss, Ord. in Osee 2:16] says, \"words\nspoken amiss lead to heresy\"; hence with us and heretics the very\nwords ought not to be in common, lest we seem to countenance their\nerror. Now the Arian heretics said that Christ was a creature and\nless than the Father, not only in His human nature, but even in His\nDivine Person. And hence we must not say absolutely that Christ is a\n\"creature\" or \"less than the Father\"; but with a qualification, viz.\n\"in His human nature.\" But such things as could not be considered to\nbelong to the Divine Person in Itself may be predicated simply of\nChrist by reason of His human nature; thus we say simply that Christ\nsuffered, died and was buried: even as in corporeal and human beings,\nthings of which we may doubt whether they belong to the whole or the\npart, if they are observed to exist in a part, are not predicated of\nthe whole simply, i.e. without qualification, for we do not say that\nthe Ethiopian is white but that he is white as regards his teeth; but\nwe say without qualification that he is curly, since this can only\nbelong to him as regards his hair.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Sometimes, for the sake of brevity, the holy doctors\nuse the word \"creature\" of Christ, without any qualifying term; we\nshould however take as understood the qualification, \"as man.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: All the properties of the human, just as of the Divine\nNature, may be predicated equally of Christ. Hence Damascene says (De\nFide Orth. iii, 4) that \"Christ Who God and Man, is called created\nand uncreated, passible and impassible.\" Nevertheless things of which\nwe may doubt to what nature they belong, are not to be predicated\nwithout a qualification. Hence he afterwards adds (De Fide Orth. iv,\n5) that \"the one hypostasis,\" i.e. of Christ, \"is uncreated in its\nGodhead and created in its manhood\": even so conversely, we may not\nsay without qualification, \"Christ is incorporeal\" or \"impassible\";\nin order to avoid the error of Manes, who held that Christ had not a\ntrue body, nor truly suffered, but we must say, with a qualification,\nthat Christ was incorporeal and impassible \"in His Godhead.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: There can be no doubt how the birth from the Virgin\napplies to the Person of the Son of God, as there can be in the case\nof creation; and hence there is no parity.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 9]\n\nWhether This Man, i.e. Christ, Began to Be?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this Man, i.e. Christ, began to be.\nFor Augustine says (Tract. cv in Joan.) that \"before the world was,\nneither were we, nor the Mediator of God and men--the Man Jesus\nChrist.\" But what was not always, has begun to be. Therefore this\nMan, i.e. Christ, began to be.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ began to be Man. But to be man is to be\nsimply. Therefore this man began to be, simply.\n\nObj. 3: Further, \"man\" implies a suppositum of human nature. But\nChrist was not always a suppositum of human nature. Therefore this\nMan began to be.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 13:8): \"Jesus Christ yesterday\nand today: and the same for ever.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ We must not say that \"this Man\"--pointing to\nChrist--\"began to be,\" unless we add something. And this for a\ntwofold reason. First, for this proposition is simply false, in the\njudgment of the Catholic Faith, which affirms that in Christ there is\none suppositum and one hypostasis, as also one Person. For according\nto this, when we say \"this Man,\" pointing to Christ, the eternal\nsuppositum is necessarily meant, with Whose eternity a beginning in\ntime is incompatible. Hence this is false: \"This Man began to be.\"\nNor does it matter that to begin to be refers to the human nature,\nwhich is signified by this word \"man\"; because the term placed in the\nsubject is not taken formally so as to signify the nature, but is\ntaken materially so as to signify the suppositum, as was said (A. 1,\nad 4). Secondly, because even if this proposition were true, it ought\nnot to be made use of without qualification; in order to avoid the\nheresy of Arius, who, since he pretended that the Person of the Son\nof God is a creature, and less than the Father, so he maintained that\nHe began to be, saying \"there was a time when He was not.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The words quoted must be qualified, i.e. we must say\nthat the Man Jesus Christ was not, before the world was, \"in His\nhumanity.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: With this word \"begin\" we cannot argue from the lower\nspecies to the higher. For it does not follow if \"this began to be\nwhite,\" that therefore \"it began to be colored.\" And this because \"to\nbegin\" implies being now and not heretofore: for it does not follow\nif \"this was not white hitherto\" that \"therefore it was not colored\nhitherto.\" Now, to be simply is higher than to be man. Hence this\ndoes not follow: \"Christ began to be Man--therefore He began to be.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: This word \"Man,\" as it is taken for Christ, although it\nsignifies the human nature, which began to be, nevertheless signifies\nthe eternal suppositum which did not begin to be. Hence, since it\nsignifies the suppositum when placed in the subject, and refers to\nthe nature when placed in the predicate, therefore this is false:\n\"The Man Christ began to be\": but this is true: \"Christ began to be\nMan.\"\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 10]\n\nWhether This Is True: \"Christ As Man Is a Creature\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this is false: \"Christ as Man is a\ncreature,\" or \"began to be.\" For nothing in Christ is created except\nthe human nature. But this is false: \"Christ as Man is the human\nnature.\" Therefore this is also false; Christ as Man is a creature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the predicate is predicated of the term placed in\nreduplication, rather than of the subject of the proposition; as when\nI say: \"A body as colored is visible,\" it follows that the colored is\nvisible. But as stated (AA. 8, 9) we must not absolutely grant that\n\"the Man Christ is a creature\"; nor consequently that \"Christ as Man\nis a creature.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, whatever is predicated of a man as man is predicated\nof him _per se_ and simply, for _per se_ is the same as \"inasmuch as\nitself,\" as is said _Metaph._ v, text. 23. But this is false: \"Christ\nas Man is per se and simply a creature.\" Hence this, too, is false;\n\"Christ as Man is a creature.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Whatever is, is either Creator or creature. But\nthis is false: \"Christ as Man is Creator.\" Therefore this is true:\n\"Christ as Man is a creature.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ When we say \"Christ as Man\" this word \"man\" may be\nadded in the reduplication, either by reason of the suppositum or by\nreason of the nature. If it be added by reason of the suppositum,\nsince the suppositum of the human nature in Christ is eternal and\nuncreated, this will be false: \"Christ as Man is a creature.\" But if\nit be added by reason of the human nature, it is true, since by\nreason of the human nature or in the human nature, it belongs to Him\nto be a creature, as was said (A. 8).\n\nIt must however be borne in mind that the term covered by the\nreduplication signifies the nature rather than the suppositum, since\nit is added as a predicate, which is taken formally, for it is the\nsame to say \"Christ as Man\" and to say \"Christ as He is a Man.\" Hence\nthis is to be granted rather than denied: \"Christ as Man is a\ncreature.\" But if something further be added whereby [the term\ncovered by the reduplication] is attracted to the suppositum, this\nproposition is to be denied rather than granted, for instance were\none to say: \"Christ as 'this' Man is a creature.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although Christ is not the human nature, He has human\nnature. Now the word \"creature\" is naturally predicated not only of\nabstract, but also of concrete things; since we say that \"manhood is\na creature\" and that \"man is a creature.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Man as placed in the subject refers to the\nsuppositum--and as placed in the reduplication refers to the nature,\nas was stated above. And because the nature is created and the\nsuppositum uncreated, therefore, although it is not granted that\n\"this man is a creature,\" yet it is granted that \"Christ as Man is a\ncreature.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: It belongs to every man who is a suppositum of human\nnature alone to have his being only in human nature. Hence of every\nsuch suppositum it follows that if it is a creature as man, it is a\ncreature simply. But Christ is a suppositum not merely of human\nnature, but also of the Divine Nature, in which He has an uncreated\nbeing. Hence it does not follow that, if He is a creature as Man, He\nis a creature simply.\n_______________________\n\nELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 11]\n\nWhether This Is True: \"Christ As Man Is God\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ, as Man, is God. For Christ is\nGod by the grace of union. But Christ, as Man, has the grace of\nunion. Therefore Christ as Man is God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, to forgive sins is proper to God, according to Isa.\n43:25: \"I am He that blot out thy iniquities for My own sake.\" But\nChrist as Man forgives sin, according to Matt. 9:6: \"But that you may\nknow that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins,\" etc.\nTherefore Christ as Man is God.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ is not Man in common, but is this particular\nMan. Now Christ, as this Man, is God, since by \"this Man\" we signify\nthe eternal suppositum which is God naturally. Therefore Christ as\nMan is God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Whatever belongs to Christ as Man belongs to every\nman. Now, if Christ as Man is God, it follows that every man is\nGod--which is clearly false.\n\n_I answer that,_ This term \"man\" when placed in the reduplication may\nbe taken in two ways. First as referring to the nature; and in this\nway it is not true that Christ as Man is God, because the human\nnature is distinct from the Divine by a difference of nature.\nSecondly it may be taken as referring to the suppositum; and in this\nway, since the suppositum of the human nature in Christ is the Person\nof the Son of God, to Whom it essentially belongs to be God, it is\ntrue that Christ, as Man, is God. Nevertheless because the term\nplaced in the reduplication signifies the nature rather than the\nsuppositum, as stated above (A. 10), hence this is to be denied\nrather than granted: \"Christ as Man is God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: It is not with regard to the same, that a thing moves\ntowards, and that it is, something; for to move belongs to a thing\nbecause of its matter or subject--and to be in act belongs to it\nbecause of its form. So too it is not with regard to the same, that\nit belongs to Christ to be ordained to be God by the grace of union,\nand to be God. For the first belongs to Him in His human nature, and\nthe second, in His Divine Nature. Hence this is true: \"Christ as Man\nhas the grace of union\"; yet not this: \"Christ as Man is God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Son of Man has on earth the power of forgiving\nsins, not by virtue of the human nature, but by virtue of the Divine\nNature, in which Divine Nature resides the power of forgiving sins\nauthoritatively; whereas in the human nature it resides\ninstrumentally and ministerially. Hence Chrysostom expounding this\npassage says [*Implicitly. Hom. xxx in Matth; cf. St. Thomas, Catena\nAurea on Mk. 2:10]: \"He said pointedly 'on earth to forgive sins,' in\norder to show that by an indivisible union He united human nature to\nthe power of the Godhead, since although He was made Man, yet He\nremained the Word of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: When we say \"this man,\" the demonstrative pronoun\n\"this\" attracts \"man\" to the suppositum; and hence \"Christ as this\nMan, is God, is a truer proposition than Christ as Man is God.\"\n_______________________\n\nTWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 16, Art. 12]\n\nWhether This Is True: \"Christ As Man Is a Hypostasis or Person\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ as Man is a hypostasis or\nperson. For what belongs to every man belongs to Christ as Man, since\nHe is like other men according to Phil. 2:7: \"Being made in the\nlikeness of men.\" But every man is a person. Therefore Christ as Man\nis a person.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ as Man is a substance of rational nature. But\nHe is not a universal substance: therefore He is an individual\nsubstance. Now a person is nothing else than an individual substance\nof rational nature; as Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.). Therefore\nChrist as Man is a person.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ as Man is a being of human nature, and a\nsuppositum and a hypostasis of the same nature. But every hypostasis\nand suppositum and being of human nature is a person. Therefore\nChrist as Man is a person.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Christ as Man is not an eternal person. Therefore\nif Christ as Man is a person it would follow that in Christ there are\ntwo persons--one temporal and the other eternal, which is erroneous,\nas was said above (Q. 2, A. 6; Q. 4, A. 2).\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said (AA. 10, 11), the term \"Man\" placed in\nthe reduplication may refer either to the suppositum or to the\nnature. Hence when it is said: \"Christ as Man is a person,\" if it is\ntaken as referring to the suppositum, it is clear that Christ as Man\nis a person, since the suppositum of human nature is nothing else\nthan the Person of the Son of God. But if it be taken as referring to\nthe nature, it may be understood in two ways. First, we may so\nunderstand it as if it belonged to human nature to be in a person,\nand in this way it is true, for whatever subsists in human nature is\na person. Secondly it may be taken that in Christ a proper\npersonality, caused by the principles of the human nature, is due to\nthe human nature; and in this way Christ as Man is not a person,\nsince the human nature does not exist of itself apart from the Divine\nNature, and yet the notion of person requires this.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It belongs to every man to be a person, inasmuch as\neverything subsisting in human nature is a person. Now this is proper\nto the Man Christ that the Person subsisting in His human nature is\nnot caused by the principles of the human nature, but is eternal.\nHence in one way He is a person, as Man; and in another way He is\nnot, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The \"individual substance,\" which is included in the\ndefinition of a person, implies a complete substance subsisting of\nitself and separate from all else; otherwise, a man's hand might be\ncalled a person, since it is an individual substance; nevertheless,\nbecause it is an individual substance existing in something else, it\ncannot be called a person; nor, for the same reason, can the human\nnature in Christ, although it may be called something individual and\nsingular.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As a person signifies something complete and\nself-subsisting in rational nature, so a hypostasis, suppositum, and\nbeing of nature in the genus of substance, signify something that\nsubsists of itself. Hence, as human nature is not of itself a person\napart from the Person of the Son of God, so likewise it is not of\nitself a hypostasis or suppositum or a being of nature. Hence in the\nsense in which we deny that \"Christ as Man is a person\" we must deny\nall the other propositions.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 17\n\nOF CHRIST'S UNITY OF BEING\n(In Two Articles)\n\nWe must now consider what pertains to Christ's unity in common. For,\nin their proper place, we must consider what pertains to unity and\nplurality in detail: thus we concluded (Q. 9) that there is not only\none knowledge in Christ, and it will be concluded hereafter (Q. 35,\nA. 2) that there is not only one nativity in Christ.\n\nHence we must consider Christ's unity (1) of being; (2) of will;\n(3) of operation.\n\nUnder the first head there are two points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ is one or two?\n\n(2) Whether there is only one being in Christ?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 17, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Is One or Two?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ is not one, but two. For\nAugustine says (De Trin. i, 7): \"Because the form of God took the\nform of a servant, both are God by reason of God Who assumed, yet\nboth are Man by reason of the man assumed.\" Now \"both\" may only be\nsaid when there are two. Therefore Christ is two.\n\nObj. 2: Further, where there is one thing and another there are two.\nNow Christ is one thing and another; for Augustine says (Enchiridion\nxxxv): \"Being in the form of God . . . He took the form of a servant\n. . . being both in one; but He was one of these as Word, and the\nother as man.\" Therefore Christ is two.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ is not only man; for, if He were a mere man,\nHe would not be God. Therefore He is something else than man, and\nthus in Christ there is one thing and another. Therefore Christ is\ntwo.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Christ is something that the Father is, and\nsomething that the Father is not. Therefore Christ is one thing and\nanother. Therefore Christ is two.\n\nObj. 5: Further, as in the mystery of the Trinity there are three\nPersons in one Nature, so in the mystery of the Incarnation there are\ntwo natures in one Person. But on account of the unity of the Nature,\nnotwithstanding the distinction of Person, the Father and Son are\none, according to John 10:30: \"I and the Father are one.\" Therefore,\nnotwithstanding the unity of Person, Christ is two on account of the\nduality of nature.\n\nObj. 6: Further, the Philosopher says (Phys. iii, text. 18) that\n\"one\" and \"two\" are predicated denominatively. Now Christ has a\nduality of nature. Therefore Christ is two.\n\nObj. 7: Further, as accidental form makes a thing otherwise\n(_alterum_) so does substantial form make another thing (_aliud_) as\nPorphyry says (Praedic.). Now in Christ there are two substantial\nnatures, the human and the Divine. Therefore Christ is one thing and\nanother. Therefore Christ is two.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Boethius says (De Duab. Nat.): \"Whatever is,\ninasmuch as it is, is one.\" But we confess that Christ is. Therefore\nChrist is one.\n\n_I answer that,_ Nature, considered in itself, as it is used in the\nabstract, cannot truly be predicated of the suppositum or person,\nexcept in God, in Whom \"what it is\" and \"whereby it is\" do not\ndiffer, as stated in the First Part (Q. 29, A. 4, ad 1). But in\nChrist, since there are two natures, viz. the Divine and the human,\none of them, viz. the Divine, may be predicated of Him both in the\nabstract and in the concrete, for we say that the Son of God, Who is\nsignified by the word Christ, is the Divine Nature and is God. But\nthe human nature cannot be predicated of Christ in the abstract, but\nonly in the concrete, i.e. as it is signified by the suppositum. For\nwe cannot truly say that \"Christ is human nature,\" because human\nnature is not naturally predicated of its suppositum. But we say that\nChrist is a man, even as Christ is God. Now God signifies one having\nthe Godhead, and man signifies one having manhood. Yet one having\nmanhood is differently signified by the word \"man\" and by the word\n\"Jesus\" or \"Peter.\" For this word \"man\" implies one having manhood\nindistinctly, even as the word \"God\" implies indistinctly one having\nthe Godhead; but the word \"Peter\" or \"Jesus\" implies one having\nmanhood distinctly, i.e. with its determinate individual properties,\nas \"Son of God\" implies one having the Godhead under a determinate\npersonal property. Now the dual number is placed in Christ with\nregard to the natures. Hence, if both the natures were predicated in\nthe abstract of Christ, it would follow that Christ is two. But\nbecause the two natures are not predicated of Christ, except as they\nare signified in the suppositum, it must be by reason of the\nsuppositum that \"one\" or \"two\" be predicated of Christ.\n\nNow some placed two supposita in Christ, and one Person, which, in\ntheir opinion, would seem to be the suppositum completed with its\nfinal completion. Hence, since they placed two supposita in Christ,\nthey said that God is two, in the neuter. But because they asserted\none Person, they said that Christ is one, in the masculine, for the\nneuter gender signifies something unformed and imperfect, whereas the\nmasculine signifies something formed and perfect. On the other hand,\nthe Nestorians, who asserted two Persons in Christ, said that Christ\nis two not only in the neuter, but also in the masculine. But since\nwe maintain one person and one suppositum in Christ, as is clear from\nQ. 2, AA. 2, 3, it follows that we say that Christ is one not merely\nin the masculine, but also in the neuter.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This saying of Augustine is not to be taken as if\n\"both\" referred to the predicate, so as to mean that Christ is both;\nbut it refers to the subject. And thus \"both\" does not stand for two\nsupposita, but for two words signifying two natures in the concrete.\nFor I can say that \"both, viz. God and Man, are God\" on account of\nGod Who assumes; and \"both, viz. God and Man,\" are Man on account of\nthe man assumed.\n\nReply Obj. 2: When it is said that \"Christ is one thing and another,\"\nthis saying is to be explained in this sense--\"having this nature and\nanother.\" And it is in this way that Augustine explains it (Contra\nFelic. xi), where, after saying, \"In the mediator of God and man, the\nSon of God is one thing, and the Son of Man another,\" he adds: \"I say\nanother thing by reason of the difference of substance, and not\nanother thing by reason of the unity of person.\" Hence Gregory\nNazianzen says (Ep. ad Chelid. ci): \"If we must speak briefly, that\nof which the Saviour is, is one thing and another; thus the invisible\nis not the same as the visible; and what is without time is not the\nsame as what is in time. Yet they are not one and another: far from\nit; for both these are one.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: This is false, \"Christ is only man\"; because it does\nnot exclude another suppositum, but another nature, since terms\nplaced in the predicate are taken formally. But if anything is added\nwhereby it is drawn to the suppositum, it would be a true\nproposition--for instance, \"Christ is only that which is man.\"\nNevertheless, it would not follow that He is \"any other thing than\nman,\" because \"another thing,\" inasmuch as it refers to a diversity\nof substance, properly refers to the suppositum, even as all relative\nthings bearing a personal relation. But it does follow: \"Therefore He\nhas another nature.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: When it is said, \"Christ is something that the Father\nis\"; \"something\" signifies the Divine Nature, which is predicated\neven in the abstract of the Father and Son. But when it is said:\n\"Christ is something that is not the Father\"; \"something\" signifies,\nnot the human nature as it is in the abstract, but as it is in the\nconcrete; not, indeed, in a distinct, but in an indistinct\nsuppositum, i.e. inasmuch as it underlies the nature and not the\nindividuating properties. Hence it does not follow that Christ is one\nthing and another, or that He is two, since the suppositum of the\nhuman nature in Christ, which is the Person of the Son of God, does\nnot reckon numerically with the Divine Nature, which is predicated of\nthe Father and Son.\n\nReply Obj. 5: In the mystery of the Divine Trinity the Divine Nature\nis predicated, even in the abstract of the three Persons; hence it\nmay be said simply that the three Persons are one. But in the mystery\nof the Incarnation both natures are not predicated in the abstract of\nChrist; hence it cannot be said simply that Christ is two.\n\nReply Obj. 6: Two signifies what has duality, not in another, but in\nthe same thing of which \"two\" is predicated. Now what is predicated\nis said of the suppositum, which is implied by the word \"Christ.\"\nHence, although Christ has duality of nature, yet, because He has not\nduality of suppositum, it cannot be said that Christ is two.\n\nReply Obj. 7: Otherwise implies diversity of accident. Hence\ndiversity of accident suffices for anything to be called \"otherwise\"\nsimply. But \"another thing\" implies diversity of substance. Now not\nmerely the nature, but also the suppositum is said to be a substance,\nas is said _Metaph._ v, text. 15. Hence diversity of nature does not\nsuffice for anything to be called \"another thing\" simply, unless\nthere is diversity of suppositum. But diversity of nature makes\n\"another thing\" relatively, i.e. in nature, if there is no diversity\nof suppositum.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 17, Art. 2]\n\nWhether There Is Only One Being in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there is not merely one\nbeing, but two. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 13) that\nwhatever follows the nature is doubled in Christ. But being follows\nthe nature, for being is from the form. Hence in Christ there are two\nbeings.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the being of the Son of God is the Divine Nature\nitself, and is eternal: whereas the being of the Man Christ is not\nthe Divine Nature, but is a temporal being. Therefore there is not\nonly one being in Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the Trinity, although there are three Persons,\nyet on account of the unity of nature there is only one being. But in\nChrist there are two natures, though there is one Person. Therefore\nin Christ there is not only one being.\n\nObj. 4: Further, in Christ the soul gives some being to the body,\nsince it is its form. But it does not give the Divine being, since\nthis is uncreated. Therefore in Christ there is another being besides\nthe Divine being; and thus in Christ there is not only one being.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Everything is said to be a being, inasmuch as it\nis one, for one and being are convertible. Therefore, if there were\ntwo beings in Christ, and not one only, Christ would be two, and not\none.\n\n_I answer that,_ Because in Christ there are two natures and one\nhypostasis, it follows that things belonging to the nature in Christ\nmust be two; and that those belonging to the hypostasis in Christ\nmust be only one. Now being pertains both to the nature and to the\nhypostasis; to the hypostasis as to that which has being--and to the\nnature as to that whereby it has being. For nature is taken after the\nmanner of a form, which is said to be a being because something is by\nit; as by whiteness a thing is white, and by manhood a thing is man.\nNow it must be borne in mind that if there is a form or nature which\ndoes not pertain to the personal being of the subsisting hypostasis,\nthis being is not said to belong to the person simply, but\nrelatively; as to be white is the being of Socrates, not as he is\nSocrates, but inasmuch as he is white. And there is no reason why\nthis being should not be multiplied in one hypostasis or person; for\nthe being whereby Socrates is white is distinct from the being\nwhereby he is a musician. But the being which belongs to the very\nhypostasis or person in itself cannot possibly be multiplied in one\nhypostasis or person, since it is impossible that there should not be\none being for one thing.\n\nIf, therefore, the human nature accrued to the Son of God, not\nhypostatically or personally, but accidentally, as some maintained,\nit would be necessary to assert two beings in Christ--one, inasmuch\nas He is God--the other, inasmuch as He is Man; even as in Socrates\nwe place one being inasmuch as he is white, and another inasmuch as\nhe is a man, since \"being white\" does not pertain to the personal\nbeing of Socrates. But being possessed of a head, being corporeal,\nbeing animated--all these pertain to the one person of Socrates, and\nhence there arises from these only the one being of Socrates. And if\nit so happened that after the person of Socrates was constituted\nthere accrued to him hands or feet or eyes, as happened to him who\nwas born blind, no new being would be thereby added to Socrates, but\nonly a relation to these, i.e. inasmuch as he would be said to be,\nnot only with reference to what he had previously, but also with\nreference to what accrued to him afterwards. And thus, since the\nhuman nature is united to the Son of God, hypostatically or\npersonally as was said above (Q. 2, AA. 5, 6), and not accidentally,\nit follows that by the human nature there accrued to Him no new\npersonal being, but only a new relation of the pre-existing personal\nbeing to the human nature, in such a way that the Person is said to\nsubsist not merely in the Divine, but also in the human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Being is consequent upon nature, not as upon that which\nhas being, but as upon that whereby a thing is: whereas it is\nconsequent upon person or hypostasis, as upon that which has being.\nHence it has unity from the unity of hypostasis, rather than duality\nfrom the duality of the nature.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The eternal being of the Son of God, which is the\nDivine Nature, becomes the being of man, inasmuch as the human nature\nis assumed by the Son of God to unity of Person.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As was said in the First Part (Q. 50, A. 2, ad 3; Q.\n75, A. 5, ad 4), since the Divine Person is the same as the Nature,\nthere is no distinction in the Divine Persons between the being of\nthe Person and the being of the Nature, and, consequently, the three\nPersons have only one being. But they would have a triple being if\nthe being of the Person were distinct in them from the being of the\nNature.\n\nReply Obj. 4: In Christ the soul gives being to the body, inasmuch as\nit makes it actually animated, which is to give it the complement of\nits nature and species. But if we consider the body perfected by the\nsoul, without the hypostasis having both--this whole, composed of\nsoul and body, as signified by the word \"humanity,\" does not signify\n_what is,_ but _whereby it is._ Hence being belongs to the subsisting\nperson, inasmuch as it has a relation to such a nature, and of this\nrelation the soul is the cause, inasmuch as it perfects human nature\nby informing the body.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 18\n\nOF CHRIST'S UNITY OF WILL\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe must now consider unity as regards the will; and under this head\nthere are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the Divine will and the human are distinct in Christ?\n\n(2) Whether in Christ's human nature the will of sensuality is\ndistinct from the will of reason?\n\n(3) Whether as regards the reason there were several wills in Christ?\n\n(4) Whether there was free-will in Christ?\n\n(5) Whether Christ's human will was always conformed to the Divine\nwill in the thing willed?\n\n(6) Whether there was any contrariety of wills in Christ?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 1]\n\nWhether There Are Two Wills in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there are not two wills,\none Divine, the other human. For the will is the first mover and\nfirst commander in whoever wills. But in Christ the first mover and\ncommander was the Divine will, since in Christ everything human was\nmoved by the Divine will. Hence it seems that in Christ there was\nonly one will, viz. the Divine.\n\nObj. 2: Further, an instrument is not moved by its own will but by\nthe will of its mover. Now the human nature of Christ was the\ninstrument of His Godhead. Hence the human nature of Christ was not\nmoved by its own will, but by the Divine will.\n\nObj. 3: Further, that alone is multiplied in Christ which belongs to\nthe nature. But the will does not seem to pertain to nature: for\nnatural things are of necessity; whereas what is voluntary is not of\nnecessity. Therefore there is but one will in Christ.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14) that \"to will\nin this or that way belongs not to our nature but to our intellect,\"\ni.e. our personal intellect. But every will is this or that will,\nsince there is nothing in a genus which is not at the same time in\nsome one of its species. Therefore all will belongs to the person.\nBut in Christ there was and is but one person. Therefore in Christ\nthere is only one will.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord says (Luke 22:42): \"Father, if Thou wilt,\nremove this chalice from Me. But yet not My will but Thine be done.\"\nAnd Ambrose, quoting this to the Emperor Gratian (De Fide ii, 7)\nsays: \"As He assumed my will, He assumed my sorrow;\" and on Luke\n22:42 he says: \"His will, He refers to the Man--the Father's, to the\nGodhead. For the will of man is temporal, and the will of the Godhead\neternal.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Some placed only one will in Christ; but they seem\nto have had different motives for holding this. For Apollinaris did\nnot hold an intellectual soul in Christ, but maintained that the Word\nwas in place of the soul, or even in place of the intellect. Hence\nsince \"the will is in the reason,\" as the Philosopher says (De Anima\niii, 9), it followed that in Christ there was no human will; and thus\nthere was only one will in Him. So, too, Eutyches and all who held\none composite nature in Christ were forced to place one will in Him.\nNestorius, too, who maintained that the union of God and man was one\nof affection and will, held only one will in Christ. But later on,\nMacarius, Patriarch of Antioch, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Sergius of\nConstantinople and some of their followers, held that there is one\nwill in Christ, although they held that in Christ there are two\nnatures united in a hypostasis; because they believed that Christ's\nhuman nature never moved with its own motion, but only inasmuch as it\nwas moved by the Godhead, as is plain from the synodical letter of\nPope Agatho [*Third Council of Constantinople, Act. 4].\n\nAnd hence in the sixth Council held at Constantinople [*Act. 18] it\nwas decreed that it must be said that there are two wills in Christ,\nin the following passage: \"In accordance with what the Prophets of\nold taught us concerning Christ, and as He taught us Himself, and the\nSymbol of the Holy Fathers has handed down to us, we confess two\nnatural wills in Him and two natural operations.\" And this much it\nwas necessary to say. For it is manifest that the Son of God assumed\na perfect human nature, as was shown above (Q. 5; Q. 9, A. 1). Now\nthe will pertains to the perfection of human nature, being one of its\nnatural powers, even as the intellect, as was stated in the First\nPart (QQ. 79, 80). Hence we must say that the Son of God assumed a\nhuman will, together with human nature. Now by the assumption of\nhuman nature the Son of God suffered no diminution of what pertains\nto His Divine Nature, to which it belongs to have a will, as was said\nin the First Part (Q. 19, A. 1). Hence it must be said that there are\ntwo wills in Christ, i.e. one human, the other Divine.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Whatever was in the human nature of Christ was moved at\nthe bidding of the Divine will; yet it does not follow that in Christ\nthere was no movement of the will proper to human nature, for the\ngood wills of other saints are moved by God's will, \"Who worketh\" in\nthem \"both to will and to accomplish,\" as is written Phil. 2:13. For\nalthough the will cannot be inwardly moved by any creature, yet it\ncan be moved inwardly by God, as was said in the First Part (Q. 105,\nA. 4). And thus, too, Christ by His human will followed the Divine\nwill according to Ps. 39:9; \"That I should do Thy will, O my God, I\nhave desired it.\" Hence Augustine says (Contra Maxim. ii, 20): \"Where\nthe Son says to the Father, 'Not what I will, but what Thou willest,'\nwhat do you gain by adding your own words and saying 'He shows that\nHis will was truly subject to His Father,' as if we denied that man's\nwill ought to be subject to God's will?\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: It is proper to an instrument to be moved by the\nprincipal agent, yet diversely, according to the property of its\nnature. For an inanimate instrument, as an axe or a saw, is moved by\nthe craftsman with only a corporeal movement; but an instrument\nanimated by a sensitive soul is moved by the sensitive appetite, as a\nhorse by its rider; and an instrument animated with a rational soul\nis moved by its will, as by the command of his lord the servant is\nmoved to act, the servant being like an animate instrument, as the\nPhilosopher says (Polit. i, 2, 4; _Ethic._ viii, 11). And hence it\nwas in this manner that the human nature of Christ was the instrument\nof the Godhead, and was moved by its own will.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The power of the will is natural, and necessarily\nfollows upon the nature; but the movement or act of this power--which\nis also called will--is sometimes natural and necessary, e.g. with\nrespect to beatitude; and sometimes springs from free-will and is\nneither necessary nor natural, as is plain from what has been stated\nin the Second Part (I-II, Q. 10, AA. 1, 2) [*Cf. I, Q. 82, A. 2]. And\nyet even reason itself, which is the principle of this movement, is\nnatural. Hence besides the Divine will it is necessary to place in\nChrist a human will, not merely as a natural power, or a natural\nmovement, but even as a rational movement.\n\nReply Obj. 4: When we say \"to will in a certain way,\" we signify a\ndeterminate mode of willing. Now a determinate mode regards the thing\nof which it is the mode. Hence since the will pertains to the nature,\n\"to will in a certain way\" belongs to the nature, not indeed\nconsidered absolutely, but as it is in the hypostasis. Hence the\nhuman will of Christ had a determinate mode from the fact of being in\na Divine hypostasis, i.e. it was always moved in accordance with the\nbidding of the Divine will.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 2]\n\nWhether in Christ There Was a Will of Sensuality Besides the Will of\nReason?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no will of\nsensuality besides the will of reason. For the Philosopher says (De\nAnima iii, text. 42) that \"the will is in the reason, and in the\nsensitive appetite are the irascible and concupiscible parts.\" Now\nsensuality signifies the sensitive appetite. Hence in Christ there\nwas no will of sensuality.\n\nObj. 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. xii, 12, 13) the\nsensuality is signified by the serpent. But there was nothing\nserpent-like in Christ; for He had the likeness of a venomous animal\nwithout the venom, as Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i,\n32). Hence in Christ there was no will of sensuality.\n\nObj. 3: Further, will is consequent upon nature, as was said (A. 1).\nBut in Christ there was only one nature besides the Divine. Hence in\nChrist there was only one human will.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 7): \"Mine is the will\nwhich He calls His own; because as Man He assumed my sorrow.\" From\nthis we are given to understand that sorrow pertains to the human\nwill of Christ. Now sorrow pertains to the sensuality, as was said in\nthe Second Part (I-II, Q. 23, A. 1; Q. 25, A. 1). Therefore,\nseemingly, in Christ there is a will of sensuality besides the will\nof reason.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said (Q. 9, A. 1), the Son of God assumed\nhuman nature together with everything pertaining to the perfection of\nhuman nature. Now in human nature is included animal nature, as the\ngenus in its species. Hence the Son of God must have assumed together\nwith the human nature whatever belongs to animal nature; one of which\nthings is the sensitive appetite, which is called the sensuality.\nConsequently it must be allowed that in Christ there was a sensual\nappetite, or sensuality. But it must be borne in mind that sensuality\nor the sensual appetite, inasmuch as it naturally obeys reason, is\nsaid to be \"rational by participation,\" as is clear from the\nPhilosopher (Ethic. i, 13). And because \"the will is in the reason,\"\nas stated above, it may equally be said that the sensuality is \"a\nwill by participation.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument is based on the will, essentially so\ncalled, which is only in the intellectual part; but the will by\nparticipation can be in the sensitive part, inasmuch as it obeys\nreason.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The sensuality is signified by the serpent--not as\nregards the nature of the sensuality, which Christ assumed, but as\nregards the corruption of the _fomes,_ which was not in Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 3: \"Where there is one thing on account of another, there\nseems to be only one\" (Aristotle, _Topic._ iii); thus a surface which\nis visible by color is one visible thing with the color. So, too,\nbecause the sensuality is called the will, only because it partakes\nof the rational will, there is said to be but one human will in\nChrist, even as there is but one human nature.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 3]\n\nWhether in Christ There Were Two Wills As Regards the Reason?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there were two wills as\nregards the reason. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that\nthere is a double will in man, viz. the natural will which is called\n_thelesis_, and the rational will which is called _boulesis_. Now\nChrist in His human nature had whatever belongs to the perfection of\nhuman nature. Hence both the foregoing wills were in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the appetitive power is diversified in man by the\ndifference of the apprehensive power, and hence according to the\ndifference of sense and intellect is the difference of sensitive and\nintellective appetite in man. But in the same way as regards man's\napprehension, we hold the difference of reason and intellect; both of\nwhich were in Christ. Therefore there was a double will in Him, one\nintellectual and the other rational.\n\nObj. 3: Further, some [*Hugh of St. Victor, De Quat. Volunt. Christ.]\nascribe to Christ \"a will of piety,\" which can only be on the part of\nreason. Therefore in Christ on the part of reason there are several\nwills.\n\n_On the contrary,_ In every order there is one first mover. But the\nwill is the first mover in the genus of human acts. Therefore in one\nman there is only one will, properly speaking, which is the will of\nreason. But Christ is one man. Therefore in Christ there is only one\nhuman will.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 3), the will is sometimes\ntaken for the power, and sometimes for the act. Hence if the will is\ntaken for the act, it is necessary to place two wills, i.e. two\nspecies of acts of the will in Christ on the part of the reason. For\nthe will, as was said in the I-II, Q. 8, AA. 2, 3, regards both the\nend and the means; and is affected differently towards both. For\ntowards the end it is borne simply and absolutely, as towards what is\ngood in itself; but towards the means it is borne under a certain\nrelation, as the goodness of the means depends on something else.\nHence the act of the will, inasmuch as it is drawn to anything\ndesired of itself, as health, which act is called by Damascene\n_thelesis_--i.e. simple will, and by the masters \"will as nature,\" is\ndifferent from the act of the will as it is drawn to anything that is\ndesired only in order to something else, as to take medicine; and\nthis act of the will Damascene calls _boulesis_--i.e. counseling\nwill, and the masters, \"will as reason.\" But this diversity of acts\ndoes not diversify the power, since both acts regard the one common\nratio of the object, which is goodness. Hence we must say that if we\nare speaking of the power of the will, in Christ there is but one\nhuman will, essentially so called and not by participation; but if we\nare speaking of the will as an act, we thus distinguish in Christ a\nwill as nature, which is called _thelesis_, and a will as reason,\nwhich is called _boulesis_.\n\nReply Obj. 1: These two wills do not diversify the power but only the\nact, as we have said.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The intellect and the reason are not distinct powers,\nas was said in the First Part (Q. 79, A. 8).\n\nReply Obj. 3: The \"will of piety\" would not seem to be distinct from\nthe will considered as nature, inasmuch as it shrinks from another's\nevil, absolutely considered.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 4]\n\nWhether There Was Free-will in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no free-will. For\nDamascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 14) that _gnome_, i.e. opinion,\nthinking or cogitation, and _proairesis_, i.e. choice, \"cannot\npossibly be attributed to our Lord, if we wish to speak with\npropriety.\" But in the things of faith especially we must speak with\npropriety. Therefore there was no choice in Christ and consequently\nno free-will, of which choice is the act.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) that choice is\n\"a desire of something after taking counsel.\" Now counsel does not\nappear to be in Christ, because we do not take counsel concerning\nsuch things as we are certain of. But Christ was certain of\neverything. Hence there was no counsel and consequently no free-will\nin Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, free-will is indifferent. But Christ's will was\ndetermined to good, since He could not sin; as stated above (Q. 15,\nAA. 1, 2). Hence there was no free-will in Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 7:15): \"He shall eat butter\nand honey, that He may know to refuse the evil and to choose the\ngood,\" which is an act of the free-will. Therefore there was\nfree-will in Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 3), there was a twofold act of\nthe will in Christ; one whereby He was drawn to anything willed in\nitself, which implies the nature of an end; the other whereby His\nwill was drawn to anything willed on account of its being ordained to\nanother--which pertains to the nature of means. Now, as the\nPhilosopher says (Ethic. iii, 2) choice differs from will in this,\nthat will of itself regards the end, while choice regards the means.\nAnd thus simple will is the same as the \"will as nature\"; but choice\nis the same as the \"will as reason,\" and is the proper act of\nfree-will, as was said in the First Part (Q. 83, A. 3). Hence, since\n\"will as reason\" is placed in Christ, we must also place choice, and\nconsequently free-will, whose act is choice, as was said in the First\nPart (Q. 83, A. 3; I-II, Q. 13, A. 1).\n\nReply Obj. 1: Damascene excludes choice from Christ, in so far as he\nconsiders that doubt is implied in the word choice. Nevertheless\ndoubt is not necessary to choice, since it belongs even to God\nHimself to choose, according to Eph. 1:4: \"He chose us in Him before\nthe foundation of the world,\" although in God there is no doubt. Yet\ndoubt is accidental to choice when it is in an ignorant nature. We\nmay also say the same of whatever else is mentioned in the passage\nquoted.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Choice presupposes counsel; yet it follows counsel only\nas determined by judgment. For what we judge to be done, we choose,\nafter the inquiry of counsel, as is stated (Ethic. iii, 2, 3). Hence\nif anything is judged necessary to be done, without any preceding\ndoubt or inquiry, this suffices for choice. Therefore it is plain\nthat doubt or inquiry belong to choice not essentially, but only when\nit is in an ignorant nature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The will of Christ, though determined to good, is not\ndetermined to this or that good. Hence it pertains to Christ, even as\nto the blessed, to choose with a free-will confirmed in good.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Human Will of Christ Was Altogether Conformed to the\nDivine Will in the Thing Willed?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the human will in Christ did not will\nanything except what God willed. For it is written (Ps. 39:9) in the\nperson of Christ: \"That I should do Thy will: O my God, I have\ndesired it.\" Now he who desires to do another's will, wills what the\nother wills. Hence it seems that Christ's human will willed nothing\nbut what was willed by His Divine will.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's soul had most perfect charity, which,\nindeed, surpasses the comprehension of all our knowledge, according\nto Eph. 3:19, \"the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all\nknowledge.\" Now charity makes men will what God wills; hence the\nPhilosopher says (Ethic. ix, 4) that one mark of friendship is \"to\nwill and choose the same.\" Therefore the human will in Christ willed\nnothing else than was willed by His Divine will.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ was a true comprehensor. But the Saints who\nare comprehensors in heaven will only what God wills, otherwise they\nwould not be happy, because they would not obtain whatever they will,\nfor \"blessed is he who has what he wills, and wills nothing amiss,\"\nas Augustine says (De Trin. xiii, 5). Hence in His human will Christ\nwills nothing else than does the Divine will.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Maxim. ii, 20): \"When\nChrist says 'Not what I will, but what Thou wilt' He shows Himself to\nhave willed something else than did His Father; and this could only\nhave been by His human heart, since He did not transfigure our\nweakness into His Divine but into His human will.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said (AA. 2, 3), in Christ according to His\nhuman nature there is a twofold will, viz. the will of sensuality,\nwhich is called will by participation, and the rational will, whether\nconsidered after the manner of nature, or after the manner of reason.\nNow it was said above (Q. 13, A. 3, ad 1; Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2) that by\na certain dispensation the Son of God before His Passion \"allowed His\nflesh to do and suffer what belonged to it.\" And in like manner He\nallowed all the powers of His soul to do what belonged to them. Now\nit is clear that the will of sensuality naturally shrinks from\nsensible pains and bodily hurt. In like manner, the will as nature\nturns from what is against nature and what is evil in itself, as\ndeath and the like; yet the will as reason may at time choose these\nthings in relation to an end, as in a mere man the sensuality and the\nwill absolutely considered shrink from burning, which, nevertheless,\nthe will as reason may choose for the sake of health. Now it was the\nwill of God that Christ should undergo pain, suffering, and death,\nnot that these of themselves were willed by God, but for the sake of\nman's salvation. Hence it is plain that in His will of sensuality and\nin His rational will considered as nature, Christ could will what God\ndid not; but in His will as reason He always willed the same as God,\nwhich appears from what He says (Matt. 26:39): \"Not as I will, but as\nThou wilt.\" For He willed in His reason that the Divine will should\nbe fulfilled although He said that He willed something else by\nanother will.\n\nReply Obj. 1: By His rational will Christ willed the Divine will to\nbe fulfilled; but not by His will of sensuality, the movement of\nwhich does not extend to the will of God--nor by His will considered\nas nature which regards things absolutely considered and not in\nrelation to the Divine will.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The conformity of the human will to the Divine regards\nthe will of reason: according to which the wills even of friends\nagree, inasmuch as reason considers something willed in its relation\nto the will of a friend.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ was at once comprehensor and wayfarer, inasmuch\nas He was enjoying God in His mind and had a passible body. Hence\nthings repugnant to His natural will and to His sensitive appetite\ncould happen to Him in His passible flesh.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 18, Art. 6]\n\nWhether There Was Contrariety of Wills in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was contrariety of wills in\nChrist. For contrariety of wills regards contrariety of objects, as\ncontrariety of movements springs from contrariety of termini, as is\nplain from the Philosopher (Phys. v, text. 49, seq.). Now Christ in\nHis different wills wished contrary things. For in His Divine will He\nwished for death, from which He shrank in His human will, hence\nAthanasius says [*De Incarnat. et Cont. Arianos, written against\nApollinarius]: \"When Christ says 'Father, if it be possible, let this\nchalice pass from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done,' and again,\n'The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak,' He denotes two\nwills--the human, which through the weakness of the flesh shrank from\nthe passion--and His Divine will eager for the passion.\" Hence there\nwas contrariety of wills in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Gal. 5:17) that \"the flesh lusteth\nagainst the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.\" Now when the\nspirit desires one thing, and the flesh another, there is contrariety\nof wills. But this was in Christ; for by the will of charity which\nthe Holy Spirit was causing in His mind, He willed the passion,\naccording to Isa. 53:7: \"He was offered because it was His own will,\"\nyet in His flesh He shrank from the passion. Therefore there was\ncontrariety of wills in Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Luke 22:43) that \"being in an agony,\nHe prayed the longer.\" Now agony seems to imply a certain struggle\n[*Greek, _agonia_] in a soul drawn to contrary things. Hence it seems\nthat there was contrariety of will in Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ In the decisions of the Sixth Council [*Third\nCouncil of Constantinople, Act. 18] it is said: \"We confess two\nnatural wills, not in opposition, as evil-minded heretics assert, but\nfollowing His human will, and neither withstanding nor striving\nagainst, but rather being subject to, His Divine and omnipotent will.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Contrariety can exist only where there is opposition\nin the same and as regards the same. For if the diversity exists as\nregards diverse things, and in diverse subjects, this would not\nsuffice for the nature of contrariety, nor even for the nature of\ncontradiction, e.g. if a man were well formed or healthy as regards\nhis hand, but not as regards his foot. Hence for there to be\ncontrariety of wills in anyone it is necessary, first, that the\ndiversity of wills should regard the same. For if the will of one\nregards the doing of something with reference to some universal\nreason, and the will of another regards the not doing the same with\nreference to some particular reason, there is not complete\ncontrariety of will, e.g. when a judge wishes a brigand to be hanged\nfor the good of the commonwealth, and one of the latter's kindred\nwishes him not to be hanged on account of a private love, there is no\ncontrariety of wills; unless, indeed, the desire of the private good\nwent so far as to wish to hinder the public good for the private\ngood--in that case the opposition of wills would regard the same.\n\nSecondly, for contrariety of wills it is necessary that it should be\nin the same will. For if a man wishes one thing with his rational\nappetite, and wishes another thing with his sensitive appetite, there\nis no contrariety, unless the sensitive appetite so far prevailed as\nto change or at least keep back the rational appetite; for in this\ncase something of the contrary movement of the sensitive appetite\nwould reach the rational will.\n\nAnd hence it must be said that although the natural and the sensitive\nwill in Christ wished what the Divine will did not wish, yet there\nwas no contrariety of wills in Him. First, because neither the\nnatural will nor the will of sensuality rejected the reason for which\nthe Divine will and the will of the human reason in Christ wished the\npassion. For the absolute will of Christ wished the salvation of the\nhuman race, although it did not pertain to it to will this for the\nsake of something further; but the movement of sensuality could\nnowise extend so far. Secondly, because neither the Divine will nor\nthe will of reason in Christ was impeded or retarded by the natural\nwill or the appetite of sensuality. So, too, on the other hand,\nneither the Divine will nor the will of reason in Christ shrank from\nor retarded the movement of the natural human will and the movement\nof the sensuality in Christ. For it pleased Christ, in His Divine\nwill, and in His will of reason, that His natural will and will of\nsensuality should be moved according to the order of their nature.\nHence it is clear that in Christ there was no opposition or\ncontrariety of wills.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The fact of any will in Christ willing something else\nthan did the Divine will, proceeded from the Divine will, by whose\npermission the human nature in Christ was moved by its proper\nmovements, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15, 18, 19).\n\nReply Obj. 2: In us the desires of the spirit are impeded or retarded\nby the desires of the flesh: this did not occur in Christ. Hence in\nChrist there was no contrariety of flesh and spirit, as in us.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The agony in Christ was not in the rational soul, in as\nfar as it implies a struggle in the will arising from a diversity of\nmotives, as when anyone, on his reason considering one, wishes one\nthing, and on its considering another, wishes the contrary. For this\nsprings from the weakness of the reason, which is unable to judge\nwhich is the best simply. Now this did not occur in Christ, since by\nHis reason He judged it best that the Divine will regarding the\nsalvation of the human race should be fulfilled by His passion.\nNevertheless, there was an agony in Christ as regards the sensitive\npart, inasmuch as it implied a dread of coming trial, as Damascene\nsays (De Fide Orth. ii, 15; iii, 18, 23).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 19\n\nOF THE UNITY OF CHRIST'S OPERATION\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the unity of Christ's operation; and under this\nhead there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether in Christ there was one or several operations of the\nGodhead and Manhood?\n\n(2) Whether in Christ there were several operations of the human\nnature?\n\n(3) Whether Christ by His human operation merited anything for\nHimself?\n\n(4) Whether He merited anything for us by it?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 1]\n\nWhether in Christ There Is Only One Operation of the Godhead and\nManhood?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there is but one operation\nof the Godhead and the Manhood. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii):\n\"The most loving operation of God is made manifest to us by the\nsupersubstantial Word having taken flesh integrally and truly, and\nhaving operated and suffered whatsoever befits His human and Divine\noperation.\" But he here mentions only one human and Divine operation,\nwhich is written in Greek _theandrike_, i.e. God-manlike. Hence it\nseems that there is but one composite operation in Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, there is but one operation of the principal and\ninstrumental agent. Now the human nature in Christ was the instrument\nof the Divine, as was said above (Q. 7, A. 1, ad 3; Q. 8, A. 1, ad 1;\nQ. 18, A. 1, ad 2). Hence the operations of the Divine and human\nnatures in Christ are the same.\n\nObj. 3: Further, since in Christ there are two natures in one\nhypostasis or person, whatever pertains to the hypostasis or person\nis one and the same. But operation pertains to the hypostasis or\nperson, for it is only a subsisting suppositum that operates; hence,\naccording to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1), acts belong to\nsingulars. Hence in Christ there is only one operation of the Godhead\nand the Manhood.\n\nObj. 4: Further, as being belongs to a subsisting hypostasis, so also\ndoes operation. But on account of the unity of hypostasis there is\nonly one operation of the Godhead and the (Q. 17, A. 2). Hence, on\naccount of the same unity, there is one operation in Christ.\n\nObj. [5]: Further, [where there is one thing] operated there is one\noperation. But the same thing was operated by the Godhead and the\nManhood, as the healing of the lepers or the raising of the dead.\nHence it seems that in Christ there is but one operation of the\nGodhead and the Manhood.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 8): \"How can the same\noperation spring from different powers? Cannot the lesser operate as\nthe greater? And can there be one operation where there are different\nsubstances?\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 18, A. 1), the aforesaid\nheretics who placed one will in Christ placed one operation in\nChrist. Now in order better to understand their erroneous opinion, we\nmust bear in mind that wherever there are several mutually ordained\nagents, the inferior is moved by the superior, as in man the body is\nmoved by the soul and the lower powers by the reason. And thus the\nactions and movements of the inferior principle are things operated\nrather than operations. Now what pertains to the highest principle is\nproperly the operation; thus we say of man that to walk, which\nbelongs to the feet, and to touch, which belongs to the hand, are\nthings operated by the man--one of which is operated by the soul\nthrough the feet, the other through the hands. And because it is the\nsame soul that operates in both cases, there is only one indifferent\noperation, on the part of the thing operating, which is the first\nmoving principle; but difference is found on the part of what is\noperated. Now, as in a mere man the body is moved by the soul, and\nthe sensitive by the rational appetite, so in the Lord Jesus Christ\nthe human nature is moved and ruled by the Divine. Hence they said\nthat there is one indifferent operation on the part of the Godhead\noperating, but divers things operated, inasmuch as the Godhead of\nChrist did one thing by Itself, as to uphold all things by the word\nof His power--and another thing by His human nature, as to walk in\nbody. Hence the Sixth Council [*Third Council of Constantinople, Act.\n10] quotes the words of Severus the heretic, who said: \"What things\nwere done and wrought by the one Christ, differ greatly; for some are\nbecoming to God, and some are human, as to walk bodily on the earth\nis indeed human, but to give hale steps to sickly limbs, wholly\nunable to walk on the ground, is becoming to God. Yet one, i.e. the\nIncarnate Word, wrought one and the other--neither was this from one\nnature, and that from another; nor can we justly affirm that because\nthere are distinct things operated there are therefore two operating\nnatures and forms.\"\n\nBut herein they were deceived, for what is moved by another has a\ntwofold action--one which it has from its own form--the other, which\nit has inasmuch as it is moved by another; thus the operation of an\naxe of itself is to cleave; but inasmuch as it is moved by the\ncraftsman, its operation is to make benches. Hence the operation\nwhich belongs to a thing by its form is proper to it, nor does it\nbelong to the mover, except in so far as he makes use of this kind of\nthing for his work: thus to heat is the proper operation of fire, but\nnot of a smith, except in so far as he makes use of fire for heating\niron. But the operation which belongs to the thing, as moved by\nanother, is not distinct from the operation of the mover; thus to\nmake a bench is not the work of the axe independently of the workman.\nHence, wheresoever the mover and the moved have different forms or\noperative faculties, there must the operation of the mover and the\nproper operation of the moved be distinct; although the moved shares\nin the operation of the mover, and the mover makes use of the\noperation of the moved, and, consequently, each acts in communion\nwith the other.\n\nTherefore in Christ the human nature has its proper form and power\nwhereby it acts; and so has the Divine. Hence the human nature has\nits proper operation distinct from the Divine, and conversely.\nNevertheless, the Divine Nature makes use of the operation of the\nhuman nature, as of the operation of its instrument; and in the same\nway the human nature shares in the operation of the Divine Nature, as\nan instrument shares in the operation of the principal agent. And\nthis is what Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Flavian. xxviii): \"Both forms\"\n(i.e. both the Divine and the human nature in Christ) \"do what is\nproper to each in union with the other, i.e. the Word operates what\nbelongs to the Word, and the flesh carries out what belongs to flesh.\"\n\nBut if there were only one operation of the Godhead and manhood in\nChrist, it would be necessary to say either that the human nature had\nnot its proper form and power (for this could not possibly be said of\nthe Divine), whence it would follow that in Christ there was only the\nDivine operation; or it would be necessary to say that from the\nDivine and human power there was made up one power. Now both of these\nare impossible. For by the first the human nature in Christ is\nsupposed to be imperfect; and by the second a confusion of the\nnatures is supposed. Hence it is with reason that the Sixth Council\n(Act. 18) condemned this opinion, and decreed as follows: \"We confess\ntwo natural, indivisible, unconvertible, unconfused, and inseparable\noperations in the same Lord Jesus Christ our true God\"; i.e. the\nDivine operation and the human operation.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Dionysius places in Christ a theandric, i.e. a\nGod-manlike or Divino-human, operation not by any confusion of the\noperations or powers of both natures, but inasmuch as His Divine\noperation employs the human, and His human operation shares in the\npower of the Divine. Hence, as he says in a certain epistle (Ad Caium\niv), \"what is of man He works beyond man; and this is shown by the\nVirgin conceiving supernaturally and by the unstable waters bearing\nup the weight of bodily feet.\" Now it is clear that to be begotten\nbelongs to human nature, and likewise to walk; yet both were in\nChrist supernaturally. So, too, He wrought Divine things humanly, as\nwhen He healed the leper with a touch. Hence in the same epistle he\nadds: \"He performed Divine works not as God does, and human works not\nas man does, but, God having been made man, by a new operation of God\nand man.\"\n\nNow, that he understood two operations in Christ, one of the Divine\nand the other of the human nature, is clear from what he says, Div.\nNom. ii: \"Whatever pertains to His human operation the Father and the\nHoly Ghost no-wise share in, except, as one might say, by their most\ngracious and merciful will,\" i.e. inasmuch as the Father and the Holy\nGhost in their mercy wished Christ to do and to suffer human things.\nAnd he adds: \"He is truly the unchangeable God, and God's Word by the\nsublime and unspeakable operation of God, which, being made man for\nus, He wrought.\" Hence it is clear that the human operation, in which\nthe Father and the Holy Ghost do not share, except by Their merciful\nconsent, is distinct from His operation, as the Word of God, wherein\nthe Father and the Holy Ghost share.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The instrument is said to act through being moved by\nthe principal agent; and yet, besides this, it can have its proper\noperation through its own form, as stated above of fire. And hence\nthe action of the instrument as instrument is not distinct from the\naction of the principal agent; yet it may have another operation,\ninasmuch as it is a thing. Hence the operation of Christ's human\nnature, as the instrument of the Godhead, is not distinct from the\noperation of the Godhead; for the salvation wherewith the manhood of\nChrist saves us and that wherewith His Godhead saves us are not\ndistinct; nevertheless, the human nature in Christ, inasmuch as it is\na certain nature, has a proper operation distinct from the Divine, as\nstated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: To operate belongs to a subsisting hypostasis; in\naccordance, however, with the form and nature from which the\noperation receives its species. Hence from the diversity of forms or\nnatures spring the divers species of operations, but from the unity\nof hypostasis springs the numerical unity as regards the operation of\nthe species: thus fire has two operations specifically different,\nnamely, to illuminate and to heat, from the difference of light and\nheat, and yet the illumination of the fire that illuminates at one\nand the same time is numerically one. So, likewise, in Christ there\nare necessarily two specifically different operations by reason of\nHis two natures; nevertheless, each of the operations at one and the\nsame time is numerically one, as one walking and one healing.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Being and operation belong to the person by reason of\nthe nature; yet in a different manner. For being belongs to the very\nconstitution of the person, and in this respect it has the nature of\na term; consequently, unity of person requires unity of the complete\nand personal being. But operation is an effect of the person by\nreason of a form or nature. Hence plurality of operations is not\nincompatible with personal unity.\n\nReply Obj. 5: The proper work of the Divine operation is different\nfrom the proper work of the human operation. Thus to heal a leper is\na proper work of the Divine operation, but to touch him is the proper\nwork of the human operation. Now both these operations concur in one\nwork, inasmuch as one nature acts in union with the other.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 2]\n\nWhether in Christ There Are Several Human Operations?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that in Christ there are several human\noperations. For Christ as man communicates with plants by His\nnutritive soul, with the brutes by His sensitive soul, and with the\nangels by His intellective soul, even as other men do. Now the\noperations of a plant as plant and of an animal as animal are\ndifferent. Therefore Christ as man has several operations.\n\nObj. 2: Further, powers and habits are distinguished by their acts.\nNow in Christ's soul there were divers powers and habits; therefore\nalso divers operations.\n\nObj. 3: Further, instruments ought to be proportioned to their\noperations. Now the human body has divers members of different form,\nand consequently fitted to divers operations. Therefore in Christ\nthere are divers operations in the human nature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 15),\n\"operation is consequent upon the nature.\" But in Christ there is\nonly one human nature. Therefore in Christ there is only one human\noperation.\n\n_I answer that,_ Since it is by his reason that man is what he is;\nthat operation is called human simply, which proceeds from the reason\nthrough the will, which is the rational appetite. Now if there is any\noperation in man which does not proceed from the reason and the will,\nit is not simply a human operation, but belongs to man by reason of\nsome part of human nature--sometimes by reason of the nature of\nelementary bodies, as to be borne downwards--sometimes by reason of\nthe force of the vegetative soul, as to be nourished, and to\ngrow--sometimes by reason of the sensitive part, as to see and hear,\nto imagine and remember, to desire and to be angry. Now between these\noperations there is a difference. For the operations of the sensitive\nsoul are to some extent obedient to reason, and consequently they are\nsomewhat rational and human inasmuch as they obey reason, as is clear\nfrom the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 13). But the operations that spring\nfrom the vegetative soul, or from the nature of elemental bodies, are\nnot subject to reason; consequently they are nowise rational; nor\nsimply human, but only as regards a part of human nature. Now it was\nsaid (A. 1) that when a subordinate agent acts by its own form, the\noperations of the inferior and of the superior agent are distinct;\nbut when the inferior agent acts only as moved by the superior agent,\nthen the operation of the superior and the inferior agent is one.\n\nAnd hence in every mere man the operations of the elemental body and\nof the vegetative soul are distinct from the will's operation, which\nis properly human; so likewise the operations of the sensitive soul\ninasmuch as it is not moved by reason; but inasmuch as it is moved by\nreason, the operations of the sensitive and the rational part are the\nsame. Now there is but one operation of the rational part if we\nconsider the principle of the operation, which is the reason and the\nwill; but the operations are many if we consider their relationship\nto various objects. And there were some who called this a diversity\nof things operated rather than of operations, judging the unity of\nthe operation solely from the operative principle. And it is in this\nrespect that we are now considering the unity and plurality of\noperations in Christ.\n\nHence in every mere man there is but one operation, which is properly\ncalled human; but besides this there are in a mere man certain other\noperations, which are not strictly human, as was said above. But in\nthe Man Jesus Christ there was no motion of the sensitive part which\nwas not ordered by reason. Even the natural and bodily operations\npertained in some respects to His will, inasmuch as it was His will\n\"that His flesh should do and suffer what belonged to it,\" as stated\nabove (Q. 18, A. 5). Much more, therefore, is there one\noperation in Christ, than in any other man whatsoever.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The operations of the sensitive and nutritive\nparts are not strictly human, as stated above; yet in Christ these\noperations were more human than in others.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Powers and habits are diversified by comparison\nwith their objects. Hence in this way the diversity of operations\ncorresponds to the divers powers and habits, as likewise to the divers\nobjects. Now we do not wish to exclude this diversity of operations\nfrom Christ's humanity, nor that which springs from a diversity of\ntime, but only that which regards the first active principle, as was\nsaid above.\n\n(St. Thomas gives no reply to Obj. 3; some codices add: Hence may be\ngathered the reply to the third objection.)\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Human Action of Christ Could Be Meritorious to Him?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the human action of Christ could not\nbe meritorious to Him. For before His death Christ was a comprehensor\neven as He is now. But comprehensors do not merit: because the\ncharity of the comprehensor belongs to the reward of beatitude, since\nfruition depends upon it. Hence it does not seem to be the principle\nof merit, since merit and reward are not the same. Therefore Christ\nbefore His passion did not merit, even as He does not merit now.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no one merits what is due to him. But because Christ\nis the Son of God by nature, the eternal inheritance is due to Him,\nwhich other men merit by their works. And hence Christ Who, from the\nbeginning, was the Word of God, could not merit anything for Himself.\n\nObj. 3: Further, whoever has the principle does not properly merit\nwhat flows from its possession. But Christ has the glory of the soul,\nwhence, in the natural course, flowed the glory of the body, as\nAugustine says (Ep. ad Dios cxviii); though by a dispensation it was\nbrought about that in Christ the glory of the soul should not\noverflow to the body. Hence Christ did not merit the glory of the\nbody.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the manifestation of Christ's excellence is a good,\nnot of Christ Himself, but of those who know Him. Hence it is\npromised as a reward to such as love Christ that He will be\nmanifested to them, according to John 14:21: \"He that loveth Me,\nshall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest\nMyself to him.\" Therefore Christ did not merit the manifestation of\nHis greatness.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 2:8, 9): \"Becoming\nobedient unto death . . . For which cause God also hath exalted Him.\"\nTherefore by obeying He merited His exaltation and thus He merited\nsomething for Himself.\n\n_I answer that,_ To have any good thing of oneself is more excellent\nthan to have it from another, for \"what is of itself a cause is\nalways more excellent than what is a cause through another,\" as is\nsaid _Phys._    viii, 5. Now a thing is said to have, of itself, that\nof which it is to some extent the cause. But of whatever good we\npossess the first cause by authority is God; and in this way no\ncreature has any good of itself, according to 1 Cor. 4:7: \"What hast\nthou that thou hast not received?\" Nevertheless, in a secondary\nmanner anyone may be a cause, to himself, of having certain good\nthings, inasmuch as he cooperates with God in the matter, and thus\nwhoever has anything by his own merit has it, in a manner, of\nhimself. Hence it is better to have a thing by merit than without\nmerit.\n\nNow since all perfection and greatness must be attributed to Christ,\nconsequently He must have by merit what others have by merit; unless\nit be of such a nature that its want would detract from Christ's\ndignity and perfection more than would accrue to Him by merit. Hence\nHe merited neither grace nor knowledge nor the beatitude of His soul,\nnor the Godhead, because, since merit regards only what is not yet\npossessed, it would be necessary that Christ should have been without\nthese at some time; and to be without them would have diminished\nChrist's dignity more than His merit would have increased it. But the\nglory of the body, and the like, are less than the dignity of\nmeriting, which pertains to the virtue of charity. Hence we must say\nthat Christ had, by merit, the glory of His body and whatever\npertained to His outward excellence, as His Ascension, veneration,\nand the rest. And thus it is clear that He could merit for Himself.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Fruition, which is an act of charity, pertains to the\nglory of the soul, which Christ did not merit. Hence if He merited by\ncharity, it does not follow that the merit and the reward are the\nsame. Nor did He merit by charity inasmuch as it was the charity of a\ncomprehensor, but inasmuch as it was that of a wayfarer. For He was\nat once a wayfarer and a comprehensor, as was said above (Q. 15, A.\n10). And therefore, since He is no longer a wayfarer, He is not in\nthe state of meriting.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Because by nature Christ is God and the Son of God, the\nDivine glory and the lordship of all things are due to Him, as to the\nfirst and supreme Lord. Nevertheless a glory is due to Him as a\nbeatified man; and this He has partly without merit, and partly with\nmerit, as is clear from what has been said.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It is by Divine appointment that there is an overflow\nof glory from the soul to the body, in keeping with human merit; so\nthat as man merits by the act of the soul which he performs in the\nbody, so he may be rewarded by the glory of the soul overflowing to\nthe body. And hence not only the glory of the soul, but also the\nglory of the body falls under merit, according to Rom. 8:11:\n\"He . . . shall quicken also our [Vulg.: 'your'] mortal bodies,\nbecause of His Spirit that dwelleth in us [Vulg.: 'you'].\" And thus\nit could fall under Christ's merit.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The manifestation of Christ's excellence is His good as\nregards the being which it has in the knowledge of others; although\nin regard to the being which they have in themselves it chiefly\nbelongs to the good of those who know Him. Yet even this is referred\nto Christ inasmuch as they are His members.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 19, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Could Merit for Others?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ could not merit for others.\nFor it is written (Ezech. 18:4): \"The soul that sinneth, the same\nshall die.\" Hence, for a like reason, the soul that meriteth, the\nsame shall be recompensed. Therefore it is not possible that Christ\nmerited for others.\n\nObj. 2: Further, of the fulness of Christ's grace we all receive, as\nis written John 1:16. Now other men having Christ's grace cannot\nmerit for others. For it is written (Ezech. 14:20) that if \"Noe and\nDaniel and Job be in the city [Vulg.: 'the midst thereof'] . . . they\nshall deliver neither son nor daughter; but they shall only deliver\ntheir own souls by their justice.\" Hence Christ could not merit\nanything for us.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the \"reward\" that we merit is due \"according to\njustice [Vulg.: 'debt'] and not according to grace,\" as is clear from\nRom. 4:4. Therefore if Christ merited our salvation it follows that\nour salvation is not by God's grace but by justice, and that He acts\nunjustly with those whom He does not save, since Christ's merit\nextends to all.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 5:18): \"As by the offense of\none, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one,\nunto all men to justification of life.\" But Adam's demerits reached\nto the condemnation of others. Much more, therefore, does the merit\nof Christ reach others.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 8, AA. 1, 5), grace was in\nChrist not merely as in an individual, but also as in the Head of the\nwhole Church, to Whom all are united, as members to a head, who\nconstitute one mystical person. And hence it is that Christ's merit\nextends to others inasmuch as they are His members; even as in a man\nthe action of the head reaches in a manner to all his members, since\nit perceives not merely for itself alone, but for all the members.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The sin of an individual harms himself alone; but the\nsin of Adam, who was appointed by God to be the principle of the\nwhole nature, is transmitted to others by carnal propagation. So,\ntoo, the merit of Christ, Who has been appointed by God to be the\nhead of all men in regard to grace, extends to all His members.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Others receive of Christ's fulness not indeed the fount\nof grace, but some particular grace. And hence it need not be that\nmen merit for others, as Christ did.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As the sin of Adam reaches others only by carnal\ngeneration, so, too, the merit of Christ reaches others only by\nspiritual regeneration, which takes place in baptism; wherein we are\nincorporated with Christ, according to Gal. 3:27, \"As many of you as\nhave been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ\"; and it is by grace\nthat it is granted to man to be incorporated with Christ. And thus\nman's salvation is from grace.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 20\n\nOF CHRIST'S SUBJECTION TO THE FATHER\n(In Two Articles)\n\nWe must now consider such things as belong to Christ in relation to\nthe Father. Some of these things are predicated of Him because of His\nrelation to the Father, e.g. that He was subject to Him, that He\nprayed to Him, that He ministered, to Him by priesthood. And some are\npredicated, or may be predicated, of Him because of the Father's\nrelation to Him, e.g. that the Father adopted Him and that He\npredestined Him.\n\nHence we must consider (1) Christ's subjection to the Father; (2) His\nprayer; (3) His priesthood; (4) Adoption--whether it is becoming to\nHim; (5) His predestination.\n\nUnder the first head there are two points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ is subject to the Father?\n\n(2) Whether He is subject to Himself?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 20, Art. 1]\n\nWhether We May Say That Christ Is Subject to the Father?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that we may not say that Christ was\nsubject to the Father. For everything subject to the Father is a\ncreature, since, as is said in _De Eccles. Dogm._ iv, \"in the Trinity\nthere is no dependence or subjection.\" But we cannot say simply that\nChrist is a creature, as was stated above (Q. 16, A. 8). Therefore we\ncannot say simply that Christ is subject to God the Father.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a thing is said to be subject to God when it is\nsubservient to His dominion. But we cannot attribute subservience to\nthe human nature of Christ; for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii,\n21): \"We must bear in mind that we may not call it\" (i.e. Christ's\nhuman nature) \"a servant; for the words 'subservience' and\n'domination' are not names of the nature, but of relations, as the\nwords 'paternity' and 'filiation.'\" Hence Christ in His human nature\nis not subject to God the Father.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 15:28): \"And when all things\nshall be subdued unto Him, then the Son also Himself shall be subject\nunto Him that put all things under Him.\" But, as is written (Heb.\n2:8): \"We see not as yet all things subject to Him.\" Hence He is not\nyet subject to the Father, Who has subjected all things to Him.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 14:28), \"The Father is greater\nthan I\"; and Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): \"It is not without\nreason that the Scripture mentions both, that the Son is equal to the\nFather and the Father greater than the Son, for the first is said on\naccount of the form of God, and the second on account of the form of\na servant, without any confusion.\" Now the less is subject to the\ngreater. Therefore in the form of a servant Christ is subject to the\nFather.\n\n_I answer that,_ Whoever has a nature is competent to have what is\nproper to that nature. Now human nature from its beginning has a\nthreefold subjection to God. The first regards the degree of\ngoodness, inasmuch as the Divine Nature is the very essence of\ngoodness as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. i) while a created\nnature has a participation of the Divine goodness, being subject, so\nto say, to the rays of this goodness. Secondly, human nature is\nsubject to God, as regards God's power, inasmuch as human nature,\neven as every creature, is subject to the operation of the Divine\nordinance. Thirdly, human nature is especially subject to God through\nits proper act, inasmuch as by its own will it obeys His command.\nThis triple subjection to God Christ professes of Himself. The first\n(Matt. 19:17): \"Why askest thou Me concerning good? One is good,\nGod.\" And on this Jerome remarks: \"He who had called Him a good\nmaster, and had not confessed Him to be God or the Son of God, learns\nthat no man, however holy, is good in comparison with God.\" And\nhereby He gave us to understand that He Himself, in His human nature,\ndid not attain to the height of Divine goodness. And because \"in such\nthings as are great, but not in bulk, to be great is the same as to\nbe good,\" as Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 8), for this reason the\nFather is said to be greater than Christ in His human nature. The\nsecond subjection is attributed to Christ, inasmuch as all that\nbefell Christ is believed to have happened by Divine appointment;\nhence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that Christ \"is subject to the\nordinance of God the Father.\" And this is the subjection of\nsubservience, whereby \"every creature serves God\" (Judith 16:17),\nbeing subject to His ordinance, according to Wis. 16:24: \"The\ncreature serving Thee the Creator.\" And in this way the Son of God\n(Phil. 2:7) is said to have taken \"the form of a servant.\" The third\nsubjection He attributes to Himself, saying (John 8:29): \"I do always\nthe things that please Him.\" And this is the subjection to the\nFather, of obedience unto death. Hence it is written (Phil. 2:8) that\nhe became \"obedient\" to the Father \"unto death.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As we are not to understand that Christ is a creature\nsimply, but only in His human nature, whether this qualification be\nadded or not, as stated above (Q. 16, A. 8), so also we are to\nunderstand that Christ is subject to the Father not simply but in His\nhuman nature, even if this qualification be not added; and yet it is\nbetter to add this qualification in order to avoid the error of\nArius, who held the Son to be less than the Father.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The relation of subservience and dominion is based upon\naction and passion, inasmuch as it belongs to a servant to be moved\nby the will of his master. Now to act is not attributed to the nature\nas agent, but to the person, since \"acts belong to supposita and to\nsingulars,\" according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 1). Nevertheless\naction is attributed to the nature as to that whereby the person or\nhypostasis acts. Hence, although the nature is not properly said to\nrule or serve, yet every hypostasis or person may be properly said to\nbe ruling or serving in this or that nature. And in this way nothing\nprevents Christ being subject or servant to the Father in human\nnature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. i, 8): \"Christ will give\nthe kingdom to God and the Father, when He has brought the faithful,\nover whom He now reigns by faith, to the vision,\" i.e. to see the\nessence common to the Father and the Son: and then He will be totally\nsubject to the Father not only in Himself, but also in His members by\nthe full participation of the Godhead. And then all things will be\nfully subject to Him by the final accomplishment of His will\nconcerning them; although even now all things are subject to Him as\nregards His power, according to Matt. 28:18: \"All power is given to\nMe in heaven and in earth.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 20, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Is Subject to Himself?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ is not subject to Himself. For\nCyril says in a synodal letter which the Council of Ephesus (Part I,\nch. xxvi) received: \"Christ is neither servant nor master of Himself.\nIt is foolish, or rather impious, to think or say this.\" And\nDamascene says the same (De Fide Orth. iii, 21): \"The one Being,\nChrist, cannot be the servant or master of Himself.\" Now Christ is\nsaid to be the servant of the Father inasmuch as He is subject to\nHim. Hence Christ is not subject to Himself.\n\nObj. 2: Further, servant has reference to master. Now nothing has a\nrelation to itself, hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii) that nothing is\nlike or equal to itself. Hence Christ cannot be said to be the\nservant of Himself, and consequently to be subject to Himself.\n\nObj. 3: Further, \"as the rational soul and flesh are one man; so God\nand man are one Christ,\" as Athanasius says (Symb. Fid.). Now man is\nnot said to be subject to himself or servant to himself or greater\nthan himself because his body is subject to his soul. Therefore,\nChrist is not said to be subject to Himself because His Manhood is\nsubject to His Godhead.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. i, 7): \"Truth shows in\nthis way\" (i.e. whereby the Father is greater than Christ in human\nnature) \"that the Son is less than Himself.\"\n\nFurther, as he argues (De Trin. i, 7), the form of a servant was so\ntaken by the Son of God that the form of God was not lost. But\nbecause of the form of God, which is common to the Father and the\nSon, the Father is greater than the Son in human nature. Therefore\nthe Son is greater than Himself in human nature.\n\nFurther, Christ in His human nature is the servant of God the Father,\naccording to John 20:17: \"I ascend to My Father and to your Father to\nMy God and your God.\" Now whoever is the servant of the Father is the\nservant of the Son; otherwise not everything that belongs to the\nFather would belong to the Son. Therefore Christ is His own servant\nand is subject to Himself.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (A. 1, ad 2), to be master or\nservant is attributed to a person or hypostasis according to a\nnature. Hence when it is said that Christ is the master or servant of\nHimself, or that the Word of God is the Master of the Man Christ,\nthis may be understood in two ways. First, so that this is understood\nto be said by reason of another hypostasis or person, as if there was\nthe person of the Word of God ruling and the person of the man\nserving; and this is the heresy of Nestorius. Hence in the\ncondemnation of Nestorius it is said in the Council of Ephesus (Part\nIII, ch. i, anath. 6): \"If anyone say that the Word begotten of God\nthe Father is the God or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess\nthe same to be at once God and man as the Word made flesh, according\nto the Scriptures, let him be anathema.\" And in this sense it is\ndenied by Cyril and Damascene (Obj. 1); and in the same sense must it\nbe denied that Christ is less than Himself or subject to Himself.\nSecondly, it may be understood of the diversity of natures in the one\nperson or hypostasis. And thus we may say that in one of them, in\nwhich He agrees with the Father, He presides and rules together with\nthe Father; and in the other nature, in which He agrees with us, He\nis subject and serves, and in this sense Augustine says that \"the Son\nis less than Himself.\"\n\nYet it must be borne in mind that since this name \"Christ\" is the\nname of a Person, even as the name \"Son,\" those things can be\npredicated essentially and absolutely of Christ which belong to Him\nby reason of the Person, Which is eternal; and especially those\nrelations which seem more properly to pertain to the Person or the\nhypostasis. But whatever pertains to Him in His human nature is\nrather to be attributed to Him with a qualification; so that we say\nthat Christ is simply greatest, Lord, Ruler, whereas to be subject or\nservant or less is to be attributed to Him with the qualification, in\nHis human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Cyril and Damascene deny that Christ is the head of\nHimself inasmuch as this implies a plurality of supposita, which is\nrequired in order that anyone may be the master of another.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Simply speaking it is necessary that the master and the\nservant should be distinct; yet a certain notion of mastership and\nsubservience may be preserved inasmuch as the same one is master of\nHimself in different respects.\n\nReply Obj. 3: On account of the divers parts of man, one of which is\nsuperior and the other inferior, the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 11)\nthat there is justice between a man and himself inasmuch as the\nirascible and concupiscible powers obey reason. Hence this way a man\nmay be said to be subject and subservient to Himself as regards His\ndifferent parts.\n\nTo the other arguments, the reply is clear from what has been said.\nFor Augustine asserts that the Son is less than, or subject to,\nHimself in His human nature, and not by a diversity of supposita.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 21\n\nOF CHRIST'S PRAYER\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider Christ's prayer; and under this head there are\nfour points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it is becoming that Christ should pray?\n\n(2) Whether it pertains to Him in respect of His sensuality?\n\n(3) Whether it is becoming to Him to pray for Himself or only for\nothers?\n\n(4) Whether every prayer of His was heard?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 21, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Is Becoming of Christ to Pray?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem unbecoming that Christ should pray. For,\nas Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24), \"prayer is the asking for\nbecoming things from God.\" But since Christ could do all things, it\ndoes not seem becoming to Him to ask anything from anyone. Therefore\nit does not seem fitting that Christ should pray.\n\nObj. 2: Further, we need not ask in prayer for what we know for\ncertain will happen; thus, we do not pray that the sun may rise\ntomorrow. Nor is it fitting that anyone should ask in prayer for what\nhe knows will not happen. But Christ in all things knew what would\nhappen. Therefore it was not fitting that He should ask anything in\nprayer.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 24) that \"prayer\nis the raising up of the mind to God.\" Now Christ's mind needed no\nuplifting to God, since His mind was always united to God, not only\nby the union of the hypostasis, but by the fruition of beatitude.\nTherefore it was not fitting that Christ should pray.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 6:12): \"And it came to pass in\nthose days, that He went out into a mountain, and He passed the whole\nnight in the prayer of God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said in the Second Part (Q. 83, AA. 1, 2),\nprayer is the unfolding of our will to God, that He may fulfill it.\nIf, therefore, there had been but one will in Christ, viz. the\nDivine, it would nowise belong to Him to pray, since the Divine will\nof itself is effective of whatever He wishes by it, according to Ps.\n134:6: \"Whatsoever the Lord pleased, He hath done.\" But because the\nDivine and the human wills are distinct in Christ, and the human will\nof itself is not efficacious enough to do what it wishes, except by\nDivine power, hence to pray belongs to Christ as man and as having a\nhuman will.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ as God and not as man was able to carry out all\nHe wished, since as man He was not omnipotent, as stated above (Q.\n13, A. 1). Nevertheless being both God and man, He wished to offer\nprayers to the Father, not as though He were incompetent, but for our\ninstruction. First, that He might show Himself to be from the Father;\nhence He says (John 11:42): \"Because of the people who stand about I\nhave said it\" (i.e. the words of the prayer) \"that they may believe\nthat Thou hast sent Me.\" Hence Hilary says (De Trin. x): \"He did not\nneed prayer. It was for us He prayed, lest the Son should be\nunknown.\" Secondly, to give us an example of prayer; hence Ambrose\nsays (on Luke 6:12): \"Be not deceived, nor think that the Son of God\nprays as a weakling, in order to beseech what He cannot effect. For\nthe Author of power, the Master of obedience persuades us to the\nprecepts of virtue by His example.\" Hence Augustine says (Tract. civ\nin Joan.): \"Our Lord in the form of a servant could have prayed in\nsilence, if need be, but He wished to show Himself a suppliant of the\nFather, in such sort as to bear in mind that He was our Teacher.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Amongst the other things which He knew would happen, He\nknew that some would be brought about by His prayer; and for these He\nnot unbecomingly besought God.\n\nReply Obj. 3: To rise is nothing more than to move towards what is\nabove. Now movement is taken in two ways, as is said _De Anima_ iii,\n7; first, strictly, according as it implies the passing from\npotentiality to act, inasmuch as it is the act of something\nimperfect, and thus to rise pertains to what is potentially and not\nactually above. Now in this sense, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth.\niii, 24), \"the human mind of Christ did not need to rise to God,\nsince it was ever united to God both by personal being and by the\nblessed vision.\" Secondly, movement signifies the act of something\nperfect, i.e. something existing in act, as to understand and to feel\nare called movements; and in this sense the mind of Christ was always\nraised up to God, since He was always contemplating Him as existing\nabove Himself.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 21, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Pertains to Christ to Pray According to His Sensuality?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it pertains to Christ to pray\naccording to His sensuality. For it is written (Ps. 83:3) in the\nperson of Christ: \"My heart and My flesh have rejoiced in the Living\nGod.\" Now sensuality is called the appetite of the flesh. Hence\nChrist's sensuality could ascend to the Living God by rejoicing; and\nwith equal reason by praying.\n\nObj. 2: Further, prayer would seem to pertain to that which desires\nwhat is besought. Now Christ besought something that His sensuality\ndesired when He said (Matt. 26:39): \"Let this chalice pass from Me.\"\nTherefore Christ's sensuality prayed.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is a greater thing to be united to God in person\nthan to mount to Him in prayer. But the sensuality was assumed by God\nto the unity of Person, even as every other part of human nature.\nMuch more, therefore, could it mount to God by prayer.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:7) that the Son of God in\nthe nature that He assumed was \"made in the likeness of men.\" But the\nrest of men do not pray with their sensuality. Therefore, neither did\nChrist pray according to His sensuality.\n\n_I answer that,_ To pray according to sensuality may be understood in\ntwo ways. First as if prayer itself were an act of the sensuality;\nand in this sense Christ did not pray with His sensuality, since His\nsensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as in us. Now\nin us the sensuality cannot pray for two reasons; first because the\nmovement of the sensuality cannot transcend sensible things, and,\nconsequently, it cannot mount to God, which is required for prayer;\nsecondly, because prayer implies a certain ordering inasmuch as we\ndesire something to be fulfilled by God; and this is the work of\nreason alone. Hence prayer is an act of the reason, as was said in\nthe Second Part (II-II, Q. 83, A. 1).\n\nSecondly, we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our\nprayer lays before God what is in our appetite of sensuality; and in\nthis sense Christ prayed with His sensuality inasmuch as His prayer\nexpressed the desire of His sensuality, as if it were the advocate of\nthe sensuality--and this, that He might teach us three things. First,\nto show that He had taken a true human nature, with all its natural\naffections: secondly, to show that a man may wish with his natural\ndesire what God does not wish: thirdly, to show that man should\nsubject his own will to the Divine will. Hence Augustine says in the\nEnchiridion (Serm. 1 in Ps. 32): \"Christ acting as a man, shows the\nproper will of a man when He says 'Let this chalice pass from Me';\nfor this was the human will desiring something proper to itself and,\nso to say, private. But because He wishes man to be righteous and to\nbe directed to God, He adds: 'Nevertheless not as I will but as Thou\nwilt,' as if to say, 'See thyself in Me, for thou canst desire\nsomething proper to thee, even though God wishes something else.'\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The flesh rejoices in the Living God, not by the act of\nthe flesh mounting to God, but by the outpouring of the heart into\nthe flesh, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite follows the movement of\nthe rational appetite.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although the sensuality wished what the reason\nbesought, it did not belong to the sensuality to seek this by\npraying, but to the reason, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The union in person is according to the personal being,\nwhich pertains to every part of the human nature; but the uplifting\nof prayer is by an act which pertains only to the reason, as stated\nabove. Hence there is no parity.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 21, Art. 3]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Pray for Himself?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should\npray for Himself. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): \"Although His word of\nbeseeching did not benefit Himself, yet He spoke for the profit of\nour faith.\" Hence it seems that Christ prayed not for Himself but for\nus.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no one prays save for what He wishes, because, as\nwas said (A. 1), prayer is an unfolding of our will to God that He\nmay fulfil it. Now Christ wished to suffer what He suffered. For\nAugustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi): \"A man, though unwilling, is\noften angry; though unwilling, is sad; though unwilling, sleeps;\nthough unwilling, hungers and thirsts. But He\" (i.e. Christ) \"did all\nthese things, because He wished.\" Therefore it was not fitting that\nHe should pray for Himself.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Cyprian says (De Orat. Dom.): \"The Doctor of Peace\nand Master of Unity did not wish prayers to be offered individually\nand privately, lest when we prayed we should pray for ourselves\nalone.\" Now Christ did what He taught, according to Acts 1:1: \"Jesus\nbegan to do and to teach.\" Therefore Christ never prayed for Himself\nalone.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord Himself said while praying (John 17:1):\n\"Glorify Thy Son.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ prayed for Himself in two ways. First, by\nexpressing the desire of His sensuality, as stated above (A. 2); or\nalso of His simple will, considered as a nature; as when He prayed\nthat the chalice of His Passion might pass from Him (Matt. 26:39).\nSecondly, by expressing the desire of His deliberate will, which is\nconsidered as reason; as when He prayed for the glory of His\nResurrection (John 17:1). And this is reasonable. For as we have said\nabove (A. 1, ad 1) Christ wished to pray to His Father in order to\ngive us an example of praying; and also to show that His Father is\nthe author both of His eternal procession in the Divine Nature, and\nof all the good that He possesses in the human nature. Now just as in\nHis human nature He had already received certain gifts from His\nFather. so there were other gifts which He had not yet received, but\nwhich He expected to receive. And therefore, as He gave thanks to the\nFather for gifts already received in His human nature, by\nacknowledging Him as the author thereof, as we read (Matt. 26:27;\nJohn 11:41): so also, in recognition of His Father, He besought Him\nin prayer for those gifts still due to Him in His human nature, such\nas the glory of His body, and the like. And in this He gave us an\nexample, that we should give thanks for benefits received, and ask in\nprayer for those we have not as yet.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Hilary is speaking of vocal prayer, which was not\nnecessary to Him for His own sake, but only for ours. Whence he says\npointedly that \"His word of beseeching did not benefit Himself.\" For\nif \"the Lord hears the desire of the poor,\" as is said in the Ps.\n9:38, much more the mere will of Christ has the force of a prayer\nwith the Father: wherefore He said (John 11:42): \"I know that Thou\nhearest Me always, but because of the people who stand about have I\nsaid it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ wished indeed to suffer what He suffered, at\nthat particular time: nevertheless He wished to obtain, after His\npassion, the glory of His body, which as yet He had not. This glory\nHe expected to receive from His Father as the author thereof, and\ntherefore it was fitting that He should pray to Him for it.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This very glory which Christ, while praying, besought\nfor Himself, pertained to the salvation of others according to Rom.\n4:25: \"He rose again for our justification.\" Consequently the prayer\nwhich He offered for Himself was also in a manner offered for others.\nSo also anyone that asks a boon of God that he may use it for the\ngood of others, prays not only for himself, but also for others.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 21, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ's Prayer Was Always Heard?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's prayer was not always heard.\nFor He besought that the chalice of His passion might be taken from\nHim, as we read (Matt. 26:39): and yet it was not taken from Him.\nTherefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard.\n\nObj. 2: Further, He prayed that the sin of those who crucified Him\nmight be forgiven, as is related (Luke 23:34). Yet not all were\npardoned this sin, since the Jews were punished on account thereof.\nTherefore it seems that not every prayer of His was heard.\n\nObj. 3: Further, our Lord prayed for them \"who would believe in Him\nthrough the word\" of the apostles, that they \"might all be one in\nHim,\" and that they might attain to being with Him (John 17:20, 21,\n24). But not all attain to this. Therefore not every prayer of His\nwas heard.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it is said (Ps. 21:3) in the person of Christ: \"I\nshall cry by day, and Thou wilt not hear.\" Not every prayer of His,\ntherefore, was heard.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 5:7): \"With a strong cry\nand tears offering up prayers . . . He was heard for His reverence.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), prayer is a certain\nmanifestation of the human will. Wherefore, then is the request of\none who prays granted, when his will is fulfilled. Now absolutely\nspeaking the will of man is the will of reason; for we will\nabsolutely that which we will in accordance with reason's\ndeliberation. Whereas what we will in accordance with the movement of\nsensuality, or even of the simple will, which is considered as nature\nis willed not absolutely but conditionally (_secundum quid_)--that\nis, provided no obstacle be discovered by reason's deliberation.\nWherefore such a will should rather be called a \"velleity\" than an\nabsolute will; because one would will (_vellet_) if there were no\nobstacle.\n\nBut according to the will of reason, Christ willed nothing but what\nHe knew God to will. Wherefore every absolute will of Christ, even\nhuman, was fulfilled, because it was in conformity with God; and\nconsequently His every prayer was fulfilled. For in this respect also\nis it that other men's prayers are fulfilled, in that their will is\nin conformity with God, according to Rom. 8:27: \"And He that\nsearcheth the hearts knoweth,\" that is, approves of, \"what the Spirit\ndesireth,\" that is, what the Spirit makes the saints to desire:\n\"because He asketh for the saints according to God,\" that is, in\nconformity with the Divine will.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This prayer for the passing of the chalice is variously\nexplained by the Saints. For Hilary (Super Matth. 31) says: \"When He\nasks that this may pass from Him, He does not pray that it may pass\nby Him, but that others may share in that which passes on from Him to\nthem; So that the sense is: As I am partaking of the chalice of the\npassion, so may others drink of it, with unfailing hope, with\nunflinching anguish, without fear of death.\"\n\nOr according to Jerome (on Matt. 26:39): \"He says pointedly, 'This\nchalice,' that is of the Jewish people, who cannot allege ignorance\nas an excuse for putting Me to death, since they have the Law and the\nProphets, who foretold concerning Me.\"\n\nOr, according to Dionysius of Alexandria (De Martyr. ad Origen 7):\n\"When He says 'Remove this chalice from Me,' He does not mean, 'Let\nit not come to Me'; for if it come not, it cannot be removed. But, as\nthat which passes is neither untouched nor yet permanent, so the\nSaviour beseeches, that a slightly pressing trial may be repulsed.\"\n\nLastly, Ambrose, Origen and Chrysostom say that He prayed thus \"as\nman,\" being reluctant to die according to His natural will.\n\nThus, therefore, whether we understand, according to Hilary, that He\nthus prayed that other martyrs might be imitators of His Passion, or\nthat He prayed that the fear of drinking His chalice might not\ntrouble Him, or that death might not withhold Him, His prayer was\nentirely fulfilled. But if we understand that He prayed that He might\nnot drink the chalice of His passion and death; or that He might not\ndrink it at the hands of the Jews; what He besought was not indeed\nfulfilled, because His reason which formed the petition did not\ndesire its fulfilment, but for our instruction, it was His will to\nmake known to us His natural will, and the movement of His\nsensuality, which was His as man.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Our Lord did not pray for all those who crucified Him,\nas neither did He for all those who would believe in Him; but for\nthose only who were predestinated to obtain eternal life through Him.\n\nWherefore the reply to the third objection is also manifest.\n\nReply Obj. 4: When He says: \"I shall cry and Thou wilt not hear,\" we\nmust take this as referring to the desire of sensuality, which\nshunned death. But He is heard as to the desire of His reason, as\nstated above.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 22\n\nOF THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the Priesthood of Christ; and under this head\nthere are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it is fitting that Christ should be a priest?\n\n(2) Of the victim offered by this priest;\n\n(3) Of the effect of this priesthood;\n\n(4) Whether the effect of His priesthood pertains to Himself, or only\nto others?\n\n(5) Of the eternal duration of His priesthood;\n\n(6) Whether He should be called \"a priest according to the order of\nMelchisedech\"?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Is Fitting That Christ Should Be a Priest?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should be a priest.\nFor a priest is less than an angel; whence it is written (Zech. 3:1):\n\"The Lord showed me the high-priest standing before the angel of the\nLord.\" But Christ is greater than the angels, according to Heb. 1:4:\n\"Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath inherited a\nmore excellent name than they.\" Therefore it is unfitting that Christ\nshould be a priest.\n\nObj. 2: Further, things which were in the Old Testament were figures\nof Christ, according to Col. 2:17: \"Which are a shadow of things to\ncome, but the body is Christ's.\" But Christ was not descended from\nthe priests of the Old Law, for the Apostle says (Heb. 7:14): \"It is\nevident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, in which tribe Moses spoke\nnothing concerning priests.\" Therefore it is not fitting that Christ\nshould be a priest.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the Old Law, which is a figure of Christ, the\nlawgivers and the priests were distinct: wherefore the Lord said\nto Moses the lawgiver (Ex. 28:1): \"Take unto thee Aaron, thy\nbrother . . . that he [Vulg.: 'they'] may minister to Me in the\npriest's office.\" But Christ is the giver of the New Law, according\nto Jer. 31:33: \"I will give My law in their bowels.\" Therefore it\nis unfitting that Christ should be a priest.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 4:14): \"We have [Vulg.:\n'Having'] therefore a great high-priest that hath passed into the\nheavens, Jesus, the Son of God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The office proper to a priest is to be a mediator\nbetween God and the people: to wit, inasmuch as He bestows Divine\nthings on the people, wherefore _sacerdos_ (priest) means a giver of\nsacred things (_sacra dans_), according to Malachi 2:7: \"They shall\nseek the law at his,\" i.e. the priest's, \"mouth\"; and again,\nforasmuch as he offers up the people's prayers to God, and, in a\nmanner, makes satisfaction to God for their sins; wherefore the\nApostle says (Heb. 5:1): \"Every high-priest taken from among men is\nordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may\noffer up gifts and sacrifices for sins.\" Now this is most befitting\nto Christ. For through Him are gifts bestowed on men, according to 2\nPet. 1:4: \"By Whom\" (i.e. Christ) \"He hath given us most great and\nprecious promises, that by these you may be made partakers of the\nDivine Nature.\" Moreover, He reconciled the human race to God,\naccording to Col. 1:19, 20: \"In Him\" (i.e. Christ) \"it hath well\npleased (the Father) that all fulness should dwell, and through Him\nto reconcile all things unto Himself.\" Therefore it is most fitting\nthat Christ should be a priest.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Hierarchical power appertains to the angels, inasmuch\nas they also are between God and man, as Dionysius explains (Coel.\nHier. ix), so that the priest himself, as being between God and man,\nis called an angel, according to Malachi 2:7: \"He is the angel of the\nLord of hosts.\" Now Christ was greater than the angels, not only in\nHis Godhead, but also in His humanity, as having the fulness of grace\nand glory. Wherefore also He had the hierarchical or priestly power\nin a higher degree than the angels, so that even the angels were\nministers of His priesthood, according to Matt. 4:11: \"Angels came\nand ministered unto Him.\" But, in regard to His passibility, He \"was\nmade a little lower than the angels,\" as the Apostle says (Heb. 2:9):\nand thus He was conformed to those wayfarers who are ordained to the\npriesthood.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 26): \"What\nis like in every particular must be, of course, identical, and not a\ncopy.\" Since, therefore, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of\nthe priesthood of Christ, He did not wish to be born of the stock of\nthe figurative priests, that it might be made clear that His\npriesthood is not quite the same as theirs, but differs therefrom as\ntruth from figure.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 7, A. 7, ad 1), other\nmen have certain graces distributed among them: but Christ, as being\nthe Head of all, has the perfection of all graces. Wherefore, as to\nothers, one is a lawgiver, another is a priest, another is a king; but\nall these concur in Christ, as the fount of all grace. Hence it is\nwritten (Isa. 33:22): \"The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our\nlaw-giver, the Lord is our King: He will\" come and \"save us.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Was Himself Both Priest and Victim?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ Himself was not both priest\nand victim. For it is the duty of the priest to slay the victim. But\nChrist did not kill Himself. Therefore He was not both priest and\nvictim.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the priesthood of Christ has a greater similarity to\nthe Jewish priesthood, instituted by God, than to the priesthood of\nthe Gentiles, by which the demons were worshiped. Now in the old Law\nman was never offered up in sacrifice: whereas this was very much to\nbe reprehended in the sacrifices of the Gentiles, according to Ps.\n105:38: \"They shed innocent blood; the blood of their sons and of\ntheir daughters, which they sacrificed to the idols of Chanaan.\"\nTherefore in Christ's priesthood the Man Christ should not have been\nthe victim.\n\nObj. 3: Further, every victim, through being offered to God, is\nconsecrated to God. But the humanity of Christ was from the beginning\nconsecrated and united to God. Therefore it cannot be said fittingly\nthat Christ as man was a victim.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): \"Christ hath loved\nus, and hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a victim\n[Douay: 'sacrifice'] to God for an odor of sweetness.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x, 5): \"Every visible\nsacrifice is a sacrament, that is a sacred sign, of the invisible\nsacrifice.\" Now the invisible sacrifice is that by which a man offers\nhis spirit to God, according to Ps. 50:19: \"A sacrifice to God is an\nafflicted spirit.\" Wherefore, whatever is offered to God in order to\nraise man's spirit to Him, may be called a sacrifice.\n\nNow man is required to offer sacrifice for three reasons. First, for\nthe remission of sin, by which he is turned away from God. Hence the\nApostle says (Heb. 5:1) that it appertains to the priest \"to offer\ngifts and sacrifices for sins.\" Secondly, that man may be preserved\nin a state of grace, by ever adhering to God, wherein his peace and\nsalvation consist. Wherefore under the old Law the sacrifice of\npeace-offerings was offered up for the salvation of the offerers, as\nis prescribed in the third chapter of Leviticus. Thirdly, in order\nthat the spirit of man be perfectly united to God: which will be most\nperfectly realized in glory. Hence, under the Old Law, the holocaust\nwas offered, so called because the victim was wholly burnt, as we\nread in the first chapter of Leviticus.\n\nNow these effects were conferred on us by the humanity of Christ.\nFor, in the first place, our sins were blotted out, according to Rom.\n4:25: \"Who was delivered up for our sins.\" Secondly, through Him we\nreceived the grace of salvation, according to Heb. 5:9: \"He became to\nall that obey Him the cause of eternal salvation.\" Thirdly, through\nHim we have acquired the perfection of glory, according to Heb.\n10:19: \"We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] a confidence in the entering into\nthe Holies\" (i.e. the heavenly glory) \"through His Blood.\" Therefore\nChrist Himself, as man, was not only priest, but also a perfect\nvictim, being at the same time victim for sin, victim for a\npeace-offering, and a holocaust.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ did not slay Himself, but of His own free-will\nHe exposed Himself to death, according to Isa. 53:7: \"He was offered\nbecause it was His own will.\" Thus He is said to have offered Himself.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The slaying of the Man Christ may be referred to a\ntwofold will. First, to the will of those who slew Him: and in this\nrespect He was not a victim: for the slayers of Christ are not\naccounted as offering a sacrifice to God, but as guilty of a great\ncrime: a similitude of which was borne by the wicked sacrifices of\nthe Gentiles, in which they offered up men to idols. Secondly, the\nslaying of Christ may be considered in reference to the will of the\nSufferer, Who freely offered Himself to suffering. In this respect He\nis a victim, and in this He differs from the sacrifices of the\nGentiles.\n\n(The reply to the third objection is wanting in the original\nmanuscripts, but it may be gathered from the above.--Ed.)\n\n[*Some editions, however, give the following reply:\n\nReply Obj. 3: The fact that Christ's manhood was holy from its\nbeginning does not prevent that same manhood, when it was offered to\nGod in the Passion, being sanctified in a new way--namely, as a\nvictim actually offered then. For it acquired then the actual\nholiness of a victim, from the charity which it had from the\nbeginning, and from the grace of union sanctifying it absolutely.]\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Effect of Christ's Priesthood Is the Expiation of Sins?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the effect of Christ's priesthood is\nnot the expiation of sins. For it belongs to God alone to blot out\nsins, according to Isa. 43:25: \"I am He that blot out thy iniquities\nfor My own sake.\" But Christ is priest, not as God, but as man.\nTherefore the priesthood of Christ does not expiate sins.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 10:1-3) that the victims of\nthe Old Testament could not \"make\" (the comers thereunto) \"perfect:\nfor then they would have ceased to be offered; because the worshipers\nonce cleansed should have no conscience of sin any longer; but in\nthem there is made a commemoration of sins every year.\" But in like\nmanner under the priesthood of Christ a commemoration of sins is made\nin the words: \"Forgive us our trespasses\" (Matt. 6:12). Moreover, the\nSacrifice is offered continuously in the Church; wherefore again we\nsay: \"Give us this day our daily bread.\" Therefore sins are not\nexpiated by the priesthood of Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the sin-offerings of the Old Law, a he-goat was\nmostly offered for the sin of a prince, a she-goat for the sin of\nsome private individual, a calf for the sin of a priest, as we gather\nfrom Lev. 4:3, 23, 28. But Christ is compared to none of these, but\nto the lamb, according to Jer. 11:19: \"I was as a meek lamb, that is\ncarried to be a victim.\" Therefore it seems that His priesthood does\nnot expiate sins.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 9:14): \"The blood of\nChrist, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God,\nshall cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living\nGod.\" But dead works denote sins. Therefore the priesthood of Christ\nhas the power to cleanse from sins.\n\n_I answer that,_ Two things are required for the perfect cleansing\nfrom sins, corresponding to the two things comprised in sin--namely,\nthe stain of sin and the debt of punishment. The stain of sin is,\nindeed, blotted out by grace, by which the sinner's heart is turned\nto God: whereas the debt of punishment is entirely removed by the\nsatisfaction that man offers to God. Now the priesthood of Christ\nproduces both these effects. For by its virtue grace is given to us,\nby which our hearts are turned to God, according to Rom. 3:24, 25:\n\"Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is\nin Christ Jesus, Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through\nfaith in His blood.\" Moreover, He satisfied for us fully, inasmuch as\n\"He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows\" (Isa. 53:4).\nWherefore it is clear that the priesthood of Christ has full power to\nexpiate sins.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although Christ was a priest, not as God, but as man,\nyet one and the same was both priest and God. Wherefore in the\nCouncil of Ephesus [*Part III, ch. i, anath. 10] we read: \"If anyone\nsay that the very Word of God did not become our High-Priest and\nApostle, when He became flesh and a man like us, but altogether\nanother one, the man born of a woman, let him be anathema.\" Hence in\nso far as His human nature operated by virtue of the Divine, that\nsacrifice was most efficacious for the blotting out of sins. For this\nreason Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 14): \"So that, since four things\nare to be observed in every sacrifice--to whom it is offered, by whom\nit is offered, what is offered, for whom it is offered; the same one\ntrue Mediator reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, was\none with Him to Whom it was offered, united in Himself those for whom\nHe offered it, at the same time offered it Himself, and was Himself\nthat which He offered.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Sins are commemorated in the New Law, not on account of\nthe inefficacy of the priesthood of Christ, as though sins were not\nsufficiently expiated by Him: but in regard to those who either are\nnot willing to be participators in His sacrifice, such as\nunbelievers, for whose sins we pray that they be converted; or who,\nafter taking part in this sacrifice, fall away from it by whatsoever\nkind of sin. The Sacrifice which is offered every day in the Church\nis not distinct from that which Christ Himself offered, but is a\ncommemoration thereof. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. De. x, 20):\n\"Christ Himself both is the priest who offers it and the victim: the\nsacred token of which He wished to be the daily Sacrifice of the\nChurch.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Origen says (Sup. Joan. i, 29), though various\nanimals were offered up under the Old Law, yet the daily sacrifice,\nwhich was offered up morning and evening, was a lamb, as appears from\nNum. 38:3, 4. By which it was signified that the offering up of the\ntrue lamb, i.e. Christ, was the culminating sacrifice of all. Hence\n(John 1:29) it is said: \"Behold the Lamb of God, behold Him Who\ntaketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Effect of the Priesthood of Christ Pertained Not Only to\nOthers, but Also to Himself?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the effect of the priesthood of\nChrist pertained not only to others, but also to Himself. For it\nbelongs to the priest's office to pray for the people, according to 2\nMacc. 1:23: \"The priests made prayer while the sacrifice was\nconsuming.\" Now Christ prayed not only for others, but also for\nHimself, as we have said above (Q. 21, A. 3), and as expressly stated\n(Heb. 5:7): \"In the days of His flesh, with a strong cry and tears He\noffered [Vulg.: 'offering'] up prayers and supplications to Him that\nwas able to save Him from death.\" Therefore the priesthood of Christ\nhad an effect not only in others, but also in Himself.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in His passion Christ offered Himself as a\nsacrifice. But by His passion He merited, not only for others, but\nalso for Himself, as stated above (Q. 19, AA. 3, 4). Therefore the\npriesthood of Christ had an effect not only in others, but also in\nHimself.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was a figure of the\npriesthood of Christ. But the priest of the Old Law offered sacrifice\nnot only for others, but also for himself: for it is written (Lev.\n16:17) that \"the high-priest goeth into the sanctuary to pray for\nhimself and his house, and for the whole congregation of Israel.\"\nTherefore the priesthood of Christ also had an effect not merely in\nothers, but also in Himself.\n\n_On the contrary,_ We read in the acts of the Council of Ephesus\n[*Part III, ch. i, anath. 10]: \"If anyone say that Christ offered\nsacrifice for Himself, and not rather for us alone (for He Who knew\nnot sin needed no sacrifice), let him be anathema.\" But the priest's\noffice consists principally in offering sacrifice. Therefore the\npriesthood of Christ had no effect in Himself.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), a priest is set between God\nand man. Now he needs someone between himself and God, who of himself\ncannot approach to God; and such a one is subject to the priesthood\nby sharing in the effect thereof. But this cannot be said of Christ;\nfor the Apostle says (Heb. 7:25): \"Coming of Himself to God, always\nliving to make intercession for us [Vulg.: 'He is able to save for\never them that come to God by Him; always living,' etc.].\" And\ntherefore it is not fitting for Christ to be the recipient of the\neffect of His priesthood, but rather to communicate it to others. For\nthe influence of the first agent in every genus is such that it\nreceives nothing in that genus: thus the sun gives but does not\nreceive light; fire gives but does not receive heat. Now Christ is\nthe fountain-head of the entire priesthood: for the priest of the Old\nLaw was a figure of Him; while the priest of the New Law works in His\nperson, according to 2 Cor. 2:10: \"For what I have pardoned, if I\nhave pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person\nof Christ.\" Therefore it is not fitting that Christ should receive\nthe effect of His priesthood.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although prayer is befitting to priests, it is not\ntheir proper office, for it is befitting to everyone to pray both for\nhimself and for others, according to James 5:16: \"Pray for one\nanother that you may be saved.\" And so we may say that the prayer by\nwhich Christ prayed for Himself was not an action of His priesthood.\nBut this answer seems to be precluded by the Apostle, who, after\nsaying (Heb. 5:6), \"Thou art a priest for ever according to the order\nof Melchisedech,\" adds, \"Who in the days of His flesh offering up\npayers,\" etc., as quoted above (Obj. 1): so that it seems that the\nprayer which Christ offered pertained to His priesthood. We must\ntherefore say that other priests partake in the effect of their\npriesthood, not as priests, but as sinners, as we shall state farther\non (ad 3). But Christ had, simply speaking, no sin; though He had the\n\"likeness of sin in the flesh [Vulg.: 'sinful flesh'],\" as is\nwritten Rom. 8:3. And, consequently, we must not say simply that He\npartook of the effect of His priesthood but with this qualification--\nin regard to the passibility of the flesh. Wherefore he adds\npointedly, \"that was able to save Him from death.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Two things may be considered in the offering of a\nsacrifice by any priest--namely, the sacrifice itself which is\noffered, and the devotion of the offerer. Now the proper effect of\npriesthood is that which results from the sacrifice itself. But\nChrist obtained a result from His passion, not as by virtue of the\nsacrifice, which is offered by way of satisfaction, but by the very\ndevotion with which out of charity He humbly endured the passion.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A figure cannot equal the reality, wherefore the\nfigural priest of the Old Law could not attain to such perfection as\nnot to need a sacrifice of satisfaction. But Christ did not stand in\nneed of this. Consequently, there is no comparison between the two;\nand this is what the Apostle says (Heb. 7:28): \"The Law maketh men\npriests, who have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was\nsince the Law, the Son Who is perfected for evermore.\"\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Priesthood of Christ Endures for Ever?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the priesthood of Christ does not\nendure for ever. For as stated above (A. 4, ad 1, 3) those alone need\nthe effect of the priesthood who have the weakness of sin, which can\nbe expiated by the priest's sacrifice. But this will not be for ever.\nFor in the Saints there will be no weakness, according to Isa. 60:21:\n\"Thy people shall be all just\": while no expiation will be possible\nfor the weakness of sin, since \"there is no redemption in hell\"\n(Office of the Dead, Resp. vii). Therefore the priesthood of Christ\nendures not for ever.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the priesthood of Christ was made manifest most of\nall in His passion and death, when \"by His own blood He entered into\nthe Holies\" (Heb. 9:12). But the passion and death of Christ will not\nendure for ever, as stated Rom. 6:9: \"Christ rising again from the\ndead, dieth now no more.\" Therefore the priesthood of Christ will not\nendure for ever.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ is a priest, not as God, but as man. But at\none time Christ was not man, namely during the three days He lay\ndead. Therefore the priesthood of Christ endures not for ever.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 109:4): \"Thou art a priest for\never.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ In the priestly office, we may consider two things:\nfirst, the offering of the sacrifice; secondly, the consummation of\nthe sacrifice, consisting in this, that those for whom the sacrifice\nis offered, obtain the end of the sacrifice. Now the end of the\nsacrifice which Christ offered consisted not in temporal but in\neternal good, which we obtain through His death, according to Heb.\n9:11: \"Christ is [Vulg.: 'being come'] a high-priest of the good\nthings to come\"; for which reason the priesthood of Christ is said to\nbe eternal. Now this consummation of Christ's sacrifice was\nforeshadowed in this, that the high-priest of the Old Law, once a\nyear, entered into the Holy of Holies with the blood of a he-goat and\na calf, as laid down, Lev. 16:11, and yet he offered up the he-goat\nand calf not within the Holy of Holies, but without. In like manner\nChrist entered into the Holy of Holies--that is, into heaven--and\nprepared the way for us, that we might enter by the virtue of His\nblood, which He shed for us on earth.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Saints who will be in heaven will not need any\nfurther expiation by the priesthood of Christ, but having expiated,\nthey will need consummation through Christ Himself, on Whom their\nglory depends, as is written (Apoc. 21:23): \"The glory of God hath\nenlightened it\"--that is, the city of the Saints--\"and the Lamb is\nthe lamp thereof.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although Christ's passion and death are not to be\nrepeated, yet the virtue of that Victim endures for ever, for, as it\nis written (Heb. 10:14), \"by one oblation He hath perfected for ever\nthem that are sanctified.\"\n\nWherefore the reply to the third objection is clear.\n\nAs to the unity of this sacrifice, it was foreshadowed in the Law in\nthat, once a year, the high-priest of the Law entered into the\nHolies, with a solemn oblation of blood, as set down, Lev. 16:11. But\nthe figure fell short of the reality in this, that the victim had not\nan everlasting virtue, for which reason those sacrifices were renewed\nevery year.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 22, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Priesthood of Christ Was According to the Order of\nMelchisedech?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's priesthood was not according\nto the order of Melchisedech. For Christ is the fountain-head of the\nentire priesthood, as being the principal priest. Now that which is\nprincipal is not secondary in regard to others, but others are\nsecondary in its regard. Therefore Christ should not be called a\npriest according to the order of Melchisedech.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the priesthood of the Old Law was more akin to\nChrist's priesthood than was the priesthood that existed before the\nLaw. But the nearer the sacraments were to Christ, the more clearly\nthey signified Him; as is clear from what we have said in the Second\nPart (II-II, Q. 2, A. 7). Therefore the priesthood of Christ should\nbe denominated after the priesthood of the Law, rather than after the\norder of Melchisedech, which was before the Law.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Heb. 7:2, 3): \"That is 'king of\npeace,' without father, without mother, without genealogy; having\nneither beginning of days nor ending of life\": which can be referred\nonly to the Son of God. Therefore Christ should not be called a\npriest according to the order of Melchisedech, as of some one else,\nbut according to His own order.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 109:4): \"Thou art a priest for\never according to the order of Melchisedech.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4, ad 3) the priesthood of the\nLaw was a figure of the priesthood of Christ, not as adequately\nrepresenting the reality, but as falling far short thereof: both\nbecause the priesthood of the Law did not wash away sins, and because\nit was not eternal, as the priesthood of Christ. Now the excellence\nof   Christ's over the Levitical priesthood was foreshadowed in the\npriesthood of Melchisedech, who received tithes from Abraham, in\nwhose loins the priesthood of the Law was tithed. Consequently the\npriesthood of Christ is said to be \"according to the order of\nMelchisedech,\" on account of the excellence of the true priesthood\nover the figural priesthood of the Law.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ is said to be according to the order of\nMelchisedech not as though the latter were a more excellent priest,\nbut because he foreshadowed the excellence of Christ's over the\nLevitical priesthood.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Two things may be considered in Christ's priesthood:\nnamely, the offering made by Christ, and (our) partaking thereof. As\nto the actual offering, the priesthood of Christ was more distinctly\nforeshadowed by the priesthood of the Law, by reason of the shedding\nof blood, than by the priesthood of Melchisedech in which there was\nno blood-shedding. But if we consider the participation of this\nsacrifice and the effect thereof, wherein the excellence of Christ's\npriesthood over the priesthood of the Law principally consists, then\nthe former was more distinctly foreshadowed by the priesthood of\nMelchisedech, who offered bread and wine, signifying, as Augustine\nsays (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) ecclesiastical unity, which is\nestablished by our taking part in the sacrifice of Christ [*Cf. Q.\n79, A. 1]. Wherefore also in the New Law the true sacrifice of Christ\nis presented to the faithful under the form of bread and wine.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Melchisedech is described as \"without father, without\nmother, without genealogy,\" and as \"having neither beginning of days\nnor ending of life,\" not as though he had not these things, but\nbecause these details in his regard are not supplied by Holy\nScripture. And this it is that, as the Apostle says in the same\npassage, he is \"likened unto the Son of God,\" Who had no earthly\nfather, no heavenly mother, and no genealogy, according to Isa. 53:8:\n\"Who shall declare His generation?\" and Who in His Godhead has\nneither beginning nor end of days.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 23\n\nOF ADOPTION AS BEFITTING TO CHRIST\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now come to consider whether adoption befits Christ: and\nunder this head there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it is fitting that God should adopt sons?\n\n(2) Whether this is fitting to God the Father alone?\n\n(3) Whether it is proper to man to be adopted to the sonship of God?\n\n(4) Whether Christ can be called the adopted Son?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Is Fitting That God Should Adopt Sons?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it is not fitting that God should\nadopt sons. For, as jurists say, no one adopts anyone but a stranger\nas his son. But no one is a stranger in relation to God, Who is the\nCreator of all. Therefore it seems unfitting that God should adopt.\n\nObj. 2: Further, adoption seems to have been introduced in default of\nnatural sonship. But in God there is natural sonship, as set down in\nthe First Part (Q. 27, A. 2). Therefore it is unfitting that God\nshould adopt.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the purpose of adopting anyone is that he may\nsucceed, as heir, the person who adopts him. But it does not seem\npossible for anyone to succeed God as heir, for He can never die.\nTherefore it is unfitting that God should adopt.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 1:5) that \"He hath\npredestinated us unto the adoption of children of God.\" But the\npredestination of God is not ineffectual. Therefore God does adopt\nsome as His sons.\n\n_I answer that,_ A man adopts someone as his son forasmuch as out of\ngoodness he admits him as heir to his estate. Now God is infinitely\ngood: for which reason He admits His creatures to a participation of\ngood things; especially rational creatures, who forasmuch as they are\nmade to the image of God, are capable of Divine beatitude. And this\nconsists in the enjoyment of God, by which also God Himself is happy\nand rich in Himself--that is, in the enjoyment of Himself. Now a\nman's inheritance is that which makes him rich. Wherefore, inasmuch\nas God, of His goodness, admits men to the inheritance of beatitude,\nHe is said to adopt them. Moreover Divine exceeds human adoption,\nforasmuch as God, by bestowing His grace, makes man whom He adopts\nworthy to receive the heavenly inheritance; whereas man does not make\nhim worthy whom he adopts; but rather in adopting him he chooses one\nwho is already worthy.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Considered in his nature man is not a stranger in\nrespect to God, as to the natural gifts bestowed on him: but he is as\nto the gifts of grace and glory; in regard to which he is adopted.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Man works in order to supply his wants: not so God, Who\nworks in order to communicate to others the abundance of His\nperfection. Wherefore, as by the work of creation the Divine goodness\nis communicated to all creatures in a certain likeness, so by the\nwork of adoption the likeness of natural sonship is communicated to\nmen, according to Rom. 8:29: \"Whom He foreknew . . . to be made\nconformable to the image of His Son.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Spiritual goods can be possessed by many at the same\ntime; not so material goods. Wherefore none can receive a material\ninheritance except the successor of a deceased person: whereas all\nreceive the spiritual inheritance at the same time in its entirety\nwithout detriment to the ever-living Father.\n\nYet it might be said that God ceases to be, according as He is in us\nby faith, so as to begin to be in us by vision, as a gloss says on\nRom. 8:17: \"If sons, heirs also.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Is Fitting That the Whole Trinity Should Adopt?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem unfitting that the whole Trinity should\nadopt. For adoption is said of God in likeness to human custom. But\namong men those only adopt who can beget: and in God this can be\napplied only to the Father. Therefore in God the Father alone can\nadopt.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by adoption men become the brethren of Christ,\naccording to Rom. 8:29: \"That He might be the first-born among many\nbrethren.\" Now brethren are the sons of the same father; wherefore\nour Lord says (John 20:17): \"I ascend to My Father and to your\nFather.\" Therefore Christ's Father alone has adopted sons.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Gal. 4:4, 5, 6): \"God sent His\nSon . . . that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because\nyou are sons of God, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your\nhearts, crying: 'Abba' (Father).\" Therefore it belongs to Him to\nadopt, Who has the Son and the Holy Ghost. But this belongs to the\nFather alone. Therefore it befits the Father alone to adopt.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It belongs to Him to adopt us as sons, Whom we can\ncall Father; whence it is written (Rom. 8:15): \"You have received the\nspirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: 'Abba' (Father).\" But\nwhen we say to God, \"Our Father,\" we address the whole Trinity: as is\nthe case with the other names which are said of God in respect of\ncreatures, as stated in the First Part (Q. 33, A. 3, Obj. 1; cf. Q.\n45, A. 6). Therefore to adopt is befitting to the whole Trinity.\n\n_I answer that,_ There is this difference between an adopted son of\nGod and the natural Son of God, that the latter is \"begotten not\nmade\"; whereas the former is made, according to John 1:12: \"He gave\nthem power to be made the sons of God.\" Yet sometimes the adopted son\nis said to be begotten, by reason of the spiritual regeneration which\nis by grace, not by nature; wherefore it is written (James 1:18): \"Of\nHis own will hath He begotten us by the word of truth.\" Now although,\nin God, to beget belongs to the Person of the Father, yet to produce\nany effect in creatures is common to the whole Trinity, by reason of\nthe oneness of their Nature: since, where there is one nature, there\nmust needs be one power and one operation: whence our Lord says (John\n5:19): \"What things soever the Father doth, these the Son also doth\nin like manner.\" Therefore it belongs to the whole Trinity to adopt\nmen as sons of God.\n\nReply Obj. 1: All human individuals are not of one individual nature,\nso that there need be one operation and one effect of them all, as is\nthe case in God. Consequently in this respect no comparison is\npossible.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By adoption we are made the brethren of Christ, as\nhaving with Him the same Father: Who, nevertheless, is His Father in\none way, and ours in another. Whence pointedly our Lord says,\nseparately, \"My Father,\" and \"Your Father\" (John 20:17). For He is\nChrist's Father by natural generation; and this is proper to Him:\nwhereas He is our Father by a voluntary operation, which is common to\nHim and to the Son and Holy Ghost: so that Christ is not the Son of\nthe whole Trinity, as we are.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (A. 1, ad 2), adoptive sonship is a\ncertain likeness of the eternal Sonship: just as all that takes place\nin time is a certain likeness of what has been from eternity. Now man\nis likened to the splendor of the Eternal Son by reason of the light\nof grace which is attributed to the Holy Ghost. Therefore adoption,\nthough common to the whole Trinity, is appropriated to the Father as\nits author; to the Son, as its exemplar; to the Holy Ghost, as\nimprinting on us the likeness of this exemplar.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 3]\n\nWhether It Is Proper to the Rational Nature to Be Adopted?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to the rational\nnature to be adopted. For God is not said to be the Father of the\nrational creature, save by adoption. But God is called the Father\neven of the irrational creature, according to Job 38:28: \"Who is\nfather of the rain? Or who begot the drops of dew?\" Therefore it is\nnot proper to the rational creature to be adopted.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by reason of adoption some are called sons of God.\nBut to be sons of God seems to be properly attributed by the\nScriptures to the angels; according to Job 1:6: \"On a certain day\nwhen the sons of God came to stand before the Lord.\" Therefore it is\nnot proper to the rational creature to be adopted.\n\nObj. 3: Further, whatever is proper to a nature, belongs to all that\nhave that nature: just as risibility belongs to all men. But to be\nadopted does not belong to every rational nature. Therefore it is not\nproper to human nature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Adopted sons are the \"heirs of God,\" as is stated\nRom. 8:17. But such an inheritance belongs to none but the rational\nnature. Therefore it is proper to the rational nature to be adopted.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2, ad 3), the sonship of\nadoption is a certain likeness of natural sonship. Now the Son of God\nproceeds naturally from the Father as the Intellectual Word, in\noneness of nature with the Father. To this Word, therefore, something\nmay be likened in three ways. First, on the part of the form but not\non the part of its intelligibility: thus the form of a house already\nbuilt is like the mental word of the builder in its specific form,\nbut not in intelligibility, because the material form of a house is\nnot intelligible, as it was in the mind of the builder. In this way\nevery creature is like the Eternal Word; since it was made through\nthe Word. Secondly, the creature is likened to the Word, not only as\nto its form, but also as to its intelligibility: thus the knowledge\nwhich is begotten in the disciple's mind is likened to the word in\nthe mind of the master. In this way the rational creature, even in\nits nature, is likened to the Word of God. Thirdly, a creature is\nlikened to the Eternal Word, as to the oneness of the Word with the\nFather, which is by reason of grace and charity: wherefore our Lord\nprays (John 17:21, 22): \"That they may be one in Us . . . as We also\nare one.\" And this likeness perfects the adoption: for to those who\nare thus like Him the eternal inheritance is due. It is therefore\nclear that to be adopted belongs to the rational creature alone: not\nindeed to all, but only to those who have charity; which is \"poured\nforth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost\" (Rom. 5:5); for which reason\n(Rom. 8:15) the Holy Ghost is called \"the Spirit of adoption of sons.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: God is called the Father of the irrational creature,\nnot properly speaking, by reason of adoption, but by reason of\ncreation; according to the first-mentioned participation of likeness.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Angels are called sons of God by adoptive sonship, not\nthat it belongs to them first; but because they were the first to\nreceive the adoption of sons.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Adoption is a property resulting not from nature, but\nfrom grace, of which the rational nature is capable. Therefore it\nneed not belong to every rational nature: but every rational creature\nmust needs be capable of adoption.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ As Man Is the Adopted Son of God?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ as man is the adopted Son of\nGod. For Hilary says (De Trin. ii) speaking of Christ: \"The dignity\nof power is not forfeited when carnal humanity [*Some editions read\n'humilitas'--'the humility or lowliness of the flesh'] is adopted.\"\nTherefore Christ as man is the adopted Son of God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv) that \"by the\nsame grace that Man is Christ, as from the birth of faith every man\nis a Christian.\" But other men are Christians by the grace of\nadoption. Therefore this Man is Christ by adoption: and consequently\nHe would seem to be an adopted son.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ, as man, is a servant. But it is of greater\ndignity to be an adopted son than to be a servant. Therefore much\nmore is Christ, as man, an adopted Son.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Incarn. viii): \"We do not call an\nadopted son a natural son: the natural son is a true son.\" But Christ\nis the true and natural Son of God, according to 1 John 5:20: \"That\nwe may . . . be in His true Son, Jesus Christ.\" Therefore Christ, as\nMan, is not an adopted Son.\n\n_I answer that,_ Sonship belongs properly to the hypostasis or\nperson, not to the nature; whence in the First Part (Q. 32, A. 3) we\nhave stated that Filiation is a personal property. Now in Christ\nthere is no other than the uncreated person or hypostasis, to Whom it\nbelongs by nature to be the Son. But it has been said above (A. 1, ad\n2), that the sonship of adoption is a participated likeness of\nnatural sonship: nor can a thing be said to participate in what it\nhas essentially. Therefore Christ, Who is the natural Son of God, can\nnowise be called an adopted Son.\n\nBut according to those who suppose two persons or two hypostases or\ntwo supposita in Christ, no reason prevents Christ being called the\nadopted Son of God.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As sonship does not properly belong to the nature, so\nneither does adoption. Consequently, when it is said that \"carnal\nhumanity is adopted,\" the expression is metaphorical: and adoption is\nused to signify the union of human nature to the Person of the Son.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This comparison of Augustine is to be referred to the\nprinciple because, to wit, just as it is granted to any man without\nmeriting it to be a Christian, so did it happen that this man without\nmeriting it was Christ. But there is a difference on the part of the\nterm: because by the grace of union Christ is the natural Son;\nwhereas another man by habitual grace is an adopted son. Yet habitual\ngrace in Christ does not make one who was not a son to be an adopted\nson, but is a certain effect of Filiation in the soul of Christ,\naccording to John 1:14: \"We saw His glory . . . as it were of the\nOnly-begotten of the Father; full of grace and truth.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: To be a creature, as also to be subservient or subject\nto God, regards not only the person, but also the nature: but this\ncannot be said of sonship. Wherefore the comparison does not hold.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 24\n\nOF THE PREDESTINATION OF CHRIST\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe shall now consider the predestination of Christ. Under this head\nthere are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ was predestinated?\n\n(2) Whether He was predestinated as man?\n\n(3) Whether His predestination is the exemplar of ours?\n\n(4) Whether it is the cause of our predestination?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Is Befitting That Christ Should Be Predestinated?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should be\npredestinated. For the term of anyone's predestination seems to be\nthe adoption of sons, according to Eph. 1:5: \"Who hath predestinated\nus unto the adoption of children.\" But it is not befitting to Christ\nto be an adopted Son, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). Therefore it is\nnot fitting that Christ be predestinated.\n\nObj. 2: Further, we may consider two things in Christ: His human\nnature and His person. But it cannot be said that Christ is\npredestinated by reason of His human nature; for this proposition is\nfalse--\"The human nature is Son of God.\" In like manner neither by\nreason of the person; for this person is the Son of God, not by\ngrace, but by nature: whereas predestination regards what is of\ngrace, as stated in the First Part, Q. 23, AA. 2, 5. Therefore Christ\nwas not predestinated to be the Son of God.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as that which has been made was not always, so\nalso that which was predestinated; since predestination implies a\ncertain antecedence. But, because Christ was always God and the Son\nof God, it cannot be said that that Man was \"made the Son of God.\"\nTherefore, for a like reason, we ought not to say that Christ was\n\"predestinated the Son of God.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says, speaking of Christ (Rom. 1:4):\n\"Who was predestinated the Son of God in power.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As is clear from what has been said in the First\nPart (Q. 23, AA. 1, 2), predestination, in its proper sense, is a\ncertain Divine preordination from eternity of those things which are\nto be done in time by the grace of God. Now, that man is God, and\nthat God is man, is something done in time by God through the grace\nof union. Nor can it be said that God has not from eternity\npre-ordained to do this in time: since it would follow that something\nwould come anew into the Divine Mind. And we must needs admit that\nthe union itself of natures in the Person of Christ falls under the\neternal predestination of God. For this reason do we say that Christ\nwas predestinated.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Apostle there speaks of that predestination by\nwhich we are predestinated to be adopted sons. And just as Christ in\na singular manner above all others is the natural Son of God, so in a\nsingular manner is He predestinated.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As a gloss [*From St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. xv]\nsays on Rom. 1:4, some understood that predestination to refer to the\nnature and not to the Person--that is to say, that on human nature\nwas bestowed the grace of being united to the Son of God in unity of\nPerson.\n\nBut in that case the phrase of the Apostle would be improper, for two\nreasons. First, for a general reason: for we do not speak of a\nperson's nature, but of his person, as being predestinated: because\nto be predestinated is to be directed towards salvation, which\nbelongs to a suppositum acting for the end of beatitude. Secondly,\nfor a special reason. Because to be Son of God is not befitting to\nhuman nature; for this proposition is false: \"The human nature is the\nSon of God\": unless one were to force from it such an exposition as:\n\"Who was predestinated the Son of God in power\"--that is, \"It was\npredestinated that the Human nature should be united to the Son of\nGod in the Person.\"\n\nHence we must attribute predestination to the Person of Christ: not,\nindeed, in Himself or as subsisting in the Divine Nature, but as\nsubsisting in the human nature. Wherefore the Apostle, after saying,\n\"Who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh,\"\nadded, \"Who was predestinated the Son of God in power\": so as to give\nus to understand that in respect of His being of the seed of David\naccording to the flesh, He was predestinated the Son of God in power.\nFor although it is natural to that Person, considered in Himself, to\nbe the Son of God in power, yet this is not natural to Him,\nconsidered in the human nature, in respect of which this befits Him\naccording to the grace of union.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Origen commenting on Rom. 1:4 says that the true\nreading of this passage of the Apostle is: \"Who was destined to be\nthe Son of God in power\"; so that no antecedence is implied. And so\nthere would be no difficulty. Others refer the antecedence implied in\nthe participle \"predestinated,\" not to the fact of being the Son of\nGod, but to the manifestation thereof, according to the customary way\nof speaking in Holy Scripture, by which things are said to take place\nwhen they are made known; so that the sense would be--\"Christ was\npredestinated to be made known as the Son of God.\" But this is an\nimproper signification of predestination. For a person is properly\nsaid to be predestinated by reason of his being directed to the end\nof beatitude: but the beatitude of Christ does not depend on our\nknowledge thereof.\n\nIt is therefore better to say that the antecedence implied in the\nparticiple \"predestinated\" is to be referred to the Person not in\nHimself, but by reason of the human nature: since, although that\nPerson was the Son of God from eternity, it was not always true that\none subsisting in human nature was the Son of God. Hence Augustine\nsays (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): \"Jesus was predestinated, so that He\nWho according to the flesh was to be the son of David, should be\nnevertheless Son of God in power.\"\n\nMoreover, it must be observed that, although the participle\n\"predestinated,\" just as this participle \"made,\" implies antecedence,\nyet there is a difference. For \"to be made\" belongs to the thing in\nitself: whereas \"to be predestinated\" belongs to someone as being in\nthe apprehension of one who pre-ordains. Now that which is the\nsubject of a form or nature in reality, can be apprehended either as\nunder that form or absolutely. And since it cannot be said absolutely\nof the Person of Christ that He began to be the Son of God, yet this\nis becoming to Him as understood or apprehended to exist in human\nnature, because at one time it began to be true that one existing in\nhuman nature was the Son of God; therefore this proposition--\"Christ\nwas predestinated the Son of God\"--is truer than this--\"Christ was\nmade the Son of God.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 2]\n\nWhether This Proposition Is False: \"Christ As Man Was Predestinated\nto Be the Son of God\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this proposition is false: \"Christ as\nman was predestinated to be the Son of God.\" For at some time a man\nis that which he was predestinated to be: since God's predestination\ndoes not fail. If, therefore, Christ as man was predestinated the Son\nof God, it seems to follow that as man He is the Son of God. But the\nlatter is false. Therefore the former is false.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what is befitting to Christ as man is befitting to\nany man; since He belongs to the same species as other men. If,\ntherefore, Christ, as man, was predestinated the Son of God, it will\nfollow that this is befitting to any other man. But the latter is\nfalse. Therefore the former is false.\n\nObj. 3: Further, that is predestinated from eternity which is to take\nplace at some time. But this proposition, \"The Son of God was made\nman,\" is truer than this, \"Man was made the Son of God.\" Therefore\nthis proposition, \"Christ, as the Son of God, was predestinated to be\nman,\" is truer than this, \"Christ as Man was predestinated to be the\nSon of God.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Praedest. Sanct. xv) says:\n\"Forasmuch as God the Son was made Man, we say that the Lord of Glory\nwas predestinated.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered in predestination. One\non the part of eternal predestination itself: and in this respect it\nimplies a certain antecedence in regard to that which comes under\npredestination. Secondly, predestination may be considered as regards\nits temporal effect, which is some gratuitous gift of God. Therefore\nfrom both points of view we must say that predestination is ascribed\nto Christ by reason of His human nature alone: for human nature was\nnot always united to the Word; and by grace bestowed on it was it\nunited in Person to the Son of God. Consequently, by reason of human\nnature alone can predestination be attributed to Christ. Wherefore\nAugustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): \"This human nature of ours\nwas predestinated to be raised to so great, so lofty, so exalted a\nposition, that it would be impossible to raise it higher.\" Now that\nis said to belong to anyone as man which belongs to him by reason of\nhuman nature. Consequently, we must say that \"Christ, as Man, was\npredestinated the Son of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: When we say, \"Christ, as Man, was predestinated the Son\nof God,\" this qualification, \"as Man,\" can be referred in two ways to\nthe action signified by the participle. First, as regards what comes\nunder predestination materially, and thus it is false. For the sense\nwould be that it was predestinated that Christ, as Man, should be the\nSon of God. And in this sense the objection takes it.\n\nSecondly, it may be referred to the very nature of the action itself:\nthat is, forasmuch as predestination implies antecedence and\ngratuitous effect. And thus predestination belongs to Christ by\nreason of His human nature, as stated above. And in this sense He is\nsaid to be predestinated as Man.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Something may be befitting to a man by reason of human\nnature, in two ways. First, so that human nature be the cause\nthereof: thus risibility is befitting to Socrates by reason of human\nnature, being caused by its principles. In this manner predestination\nis not befitting either to Christ or to any other man, by reason of\nhuman nature. This is the sense of the objection. Secondly, a thing\nmay be befitting to someone by reason of human nature, because human\nnature is susceptible of it. And in this sense we say that Christ was\npredestinated by reason of human nature; because predestination\nrefers to the exaltation of human nature in Him, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Praedest. Sanct. xv): \"The Word of\nGod assumed Man to Himself in such a singular and ineffable manner\nthat at the same time He may be truly and correctly called the Son of\nMan, because He assumed Man to Himself; and the Son of God, because\nit was the Only-begotten of God Who assumed human nature.\"\nConsequently, since this assumption comes under predestination by\nreason of its being gratuitous, we can say both that the Son of God\nwas predestinated to be man, and that the Son of Man was\npredestinated to be the Son of God. But because grace was not\nbestowed on the Son of God that He might be man, but rather on human\nnature, that it might be united to the Son of God; it is more proper\nto say that \"Christ, as Man, was predestinated to be the Son of God,\"\nthan that, \"Christ, as Son of God, was predestinated to be Man.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ's Predestination Is the Exemplar of Ours?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's predestination is not the\nexemplar of ours. For the exemplar exists before the exemplate. But\nnothing exists before the eternal. Since, therefore, our\npredestination is eternal, it seems that Christ's predestination is\nnot the exemplar of ours.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the exemplar leads us to knowledge of the exemplate.\nBut there was no need for God to be led from something else to\nknowledge of our predestination; since it is written (Rom. 8:29):\n\"Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated.\" Therefore Christ's\npredestination is not the exemplar of ours.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the exemplar is conformed to the exemplate. But\nChrist's predestination seems to be of a different nature from ours:\nbecause we are predestinated to the sonship of adoption, whereas\nChrist was predestinated \"Son of God in power,\" as is written (Rom.\n1:4). Therefore His predestination is not the exemplar of ours.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): \"The\nSaviour Himself, the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus is\nthe most splendid light of predestination and grace.\" Now He is\ncalled the light of predestination and grace, inasmuch as our\npredestination is made manifest by His predestination and grace; and\nthis seems to pertain to the nature of an exemplar. Therefore\nChrist's predestination is the exemplar of ours.\n\n_I answer that,_ Predestination may be considered in two ways. First,\non the part of the act of predestination: and thus Christ's\npredestination cannot be said to be the exemplar of ours: for in the\nsame way and by the same eternal act God predestinated us and Christ.\n\nSecondly, predestination may be considered on the part of that to\nwhich anyone is predestinated, and this is the term and effect of\npredestination. In this sense Christ's predestination is the exemplar\nof ours, and this in two ways. First, in respect of the good to which\nwe are predestinated: for He was predestinated to be the natural Son\nof God, whereas we are predestinated to the adoption of sons, which\nis a participated likeness of natural sonship. Whence it is written\n(Rom. 8:29): \"Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made\nconformable to the image of His Son.\" Secondly, in respect of the\nmanner of obtaining this good--that is, by grace. This is most\nmanifest in Christ; because human nature in Him, without any\nantecedent merits, was united to the Son of God: and of the fulness\nof His grace we all have received, as it is written (John 1:16).\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument considers the aforesaid act of the\npredestinator.\n\nThe same is to be said of the second objection.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The exemplate need not be conformed to the exemplar in\nall respects: it is sufficient that it imitate it in some.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ's Predestination Is the Cause of Ours?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's predestination is not the\ncause of ours. For that which is eternal has no cause. But our\npredestination is eternal. Therefore Christ's predestination is not\nthe cause of ours.\n\nObj. 2: Further, that which depends on the simple will of God has no\nother cause but God's will. Now, our predestination depends on the\nsimple will of God, for it is written (Eph. 1:11): \"Being\npredestinated according to the purpose of Him, Who worketh all things\naccording to the counsel of His will.\" Therefore Christ's\npredestination is not the cause of ours.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if the cause be taken away, the effect is also taken\naway. But if we take away Christ's predestination, ours is not taken\naway; since even if the Son of God were not incarnate, our salvation\nmight yet have been achieved in a different manner, as Augustine says\n(De Trin. xiii, 10). Therefore Christ's predestination is not the\ncause of ours.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 1:5): \"(Who) hath\npredestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ if we consider predestination on the part of the\nvery act of predestinating, then Christ's predestination is not the\ncause of ours; because by one and the same act God predestinated both\nChrist and us. But if we consider predestination on the part of its\nterm, thus Christ's predestination is the cause of ours: for God, by\npredestinating from eternity, so decreed our salvation, that it\nshould be achieved through Jesus Christ. For eternal predestination\ncovers not only that which is to be accomplished in time, but also\nthe mode and order in which it is to be accomplished in time.\n\nReplies Obj. 1 and 2: These arguments consider predestination on the\npart of the act of predestinating.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If Christ were not to have been incarnate, God would\nhave decreed men's salvation by other means. But since He decreed the\nIncarnation of Christ, He decreed at the same time that He should be\nthe cause of our salvation.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 25\n\nOF THE ADORATION OF CHRIST\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider things pertaining to Christ in reference to\nus; and first, the adoration of Christ, by which we adore Him;\nsecondly, we must consider how He is our Mediator with God.\n\nUnder the first head there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ's Godhead and humanity are to be adored with one\nand the same adoration?\n\n(2) Whether His flesh is to be adored with the adoration of _latria?_\n\n(3) Whether the adoration of _latria_ is to be given to the image of\nChrist?\n\n(4) Whether _latria_ is to be given to the Cross of Christ?\n\n(5) Whether to His Mother?\n\n(6) Concerning the adoration of the relics of Saints.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ's Humanity and Godhead Are to Be Adored with the Same\nAdoration?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's humanity and Godhead are not\nto be adored with the same adoration. For Christ's Godhead is to be\nadored, as being common to Father and Son; wherefore it is written\n(John 5:23): \"That all may honor the Son, as they honor the Father.\"\nBut Christ's humanity is not common to Him and the Father. Therefore\nChrist's humanity and Godhead are not to be adored with the same\nadoration.\n\nObj. 2: Further, honor is properly \"the reward of virtue,\" as the\nPhilosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3). But virtue merits its reward by\naction. Since, therefore, in Christ the action of the Divine Nature\nis distinct from that of the human nature, as stated above (Q. 19, A.\n1), it seems that Christ's humanity is to be adored with a different\nadoration from that which is given to His Godhead.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if the soul of Christ were not united to the Word,\nit would have been worthy of veneration on account of the excellence\nof its wisdom and grace. But by being united to the Word it lost\nnothing of its worthiness. Therefore His human nature should receive\na certain veneration proper thereto, besides the veneration which is\ngiven to His Godhead.\n\n_On the contrary,_ We read in the chapters of the Fifth Council\n[*Second Council of Constantinople, coll. viii, can. 9]: \"If anyone\nsay that Christ is adored in two natures, so as to introduce two\ndistinct adorations, and does not adore God the Word made flesh with\nthe one and the same adoration as His flesh, as the Church has handed\ndown from the beginning; let such a one be anathema.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ We may consider two things in a person to whom honor\nis given: the person himself, and the cause of his being honored. Now\nproperly speaking honor is given to a subsistent thing in its\nentirety: for we do not speak of honoring a man's hand, but the man\nhimself. And if at any time it happen that we speak of honoring a\nman's hand or foot, it is not by reason of these members being\nhonored of themselves: but by reason of the whole being honored in\nthem. In this way a man may be honored even in something external;\nfor instance in his vesture, his image, or his messenger.\n\nThe cause of honor is that by reason of which the person honored has\na certain excellence, for honor is reverence given to something on\naccount of its excellence, as stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q.\n103, A. 1). If therefore in one man there are several causes of\nhonor, for instance, rank, knowledge, and virtue, the honor given to\nhim will be one in respect of the person honored, but several in\nrespect of the causes of honor: for it is the man that is honored,\nboth on account of knowledge and by reason of his virtue.\n\nSince, therefore, in Christ there is but one Person of the Divine and\nhuman natures, and one hypostasis, and one suppositum, He is given\none adoration and one honor on the part of the Person adored: but on\nthe part of the cause for which He is honored, we can say that there\nare several adorations, for instance that He receives one honor on\naccount of His uncreated knowledge, and another on account of His\ncreated knowledge.\n\nBut if it be said that there are several persons or hypostases in\nChrist, it would follow that there would be, absolutely speaking,\nseveral adorations. And this is what is condemned in the Councils.\nFor it is written in the chapters of Cyril [*Council of Ephesus, Part\nI, ch. 26]: \"If anyone dare to say that the man assumed should be\nadored besides the Divine Word, as though these were distinct\npersons; and does not rather honor the Emmanuel with one single\nadoration, inasmuch as the Word was made flesh; let him be anathema.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: In the Trinity there are three Who are honored, but\nonly one cause of honor. In the mystery of the Incarnation it is the\nreverse: and therefore only one honor is given to the Trinity and\nonly one to Christ, but in a different way.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Operation is not the object but the motive of honor.\nAnd therefore there being two operations in Christ proves, not two\nadorations, but two causes of adoration.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If the soul of Christ were not united to the Word of\nGod, it would be the principal thing in that Man. Wherefore honor\nwould be due to it principally, since man is that which is principal\nin him [*Cf. _Ethic._ ix, 8]. But since Christ's soul is united to a\nPerson of greater dignity, to that Person is honor principally due to\nWhom Christ's soul is united. Nor is the dignity of Christ's soul\nhereby diminished, but rather increased, as stated above (Q. 2, A. 2,\nad 2).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ's Humanity Should Be Adored with the Adoration of _Latria?_\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's soul should not be adored\nwith the adoration of _latria._ For on the words of Ps. 98:5, \"Adore\nHis foot-stool for it is holy,\" a gloss says: \"The flesh assumed by\nthe Word of God is rightly adored by us: for no one partakes\nspiritually of His flesh unless he first adore it; but not indeed\nwith the adoration called _latria,_ which is due to the Creator\nalone.\" Now the flesh is part of the humanity. Therefore Christ's\nhumanity is not to be adored with the adoration of _latria._\n\nObj. 2: Further, the worship of _latria_ is not to be given to any\ncreature: since for this reason were the Gentiles reproved, that they\n\"worshiped and served the creature,\" as it is written (Rom. 1:25).\nBut Christ's humanity is a creature. Therefore it should not be\nadored with the adoration of _latria._\n\nObj. 3: Further, the adoration of _latria_ is due to God in\nrecognition of His supreme dominion, according to Deut. 6:13: \"Thou\nshalt adore [Vulg.: 'fear'; cf. Matt. 4:10] the Lord thy God, and\nshalt serve Him only.\" But Christ as man is less than the Father.\nTherefore His humanity is not to be adored with the adoration of\n_latria._\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): \"On account\nof the incarnation of the Divine Word, we adore the flesh of Christ\nnot for its own sake, but because the Word of God is united thereto\nin person.\" And on Ps. 98:5, \"Adore His foot-stool,\" a gloss says:\n\"He who adores the body of Christ, regards not the earth, but rather\nHim whose foot-stool it is, in Whose honor he adores the foot-stool.\"\nBut the incarnate Word is adored with the adoration of _latria._\nTherefore also His body or His humanity.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) adoration is due to the\nsubsisting hypostasis: yet the reason for honoring may be something\nnon-subsistent, on account of which the person, in whom it is, is\nhonored. And so the adoration of Christ's humanity may be understood\nin two ways. First, so that the humanity is the thing adored: and\nthus to adore the flesh of Christ is nothing else than to adore the\nincarnate Word of God: just as to adore a King's robe is nothing else\nthan to adore a robed King. And in this sense the adoration of\nChrist's humanity is the adoration of _latria._ Secondly, the\nadoration of Christ's humanity may be taken as given by reason of its\nbeing perfected with every gift of grace. And so in this sense the\nadoration of Christ's humanity is the adoration not of _latria_ but\nof _dulia._ So that one and the same Person of Christ is adored with\n_latria_ on account of His Divinity, and with _dulia_ on account of\nHis perfect humanity.\n\nNor is this unfitting. For the honor of _latria_ is due to God the\nFather Himself on account of His Godhead; and the honor of _dulia_ on\naccount of the dominion by which He rules over creatures. Wherefore\non Ps. 7:1, \"O Lord my God, in Thee have I hoped,\" a gloss says:\n\"Lord of all by power, to Whom _dulia_ is due: God of all by\ncreation, to Whom _latria_ is due.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: That gloss is not to be understood as though the flesh\nof Christ were adored separately from its Godhead: for this could\nhappen only, if there were one hypostasis of God, and another of man.\nBut since, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 3): \"If by a subtle\ndistinction you divide what is seen from what is understood, it\ncannot be adored because it is a creature\"--that is, with adoration\nof _latria._ And then thus understood as distinct from the Word of\nGod, it should be adored with the adoration of _dulia_; not any kind\nof _dulia,_ such as is given to other creatures, but with a certain\nhigher adoration, which is called _hyperdulia._\n\nHence appear the answers to the second and third objections. Because\nthe adoration of _latria_ is not given to Christ's humanity in\nrespect of itself; but in respect of the Godhead to which it is\nunited, by reason of which Christ is not less than the Father.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Image of Christ Should Be Adored with the Adoration of\n_Latria_?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's image should not be adored\nwith the adoration of _latria._ For it is written (Ex. 20:4): \"Thou\nshalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of\nanything.\" But no adoration should be given against the commandment\nof God. Therefore Christ's image should not be adored with the\nadoration of _latria._\n\nObj. 2: Further, we should have nothing in common with the works of\nthe Gentiles, as the Apostle says (Eph. 5:11). But the Gentiles are\nreproached principally for that \"they changed the glory of the\nincorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible\nman,\" as is written (Rom. 1:23). Therefore Christ's image is not to\nbe adored with the adoration of _latria._\n\nObj. 3: Further, to Christ the adoration of _latria_ is due by reason\nof His Godhead, not of His humanity. But the adoration of _latria_ is\nnot due to the image of His Godhead, which is imprinted on the\nrational soul. Much less, therefore, is it due to the material image\nwhich represents the humanity of Christ Himself.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it seems that nothing should be done in the Divine\nworship that is not instituted by God; wherefore the Apostle (1 Cor.\n11:23) when about to lay down the doctrine of the sacrifice of the\nChurch, says: \"I have received of the Lord that which also I\ndelivered unto you.\" But Scripture does not lay down anything\nconcerning the adoration of images. Therefore Christ's image is not\nto be adored with the adoration of _latria._\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv, 16) quotes Basil as\nsaying: \"The honor given to an image reaches to the prototype,\" i.e.\nthe exemplar. But the exemplar itself--namely, Christ--is to be\nadored with the adoration of _latria_; therefore also His image.\n\n_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. i),\nthere is a twofold movement of the mind towards an image: one indeed\ntowards the image itself as a certain thing; another, towards the\nimage in so far as it is the image of something else. And between\nthese movements there is this difference; that the former, by which\none is moved towards an image as a certain thing, is different from\nthe movement towards the thing: whereas the latter movement, which is\ntowards the image as an image, is one and the same as that which is\ntowards the thing. Thus therefore we must say that no reverence is\nshown to Christ's image, as a thing--for instance, carved or painted\nwood: because reverence is not due save to a rational creature. It\nfollow therefore that reverence should be shown to it, in so far only\nas it is an image. Consequently the same reverence should be shown to\nChrist's image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is\nadored with the adoration of _latria,_ it follows that His image\nshould be adored with the adoration of _latria._\n\nReply Obj. 1: This commandment does not forbid the making of any\ngraven thing or likeness, but the making thereof for the purpose of\nadoration, wherefore it is added: \"Thou shalt not adore them nor\nserve them.\" And because, as stated above, the movement towards the\nimage is the same as the movement towards the thing, adoration\nthereof is forbidden in the same way as adoration of the thing whose\nimage it is. Wherefore in the passage quoted we are to understand the\nprohibition to adore those images which the Gentiles made for the\npurpose of venerating their own gods, i.e. the demons, and so it is\npremised: \"Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.\" But no\ncorporeal image could be raised to the true God Himself, since He is\nincorporeal; because, as Damascene observes (De Fide Orth. iv, 16):\n\"It is the highest absurdity and impiety to fashion a figure of what\nis Divine.\" But because in the New Testament God was made man, He can\nbe adored in His corporeal image.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Apostle forbids us to have anything in common with\nthe \"unfruitful works\" of the Gentiles, but not with their useful\nworks. Now the adoration of images must be numbered among the\nunfruitful works in two respects. First, because some of the Gentiles\nused to adore the images themselves, as things, believing that there\nwas something Divine therein, on account of the answers which the\ndemons used to give in them, and on account of other such like\nwonderful effects. Secondly on account of the things of which they\nwere images; for they set up images to certain creatures, to whom in\nthese images they gave the veneration of _latria._ Whereas we give\nthe adoration of _latria_ to the image of Christ, Who is true God,\nnot for the sake of the image, but for the sake of the thing whose\nimage it is, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Reverence is due to the rational creature for its own\nsake. Consequently, if the adoration of _latria_ were shown to the\nrational creature in which this image is, there might be an occasion\nof error--namely, lest the movement of adoration might stop short at\nthe man, as a thing, and not be carried on to God, Whose image he is.\nThis cannot happen in the case of a graven or painted image in\ninsensible material.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy\nGhost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they\ndid not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance\nwith the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as\ntime went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:14): \"Stand\nfast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by\nword\"--that is by word of mouth--\"or by our epistle\"--that is by word\nput into writing. Among these traditions is the worship of Christ's\nimage. Wherefore it is said that Blessed Luke painted the image of\nChrist, which is in Rome.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ's Cross Should Be Worshipped with the Adoration of\n_Latria_?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's cross should not be\nworshiped with the adoration of _latria._ For no dutiful son honors\nthat which dishonors his father, as the scourge with which he was\nscourged, or the gibbet on which he was hanged; rather does he abhor\nit. Now Christ underwent the most shameful death on the cross;\naccording to Wis. 2:20: \"Let us condemn Him to a most shameful\ndeath.\" Therefore we should not venerate the cross but rather we\nshould abhor it.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's humanity is worshiped with the adoration of\n_latria,_ inasmuch as it is united to the Son of God in Person. But\nthis cannot be said of the cross. Therefore Christ's cross should not\nbe worshiped with the adoration of _latria._\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Christ's cross was the instrument of His passion\nand death, so were also many other things, for instance, the nails,\nthe crown, the lance; yet to these we do not show the worship of\n_latria._ It seems, therefore, that Christ's cross should not be\nworshiped with the adoration of _latria._\n\n_On the contrary,_ We show the worship of _latria_ to that in which\nwe place our hope of salvation. But we place our hope in Christ's\ncross, for the Church sings:\n\n\"Dear Cross, best hope o'er all beside,\nThat cheers the solemn passion-tide:\nGive to the just increase of grace,\nGive to each contrite sinner peace.\"\n\n[*Hymn Vexilla Regis: translation of Father Aylward, O.P.]\n\nTherefore Christ's cross should be worshiped with the adoration of\n_latria._\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), honor or reverence is due to\na rational creature only; while to an insensible creature, no honor\nor reverence is due save by reason of a rational nature. And this in\ntwo ways. First, inasmuch as it represents a rational nature:\nsecondly, inasmuch as it is united to it in any way whatsoever. In\nthe first way men are wont to venerate the king's image; in the\nsecond way, his robe. And both are venerated by men with the same\nveneration as they show to the king.\n\nIf, therefore, we speak of the cross itself on which Christ was\ncrucified, it is to be venerated by us in both ways--namely, in one\nway in so far as it represents to us the figure of Christ extended\nthereon; in the other way, from its contact with the limbs of Christ,\nand from its being saturated with His blood. Wherefore in each way it\nis worshiped with the same adoration as Christ, viz. the adoration of\n_latria._ And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to\nit, as to the Crucified Himself. But if we speak of the effigy of\nChrist's cross in any other material whatever--for instance, in stone\nor wood, silver or gold--thus we venerate the cross merely as\nChrist's image, which we worship with the adoration of _latria,_ as\nstated above (A. 3).\n\nReply Obj. 1: If in Christ's cross we consider the point of view and\nintention of those who did not believe in Him, it will appear as His\nshame: but if we consider its effect, which is our salvation, it will\nappear as endowed with Divine power, by which it triumphed over the\nenemy, according to Col. 2:14, 15: \"He hath taken the same out of the\nway, fastening it to the cross, and despoiling the principalities and\npowers, He hath exposed them confidently, in open show, triumphing\nover them in Himself.\" Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:18): \"The\nWord of the cross to them indeed that perish is foolishness; but to\nthem that are saved--that is, to us--it is the power of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although Christ's cross was not united to the Word of\nGod in Person, yet it was united to Him in some other way, viz. by\nrepresentation and contact. And for this sole reason reverence is\nshown to it.\n\nReply Obj. 3: By reason of the contact of Christ's limbs we worship\nnot only the cross, but all that belongs to Christ. Wherefore\nDamascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 11): \"The precious wood, as having\nbeen sanctified by the contact of His holy body and blood, should be\nmeetly worshiped; as also His nails, His lance, and His sacred\ndwelling-places, such as the manger, the cave and so forth.\" Yet\nthese very things do not represent Christ's image as the cross does,\nwhich is called \"the Sign of the Son of Man\" that \"will appear in\nheaven,\" as it is written (Matt. 24:30). Wherefore the angel said to\nthe women (Mk. 16:6): \"You seek Jesus of Nazareth, Who was\ncrucified\": he said not \"pierced,\" but \"crucified.\" For this reason\nwe worship the image of Christ's cross in any material, but not the\nimage of the nails or of any such thing.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Mother of God Should Be Worshipped with the Adoration of\n_Latria_?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God is to be worshiped\nwith the adoration of _latria._ For it seems that the same honor is\ndue to the king's mother as to the king: whence it is written (3\nKings 2:19) that \"a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat\non His right hand.\" Moreover, Augustine [*Sermon on the Assumption,\nwork of an anonymous author] says: \"It is right that the throne of\nGod, the resting-place of the Lord of Heaven, the abode of Christ,\nshould be there where He is Himself.\" But Christ is worshiped with\nthe adoration of _latria._ Therefore His Mother also should be.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 16): \"The honor of\nthe Mother reflects on the Son.\" But the Son is worshiped with the\nadoration of _latria._ Therefore the Mother also.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's Mother is more akin to Him than the cross.\nBut the cross is worshiped with the adoration of _latria._ Therefore\nalso His Mother is to be worshiped with the same adoration.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Mother of God is a mere creature. Therefore\nthe worship of _latria_ is not due to her.\n\n_I answer that,_ Since _latria_ is due to God alone, it is not due to\na creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For\nthough insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for\ntheir own sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being\nvenerated for its own sake. Consequently the worship of _latria_ is\nnot due to any mere rational creature for its own sake. Since,\ntherefore, the Blessed Virgin is a mere rational creature, the\nworship of _latria_ is not due to her, but only that of _dulia_: but\nin a higher degree than to other creatures, inasmuch as she is the\nMother of God. For this reason we say that not any kind of _dulia_ is\ndue to her, but _hyperdulia._\n\nReply Obj. 1: The honor due to the king's mother is not equal\nto the honor which is due to the king: but is somewhat like it, by\nreason of a certain excellence on her part. This is what is meant by\nthe authorities quoted.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The honor given to the Mother reflects on her\nSon, because the Mother is to be honored for her Son's sake. But not\nin the same way as honor given to an image reflects on its exemplar:\nbecause the image itself, considered as a thing, is not to be\nvenerated in any way at all.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The cross, considered in itself, is not an\nobject of veneration, as stated above (AA. 4, 5). But the Blessed\nVirgin is in herself an object of veneration. Hence there is no\ncomparison.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 25, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Any Kind of Worship Is Due to the Relics of the Saints?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the relics of the saints are not to\nbe worshiped at all. For we should avoid doing what may be the\noccasion of error. But to worship the relics of the dead seems to\nsavor of the error of the Gentiles, who gave honor to dead men.\nTherefore the relics of the saints are not to be honored.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it seems absurd to venerate what is insensible. But\nthe relics of the saints are insensible. Therefore it is absurd to\nvenerate them.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a dead body is not of the same species as a living\nbody: consequently it does not seem to be identical with it.\nTherefore, after a saint's death, it seems that his body should not\nbe worshiped.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (De Eccles. Dogm. xl): \"We believe\nthat the bodies of the saints, above all the relics of the blessed\nmartyrs, as being the members of Christ, should be worshiped in all\nsincerity\": and further on: \"If anyone holds a contrary opinion, he\nis not accounted a Christian, but a follower of Eunomius and\nVigilantius.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 13): \"If a\nfather's coat or ring, or anything else of that kind, is so much more\ncherished by his children, as love for one's parents is greater, in\nno way are the bodies themselves to be despised, which are much more\nintimately and closely united to us than any garment; for they belong\nto man's very nature.\" It is clear from this that he who has a\ncertain affection for anyone, venerates whatever of his is left after\nhis death, not only his body and the parts thereof, but even external\nthings, such as his clothes, and such like. Now it is manifest that\nwe should show honor to the saints of God, as being members of\nChrist, the children and friends of God, and our intercessors.\nWherefore in memory of them we ought to honor any relics of theirs in\na fitting manner: principally their bodies, which were temples, and\norgans of the Holy Ghost dwelling and operating in them, and are\ndestined to be likened to the body of Christ by the glory of the\nResurrection. Hence God Himself fittingly honors such relics by\nworking miracles at their presence.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This was the argument of Vigilantius, whose words are\nquoted by Jerome in the book he wrote against him (ch. ii) as\nfollows: \"We see something like a pagan rite introduced under pretext\nof religion; they worship with kisses I know not what tiny heap of\ndust in a mean vase surrounded with precious linen.\" To him Jerome\nreplies (Ep. ad Ripar. cix): \"We do not adore, I will not say the\nrelics of the martyrs, but either the sun or the moon or even the\nangels\"--that is to say, with the worship of _latria._ \"But we honor\nthe martyrs' relics, so that thereby we give honor to Him Whose\nmartyrs [*The original meaning of the word 'martyr,' i.e. the Greek\n_martys_ is 'a witness'] they are: we honor the servants, that the\nhonor shown to them may reflect on their Master.\" Consequently, by\nhonoring the martyrs' relics we do not fall into the error of the\nGentiles, who gave the worship of _latria_ to dead men.\n\nReply Obj. 2: We worship that insensible body, not for its own sake,\nbut for the sake of the soul, which was once united thereto, and now\nenjoys God; and for God's sake, whose ministers the saints were.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The dead body of a saint is not identical with that\nwhich the saint had during life, on account of the difference of\nform, viz. the soul: but it is the same by identity of matter, which\nis destined to be reunited to its form.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 26\n\nOF CHRIST AS CALLED THE MEDIATOR OF GOD AND MAN\n(In Two Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider how Christ is called the Mediator of God and\nman, and under this head there are two points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Mediator of God and man?\n\n(2) Whether this belongs to Him by reason of His human nature?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 26, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Is Proper to Christ to Be the Mediator of God and Man?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the\nMediator of God and man. For a priest and a prophet seem to be\nmediators between God and man, according to Deut. 5:5: \"I was the\nmediator and stood between God [Vulg.: 'the Lord'] and you at that\ntime.\" But it is not proper to Christ to be a priest and a prophet.\nNeither, therefore, is it proper to Him to be Mediator.\n\nObj. 2: Further, that which is fitting to angels, both good and bad,\ncannot be said to be proper to Christ. But to be between God and man\nis fitting to the good angels, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). It\nis also fitting to the bad angels--that is, the demons: for they have\nsomething in common with God--namely, _immortality;_ and something\nthey have in common with men--namely, _passibility of soul_ and\nconsequently unhappiness; as appears from what Augustine says (De\nCiv. Dei ix, 13, 15). Therefore it is not proper to Christ to be a\nMediator of God and man.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it belongs to the office of Mediator to beseech one\nof those, between whom he mediates, for the other. But the Holy\nGhost, as it is written (Rom. 8:26), \"asketh\" God \"for us with\nunspeakable groanings.\" Therefore the Holy Ghost is a Mediator\nbetween God and man. Therefore this is not proper to Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Tim. 2:5): \"There is . . . one\nMediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Properly speaking, the office of a mediator is to\njoin together and unite those between whom he mediates: for extremes\nare united in the mean (_medio_). Now to unite men to God\nperfectively belongs to Christ, through Whom men are reconciled to\nGod, according to 2 Cor. 5:19: \"God was in Christ reconciling the\nworld to Himself.\" And, consequently, Christ alone is the perfect\nMediator of God and men, inasmuch as, by His death, He reconciled the\nhuman race to God. Hence the Apostle, after saying, \"Mediator of God\nand man, the man Christ Jesus,\" added: \"Who gave Himself a redemption\nfor all.\"\n\nHowever, nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators,\nin some respect, between God and man, forasmuch as they cooperate in\nuniting men to God, dispositively or ministerially.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The prophets and priests of the Old Law were called\nmediators between God and man, dispositively and ministerially:\ninasmuch as they foretold and foreshadowed the true and perfect\nMediator of God and men. As to the priests of the New Law, they may\nbe called mediators of God and men, inasmuch as they are the\nministers of the true Mediator by administering, in His stead, the\nsaving sacraments to men.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The good angels, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix,\n13), cannot rightly be called mediators between God and men. \"For\nsince, in common with God, they have both beatitude and immortality,\nand none of these things in common with unhappy and mortal man, how\nmuch rather are they not aloof from men and akin to God, than\nestablished between them?\" Dionysius, however, says that they do\noccupy a middle place, because, in the order of nature, they are\nestablished below God and above man. Moreover, they fulfill the\noffice of mediator, not indeed principally and perfectively, but\nministerially and dispositively: whence (Matt. 4:11) it is said that\n\"angels came and ministered unto Him\"--namely, Christ. As to the\ndemons, it is true that they have immortality in common with God, and\nunhappiness in common with men. \"Hence for this purpose does the\nimmortal and unhappy demon intervene, in order that he may hinder men\nfrom passing to a happy immortality,\" and may allure them to an\nunhappy immortality. Whence he is like \"an evil mediator, who\nseparates friends\" [*Augustine, De Civ. Dei xv].\n\nBut Christ had beatitude in common with God, mortality in common with\nmen. Hence \"for this purpose did He intervene, that having fulfilled\nthe span of His mortality, He might from dead men make\nimmortal--which He showed in Himself by rising again; and that He\nmight confer beatitude on those who were deprived of it--for which\nreason He never forsook us.\" Wherefore He is \"the good Mediator, Who\nreconciles enemies\" (De Civ. Dei xv).\n\nReply Obj. 3: Since the Holy Ghost is in everything equal to\nGod, He cannot be said to be between, or a Mediator of, God and men:\nbut Christ alone, Who, though equal to the Father in His Godhead, yet\nis less than the Father in His human nature, as stated above\n(Q. 20, A. 1). Hence on Gal. 3:20, \"Christ is a Mediator [Vulg.:\n'Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one'],\" the gloss says: \"Not\nthe Father nor the Holy Ghost.\" The Holy Ghost, however, is said \"to\nask for us,\" because He makes us ask.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 26, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ, as Man, Is the Mediator of God and Men?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ is not, as man, the Mediator\nof God and men. For Augustine says (Contra Felic. x): \"One is the\nPerson of Christ: lest there be not one Christ, not one substance;\nlest, the office of Mediator being denied, He be called the Son\neither of God alone, or merely the Son of a man.\" But He is the Son\nof God and man, not as man, but as at the same time God and man.\nTherefore neither should we say that, as man alone, He is Mediator of\nGod and man.\n\nObj. 2: Further, just as Christ, as God, has a common nature with the\nFather and the Holy Ghost; so, as man, He has a common nature with\nmen. But for the reason that, as God, He has the same nature as the\nFather and the Holy Ghost, He cannot be called Mediator, as God: for\non 1 Tim. 2:5, \"Mediator of God and man,\" a gloss says: \"As the Word,\nHe is not a Mediator, because He is equal to God, and God 'with God,'\nand at the same time one God.\" Therefore neither, as man, can He be\ncalled Mediator, on account of His having the same nature as men.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ is called Mediator, inasmuch as He reconciled\nus to God: and this He did by taking away sin, which separated us\nfrom God. But to take away sin belongs to Christ, not as man, but as\nGod. Therefore Christ is our Mediator, not as man, but as God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 15): \"Not because\nHe is the Word, is Christ Mediator, since He Who is supremely\nimmortal and supremely happy is far from us unhappy mortals; but He\nis Mediator, as man.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ We may consider two things in a mediator: first,\nthat he is a mean; secondly, that he unites others. Now it is of the\nnature of a mean to be distant from each extreme: while it unites by\ncommunicating to one that which belongs to the other. Now neither of\nthese can be applied to Christ as God, but only as man. For, as God,\nHe does not differ from the Father and the Holy Ghost in nature and\npower of dominion: nor have the Father and the Holy Ghost anything\nthat the Son has not, so that He be able to communicate to others\nsomething belonging to the Father or the Holy Ghost, as though it\nwere belonging to others than Himself. But both can be applied to Him\nas man. Because, as man, He is distant both from God, by nature, and\nfrom man by dignity of both grace and glory. Again, it belongs to\nHim, as man, to unite men to God, by communicating to men both\nprecepts and gifts, and by offering satisfaction and prayers to God\nfor men. And therefore He is most truly called Mediator, as man.\n\nReply Obj. 1: If we take the Divine Nature from Christ, we\nconsequently take from Him the singular fulness of grace, which\nbelongs to Him as the Only-begotten of the Father, as it is written\n(John 1:14). From which fulness it resulted that He was established\nover all men, and approached nearer to God.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ, as God, is in all things equal to the Father.\nBut even in the human nature He is above all men. Therefore, as man,\nHe can be Mediator, but not as God.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although it belongs to Christ as God to take away sin\nauthoritatively, yet it belongs to Him, as man, to satisfy for the\nsin of the human race. And in this sense He is called the Mediator of\nGod and men.\n_______________________\n\nST. THOMAS AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (EDITORIAL NOTE)\n\nThe privilege of the Virgin-Mother of God and the supreme prerogative\nof her Son may be seen from the following diagram:\n\n\nTHE LAW AND COURSE OF ORIGINAL SIN.\n\n\n[The following content was presented in the form of a three-column\ntable in the original.]\n\n[COLUMN 1] UNDER THE LAW.\n\nAll descendants from Adam.\n\nSpring from Adam materially and seminally.\n\nThe body lies (not under the guilt, but) under the effects of\noriginal sin.\n\nThe stricken body dispositively causes the soul to contract the guilt\nof original sin.\n\nThe soul at the moment of union with the body contracts the stain.\n\nAll contract both debt and stain.\n\nAll need a Redeemer to destroy the stain contracted.\n\n\n[COLUMN 2] PARTIALLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; PRIVILEGE OF IMMACULATE\nCONCEPTION.\n\nSpring from Adam materially and seminally.\n\nThe body lies (not under the guilt, but) under the effects of\noriginal sin.\n\nThe stricken body would have dispositively caused the soul to\ncontract the guilt of original sin.\n\nThe soul at the moment of union with the body was prevented by the\ninfusion of grace from contracting the stain.\n\nMary contracted the debt, but not the stain.\n\nMary needed a Redeemer to prevent her from contracting the stain.\n\n\n[COLUMN 3] WHOLLY EXEMPT FROM THE LAW; MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION.\n\nSprings from Adam materially, not seminally. (Q. 31, A. 1)\n\nHis body lay under neither guilt nor effects of original sin.\n\nThe body being entirely free, could not transmit the stain to His\nsoul.\n\nNo preventive grace needed.\n\nJesus Christ contracted neither debt nor stain.\n\nJesus Christ is not redeemed, but the Redeemer.\n\n\nIt will thus be seen how accurately St. Thomas speaks of the \"flesh\"\nor body of our Blessed Lady. For it should be remembered that,\naccording to St. Thomas, the human body is animated in succession by\n(1) a vegetative, (2) a sensitive, and (3) a rational soul. Hence his\nassertion that \"the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was conceived in\noriginal sin\" (Q. 14, A. 3, ad 1) means that the body of the Blessed\nVirgin, being descended from Adam both materially and seminally,\ncontracted the bodily defects which are conveyed by seminal\ngeneration, and are the results of the privation of original justice\n(Q. 69, A. 4, ad 3). Before animation, therefore the body of the\nBlessed Virgin would not be infected with the guilt of original sin,\nbecause privation of grace can only be in that which is the subject\nof grace, viz. the rational soul. Nevertheless, before animation the\nbody of the Blessed Virgin, being seminally descended from Adam, was\nsuch that it would have been the means of transmitting the taint of\noriginal sin to the rational soul at the very first instant of\nanimation, unless the grace of the Redeemer intervened and sanctified\nher soul \"in that self-same instant,\" thus redeeming her and\npreventing her from contracting the guilt of original sin.\n\nWhy, then, does St. Thomas say that because the Blessed Virgin was\nnot sanctified before animation, therefore she could be sanctified\nonly after animation?\n\nSuch a conclusion would hold if it were a question of the order of\nNature: \"a thing must be before it is such (_prius est esse quam esse\ntale_)\"; and therefore the soul must be, before it is sanctified. But\nif St. Thomas held for a posteriority of time, no matter how short,\nwe ask how it was that he did not perceive the fallacy of the\nargument, since it might be neither before nor after, but in the very\ninstant of, animation.\n\nThe question is answered thus: St. Thomas as a Doctor of the Church\nand in matters which were not then _de fide,_ is a witness to the\nexpression of the faith of his time. Hence his line of argument\ncoincides with, because it follows, that of St. Bernard, Peter\nLombard, Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure. It was\nnot likely that St. Thomas would differ from the great masters of his\ntime, who failed to understand that the grace of redemption might at\nthe same time be one of preservation and prevention. Nor is it likely\nthat St. Thomas had any reliable information about the movement* in\nprogress at that time towards a belief in the Immaculate Conception.\n[*Principally in England, where, owing to the influence of St. Anselm\n(1109), the doctrine was maintained by Eadmer (1137). Nicolas of St.\nAlbans (1175), Osbert of Clare (1170), Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of\nLincoln (1253), William of Ware (1300), who was the master of Duns\nScotus (1308)]. No doubt he knew something of it, but the names of its\npromoters would have weighed little with him as against those of\nBernard, Albert, Peter, Alexander, and Bonaventure. And it must not be\nforgotten that among those who upheld the doctrine of the Immaculate\nConception, not a few ascribed the privilege as being absolute and not\none of preservation and Redemption. Hence it is that St. Thomas\ninsists on two things: (1) that the Mother of God was redeemed, and\n(2) that the grace of her sanctification was a grace of preservation.\nAnd, be it remarked in conclusion, these two points, so much insisted\non by St. Thomas, are at the very basis of the Catholic doctrine of\nthe Immaculate Conception.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 27\n\nOF THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN\n(In Six Articles)\n\nAfter the foregoing treatise of the union of God and man and the\nconsequences thereof, it remains for us to consider what things the\nIncarnate Son of God did or suffered in the human nature united to\nHim. This consideration will be fourfold. For we shall consider:\n(1) Those things that relate to His coming into the world; (2) Those\nthings that relate to the course of His life in this world; (3) His\ndeparture from this world; (4) Those things that concern His\nexaltation after this life.\n\nThe first of these offers four points of consideration: (1) The\nConception of Christ; (2) His Birth; (3) His Circumcision; (4) His\nBaptism. Concerning His Conception there are some points to be\nconsidered: (1) As to the Mother who conceived Him; (2) as to the\nmode of His Conception; (3) as to the perfection of the offspring\nconceived.\n\nOn the part of the Mother four points offer themselves to our\nconsideration: (1) Her sanctification. (2) her virginity; (3) her\nespousals; (4) her annunciation, or preparation for conception.\n\nConcerning the first there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, was sanctified before\nher birth from the womb?\n\n(2) Whether she was sanctified before animation?\n\n(3) Whether in virtue of this sanctification the fomes of sin was\nentirely taken away from her?\n\n(4) Whether the result of this sanctification was that she never\nsinned?\n\n(5) Whether in virtue of this sanctification she received the fulness\nof grace?\n\n(6) Whether it was proper to her to be thus sanctified?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Blessed Virgin Was Sanctified Before Her Birth from the\nWomb?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified\nbefore her birth from the womb. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:46):\n\"That was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural;\nafterwards that which is spiritual.\" But by sanctifying grace man is\nborn spiritually into a son of God according to John 1:13: \"(who) are\nborn of God.\" But birth from the womb is a natural birth. Therefore\nthe Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): \"The\nsanctification, by which we become temples of God, is only of those\nwho are born again.\" But no one is born again, who was not born\npreviously. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before\nher birth from the womb.\n\nObj. 3: Further, whoever is sanctified by grace is cleansed from sin,\nboth original and actual. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin was\nsanctified before her birth from the womb, it follows that she was\nthen cleansed from original sin. Now nothing but original sin could\nhinder her from entering the heavenly kingdom. If therefore she had\ndied then, it seems that she would have entered the gates of heaven.\nBut this was not possible before the Passion of Christ, according to\nthe Apostle (Heb. 10:19): \"We have [Vulg.: 'having'] therefore a\nconfidence in the entering into the Holies by His blood.\" It seems\ntherefore that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her birth\nfrom the womb.\n\nObj. 4: Further, original sin is contracted through the origin, just\nas actual sin is contracted through an act. But as long as one is in\nthe act of sinning, one cannot be cleansed from actual sin. Therefore\nneither could the Blessed Virgin be cleansed from original sin as\nlong as she was in the act of origin, by existence in her mother's\nwomb.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Church celebrates the feast of our Lady's\nNativity. Now the Church does not celebrate feasts except of those\nwho are holy. Therefore even in her birth the Blessed Virgin was\nholy. Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.\n\n_I answer that,_ Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures\nconcerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being\nsanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth.\nBut as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin,\nargues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet\nScripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that\nshe was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that\nshe, who brought forth \"the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace\nand truth,\" received greater privileges of grace than all others:\nhence we read (Luke 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words:\n\"Hail full of grace!\"\n\nMoreover, it is to be observed that it was granted, by way of\nprivilege, to others, to be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to\nJeremias, to whom it was said (Jer. 1:5): \"Before thou camest forth\nout of the womb, I sanctified thee\"; and again, to John the Baptist,\nof whom it is written (Luke 1:15): \"He shall be filled with the Holy\nGhost even from his mother's womb.\" It is therefore with reason that\nwe believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her\nbirth from the womb.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Even in the Blessed Virgin, first was that which is\nnatural, and afterwards that which is spiritual: for she was first\nconceived in the flesh, and afterwards sanctified in the spirit.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Augustine speaks according to the common law, by reason\nof which no one is regenerated by the sacraments, save those who are\npreviously born. But God did not so limit His power to the law of the\nsacraments, but that He can bestow His grace, by special privilege,\non some before they are born from the womb.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from\noriginal sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not freed from\nthe guilt to which the whole nature is subject, so as to enter into\nParadise otherwise than through the Sacrifice of Christ; the same\nalso is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Original sin is transmitted through the origin,\ninasmuch as through the origin the human nature is transmitted, and\noriginal sin, properly speaking, affects the nature. And this takes\nplace when the offspring conceived is animated. Wherefore nothing\nhinders the offspring conceived from being sanctified after\nanimation: for after this it remains in the mother's womb not for the\npurpose of receiving human nature, but for a certain perfecting of\nthat which it has already received.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Blessed Virgin Was Sanctified Before Animation?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified\nbefore animation. Because, as we have stated (A. 1), more grace was\nbestowed on the Virgin Mother of God than on any saint. Now it seems\nto have been granted to some, to be sanctified before animation. For\nit is written (Jer. 1:5): \"Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy\nmother, I knew thee\": and the soul is not infused before the\nformation of the body. Likewise Ambrose says of John the Baptist\n(Comment. in Luc. i, 15): \"As yet the spirit of life was not in him\nand already he possessed the Spirit of grace.\" Much more therefore\ncould the Blessed Virgin be sanctified before animation.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as Anselm says (De Concep. Virg. xviii), \"it was\nfitting that this Virgin should shine with such a purity that under\nGod none greater can be imagined\": wherefore it is written (Canticles\n4:7): \"Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in\nthee.\" But the purity of the Blessed Virgin would have been greater,\nif she had never been stained by the contagion of original sin.\nTherefore it was granted to her to be sanctified before her flesh was\nanimated.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as it has been stated above, no feast is celebrated\nexcept of some saint. But some keep the feast of the Conception of\nthe Blessed Virgin. Therefore it seems that in her very Conception\nshe was holy; and hence that she was sanctified before animation.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 11:16): \"If the root be holy,\nso are the branches.\" Now the root of the children is their parents.\nTherefore the Blessed Virgin could be sanctified even in her parents,\nbefore animation.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The things of the Old Testament were figures of\nthe New, according to 1 Cor. 10:11: \"All things happened to them in\nfigure.\" Now the sanctification of the tabernacle, of which it is\nwritten (Ps. 45:5): \"The most High hath sanctified His own\ntabernacle,\" seems to signify the sanctification of the Mother of\nGod, who is called \"God's Tabernacle,\" according to Ps. 18:6: \"He\nhath set His tabernacle in the sun.\" But of the tabernacle it is\nwritten (Ex. 40:31, 32): \"After all things were perfected, the cloud\ncovered the tabernacle of the testimony, and the glory of the Lord\nfilled it.\" Therefore also the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified\nuntil after all in her was perfected, viz. her body and soul.\n\n_I answer that,_ The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be\nunderstood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons.\nFirst, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is\nnothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a\n\"perfect cleansing,\" as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin\ncannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the\nrational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the\nrational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified.\n\nSecondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the\nsubject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the\noffspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever\nmanner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before\nanimation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin:\nand thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is\nby Christ, of whom it is written (Matt. 1:21): \"He shall save His\npeople from their sins.\" But this is unfitting, through implying that\nChrist is not the \"Saviour of all men,\" as He is called (1 Tim.\n4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified\nafter animation.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Lord says that He \"knew\" Jeremias before he was\nformed in the womb, by knowledge, that is to say, of predestination:\nbut He says that He \"sanctified\" him, not before formation, but\nbefore he \"came forth out of the womb,\" etc.\n\nAs to what Ambrose says, viz. that in John the Baptist there was not\nthe spirit of life when there was already the Spirit of grace, by\nspirit of life we are not to understand the life-giving soul, but the\nair which we breathe out (_respiratus_). Or it may be said that in\nhim as yet there was not the spirit of life, that is the soul, as to\nits manifest and complete operations.\n\nReply Obj. 2: If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred\nthe stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of\nChrist, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all.\nConsequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all,\nneeded not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the\nhighest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way\nwhatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke\n1:35: \"The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son\nof God.\" But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but\nwas cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what\nis signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original\nsin: \"Let it expect light,\" i.e. Christ, \"and not see it\"--(because\n\"no defiled thing cometh into her,\" as is written Wis. 7:25), \"nor\nthe rising of the dawning of the day,\" that is of the Blessed Virgin,\nwho in her birth was immune from original sin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the\nConception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of\ncertain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be\nentirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does\nnot give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But\nsince it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her\nSanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on\nthe day of her conception.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Sanctification is twofold. One is that of the whole\nnature: inasmuch as the whole human nature is freed from all\ncorruption of sin and punishment. This will take place at the\nresurrection. The other is personal sanctification. This is not\ntransmitted to the children begotten of the flesh: because it does\nnot regard the flesh but the mind. Consequently, though the parents\nof the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless\nshe contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of\nfleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for\nAugustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): \"All flesh born of carnal\nintercourse is sinful.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Blessed Virgin Was Cleansed from the Infection of the\nFomes?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not cleansed\nfrom the infection of the fomes. For just as the fomes, consisting in\nthe rebellion of the lower powers against the reason, is a punishment\nof original sin; so also are death and other corporeal penalties.\nTherefore the fomes was not entirely removed from her.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (2 Cor. 12:9): \"Power is made perfect\nin infirmity,\" which refers to the weakness of the fomes, by reason\nof which he (the Apostle) felt the \"sting of the flesh.\" But it was\nnot fitting that anything should be taken away from the Blessed\nVirgin, pertaining to the perfection of virtue. Therefore it was\nunfitting that the fomes should be entirely taken away from her.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that \"the Holy\nGhost came upon\" the Blessed Virgin, \"purifying her,\" before she\nconceived the Son of God. But this can only be understood of\npurification from the fomes: for she committed no sin, as Augustine\nsays (De Nat. et Grat. xxvi). Therefore by the sanctification in the\nwomb she was not absolutely cleansed from the fomes.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Canticles 4:7): \"Thou art all fair,\nO my love, and there is not a spot in thee!\" But the fomes implies a\nblemish, at any rate in the flesh. Therefore the fomes was not in the\nBlessed Virgin.\n\n_I answer that,_ on this point there are various opinions. For some\nhave held that the fomes was entirely taken away in that\nsanctification whereby the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb.\nOthers say that it remained as far as it causes a difficulty in doing\ngood, but was taken away as far as it causes a proneness to evil.\nOthers again, that it was taken away as to the personal corruption,\nby which it makes us quick to do evil and slow to do good: but that\nit remained as to the corruption of nature, inasmuch as it is the\ncause of transmitting original sin to the offspring. Lastly, others\nsay that, in her first sanctification, the fomes remained\nessentially, but was fettered; and that, when she conceived the Son\nof God, it was entirely taken away. In order to understand the\nquestion at issue, it must be observed that the fomes is nothing but\na certain inordinate, but habitual, concupiscence of the sensitive\nappetite, for actual concupiscence is a sinful motion. Now sensual\nconcupiscence is said to be inordinate, in so far as it rebels\nagainst reason; and this it does by inclining to evil, or hindering\nfrom good. Consequently it is essential to the fomes to incline to\nevil, or hinder from good. Wherefore to say that the fomes was in the\nBlessed Virgin without an inclination to evil, is to combine two\ncontradictory statements.\n\nIn like manner it seems to imply a contradiction to say that the\nfomes remained as to the corruption of nature, but not as to the\npersonal corruption. For, according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup.\ni.), it is lust that transmits original sin to the offspring. Now\nlust implies inordinate concupiscence, not entirely subject to\nreason: and therefore, if the fomes were entirely taken away as to\npersonal corruption, it could not remain as to the corruption of\nnature.\n\nIt remains, therefore, for us to say, either that the fomes was\nentirely taken away from her by her first sanctification or that it\nwas fettered. Now that the fomes was entirely taken away, might be\nunderstood in this way, that, by the abundance of grace bestowed on\nthe Blessed Virgin, such a disposition of the soul's powers was\ngranted to her, that the lower powers were never moved without the\ncommand of her reason: just as we have stated to have been the case\nwith Christ (Q. 15, A. 2), who certainly did not have the fomes of\nsin; as also was the case with Adam, before he sinned, by reason of\noriginal justice: so that, in this respect, the grace of\nsanctification in the Virgin had the force of original justice. And\nalthough this appears to be part of the dignity of the Virgin Mother,\nyet it is somewhat derogatory to the dignity of Christ, without whose\npower no one had been freed from the first sentence of condemnation.\nAnd though, through faith in Christ, some were freed from that\ncondemnation, according to the spirit, before Christ's Incarnation,\nyet it does not seem fitting that any one should be freed from that\ncondemnation, according to the flesh, except after His Incarnation,\nfor it was then that immunity from condemnation was first to appear.\nConsequently, just as before the immortality of the flesh of Christ\nrising again, none obtained immortality of the flesh, so it seems\nunfitting to say that before Christ appeared in sinless flesh, His\nVirgin Mother's or anyone else's flesh should be without the fomes,\nwhich is called \"the law of the flesh\" or \"of the members\" (Rom.\n7:23, 25).\n\nTherefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification in the\nwomb, the Virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence, but\nthat it remained fettered: not indeed by an act of her reason, as in\nholy men, since she had not the use of reason from the very first\nmoment of her existence in her mother's womb, for this was the\nsingular privilege of Christ: but by reason of the abundant grace\nbestowed on her in her sanctification, and still more perfectly by\nDivine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular\nmanner, from any inordinate movement. Afterwards, however, at the\nconception of Christ's flesh, in which for the first time immunity\nfrom sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire\nfreedom from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother. This\nindeed is signified (Ezech. 43:2): \"Behold the glory of the God of\nIsrael came in by the way of the east,\" i.e. by the Blessed Virgin,\n\"and the earth,\" i.e. her flesh, \"shone with His,\" i.e. Christ's,\n\"majesty.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Death and such like penalties do not of themselves\nincline us to sin. Wherefore though Christ assumed them, He did not\nassume the fomes. Consequently in order that the Blessed Virgin might\nbe conformed to her Son, from \"whose fulness\" her grace was derived,\nthe fomes was at first fettered and afterwards taken away: while she\nwas not freed from death and other such penalties.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The \"infirmity\" of the flesh, that pertains to the\nfomes, is indeed to holy men an occasional cause of perfect virtue:\nbut not the \"sine qua non\" of perfection: and it is quite enough to\nascribe to the Blessed Virgin perfect virtue and abundant grace: nor\nis there any need to attribute to her every occasional cause of\nperfection.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Holy Ghost effected a twofold purification\nin the Blessed Virgin. The first was, as it were, preparatory to\nChrist's conception: which did not cleanse her from the stain of sin\nor fomes, but rather gave her mind a unity of purpose and disengaged\nit from a multiplicity of things (Cf. Dionysius, Div. Nom. iv), since\neven the angels are said to be purified, in whom there is no stain, as\nDionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi). The second purification effected in\nher by the Holy Ghost was by means of the conception of Christ which\nwas the operation of the Holy Ghost. And in respect of this, it may be\nsaid that He purified her entirely from the fomes.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 4]\n\nWhether by Being Sanctified in the Womb the Blessed Virgin Was\nPreserved from All Actual Sin?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that by being sanctified in the womb the\nBlessed Virgin was not preserved from all actual sin. For, as we have\nalready stated (A. 3), after her first sanctification the fomes\nremained in the Virgin. Now the motion of the fomes, even if it\nprecede the act of the reason, is a venial sin, albeit extremely\nslight, as Augustine says in his work De Trinitate [*Cf. Sent. ii, D,\n24]. Therefore there was some venial sin in the Blessed Virgin.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test. lxxiii on Luke\n2:35: \"Thy own soul a sword shall pierce\") says that the Blessed\nVirgin \"was troubled with wondering doubt at the death of our Lord.\"\nBut doubt in matters of faith is a sin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin\nwas not preserved from all actual sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Chrysostom (Hom. xlv in Matth.) expounding the text:\n\"Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee,\"\nsays: \"It is clear that they did this from mere vain glory.\" Again,\non John 2:3: \"They have no wine,\" the same Chrysostom says that \"she\nwished to do them a favor, and raise herself in their esteem, by\nmeans of her Son: and perchance she succumbed to human frailty, just\nas did His brethren when they said: 'Manifest Thyself to the world.'\"\nAnd a little further on he says: \"For as yet she did not believe in\nHim as she ought.\" Now it is quite clear that all this was sinful.\nTherefore the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from all sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxxvi): \"In the\nmatter of sin, it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions\nconcerning the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor due to\nChrist. For since she conceived and brought forth Him who most\ncertainly was guilty of no sin, we know that an abundance of grace\nwas given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses\nfor some particular office, that they are rendered capable of\nfulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: \"(Who) hath made us fit\nministers of the New Testament.\" Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by\nGod to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by\nHis grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words\nspoken to her by the angel (Luke 1:30, 31): \"Thou hast found grace\nwith God: behold thou shalt conceive,\" etc. But she would not have\nbeen worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First,\nbecause the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to\nProv. 17:6: \"The glory of children are their fathers\": and\nconsequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have\nreflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity\nbetween her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (\n2 Cor. 6:15): \"What concord hath Christ with Belial?\" Thirdly,\nbecause of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the\n\"Divine Wisdom\" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but\nin her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): \"Wisdom will not enter\ninto a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.\"\n\nWe must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no\nactual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant\n4:7) is fulfilled: \"Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a\nspot in thee,\" etc.\n\nReply Obj. 1: After her sanctification the fomes remained in the\nBlessed Virgin, but fettered; lest she should be surprised by some\nsudden inordinate act, antecedent to the act of reason. And although\nthe grace of her sanctification contributed to this effect, yet it\ndid not suffice; for otherwise the result of her sanctification would\nhave been to render impossible in her any sensual movement not\npreceded by an act of reason, and thus she would not have had the\nfomes, which is contrary to what we have said above (A. 3). We must\ntherefore say that the above mentioned fettering (of the fomes) was\nperfected by divine providence not permitting any inordinate motion\nto result from the fomes.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Origen (Hom. xvii in Luc.) and certain other doctors\nexpound these words of Simeon as referring to the sorrow which she\nsuffered at the time of our Lord's Passion. Ambrose (in Luc. 2:35)\nsays that the sword signifies \"Mary's prudence which took note of the\nheavenly mystery. For the word of God is living and effectual, and\nmore piercing than any two-edged sword\" (Heb. 4:12).\n\nOthers again take the sword to signify doubt. But this is to be\nunderstood of the doubt, not of unbelief, but of wonder and\ndiscussion. Thus Basil says (Ep. ad Optim.) that \"the Blessed Virgin\nwhile standing by the cross, and observing every detail, after the\nmessage of Gabriel, and the ineffable knowledge of the Divine\nConception, after that wondrous manifestation of miracles, was\ntroubled in mind\": that is to say, on the one side seeing Him suffer\nsuch humiliation, and on the other considering His marvelous works.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In those words Chrysostom goes too far. They may,\nhowever, be explained as meaning that our Lord corrected in her, not\nthe inordinate motion of vain glory in regard to herself, but that\nwhich might be in the thoughts of others.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 5]\n\nWhether, by Her Sanctification in the Womb, the Blessed Virgin\nReceived the Fulness of Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that, by her sanctification in the womb,\nthe Blessed Virgin did not receive the fulness or perfection of\ngrace. For this seems to be Christ's privilege, according to John\n1:14: \"We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] as the Only-Begotten [Vulg.:\n'as it were of the Only-Begotten'] full of grace and truth.\" But what\nis proper to Christ ought not to be ascribed to some one else.\nTherefore the Blessed Virgin did not receive the fulness of grace at\nthe time of her sanctification.\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing remains to be added to that which is full\nand perfect: for \"the perfect is that which lacks nothing,\" as is\nsaid _Phys._ iii. But the Blessed Virgin received additional grace\nafterwards when she conceived Christ; for to her was it said (Luke\n1:35): \"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee: and again, when she was\nassumed into glory.\" Therefore it seems that she did not receive the\nfulness of grace at the time of her first sanctification.\n\nObj. 3: Further, \"God does nothing useless,\" as is said _De Coelo et\nMundo_ i. But it would have been useless for her to have certain\ngraces, for she would never have put them to use: since we do not\nread that she taught which is the act of wisdom; or that she worked\nmiracles, which is the act of one of the gratuitous graces. Therefore\nshe had not the fulness of grace.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The angel said to her: \"Hail, full of grace\" (Luke\n1:28); which words Jerome expounds as follows, in a sermon on the\nAssumption (cf. Ep. ad Paul. et Eustoch.): \"Full indeed of grace: for\nto others it is given in portions; whereas on Mary the fulness of\ngrace was showered all at once.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ In every genus, the nearer a thing is to the\nprinciple, the greater the part which it has in the effect of that\nprinciple, whence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that angels, being\nnearer to God, have a greater share than men, in the effects of the\nDivine goodness. Now Christ is the principle of grace,\nauthoritatively as to His Godhead, instrumentally as to His humanity:\nwhence (John 1:17) it is written: \"Grace and truth came by Jesus\nChrist.\" But the Blessed Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in His\nhumanity: because He received His human nature from her. Therefore it\nwas due to her to receive a greater fulness of grace than others.\n\nReply Obj. 1: God gives to each one according to the purpose for\nwhich He has chosen him. And since Christ as man was predestinated\nand chosen to be \"predestinated the Son of God in power . . . of\nsanctification\" (Rom. 1:4), it was proper to Him to have such a\nfulness of grace that it overflowed from Him into all, according to\nJohn 1:16: \"Of His fulness we have all received.\" Whereas the Blessed\nVirgin Mary received such a fulness of grace that she was nearest of\nall to the Author of grace; so that she received within her Him Who\nis full of all grace; and by bringing Him forth, she, in a manner,\ndispensed grace to all.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In natural things at first there is perfection of\ndisposition, for instance when matter is perfectly disposed for the\nform. Secondly, there is the perfection of the form; and this is the\nmore excellent, for the heat that proceeds from the form of fire is\nmore perfect than that which disposed to the form of fire. Thirdly,\nthere is the perfection of the end: for instance when fire has its\nqualities in the most perfect degree, having mounted to its own place.\n\nIn like manner there was a threefold perfection of grace in the\nBlessed Virgin. The first was a kind of disposition, by which she was\nmade worthy to be the mother of Christ: and this was the perfection\nof her sanctification. The second perfection of grace in the Blessed\nVirgin was through the presence of the Son of God Incarnate in her\nwomb. The third perfection of the end is that which she has in glory.\n\nThat the second perfection excels the first, and the third the\nsecond, appears (1) from the point of view of deliverance from evil.\nFor at first in her sanctification she was delivered from original\nsin: afterwards, in the conception of the Son of God, she was\nentirely cleansed from the fomes: lastly, in her glorification she\nwas also delivered from all affliction whatever. It appears (2) from\nthe point of view of ordering to good. For at first in her\nsanctification she received grace inclining her to good: in the\nconception of the Son of God she received consummate grace confirming\nher in good; and in her glorification her grace was further\nconsummated so as to perfect her in the enjoyment of all good.\n\nReply Obj. 3: There is no doubt that the Blessed Virgin received in a\nhigh degree both the gift of wisdom and the grace of miracles and\neven of prophecy, just as Christ had them. But she did not so receive\nthem, as to put them and such like graces to every use, as did\nChrist: but accordingly as it befitted her condition of life. For she\nhad the use of wisdom in contemplation, according to Luke 2:19: \"But\nMary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart.\" But she had\nnot the use of wisdom as to teaching: since this befitted not the\nfemale sex, according to 1 Tim. 2:12: \"But I suffer not a woman to\nteach.\" The use of miracles did not become her while she lived:\nbecause at that time the Teaching of Christ was to be confirmed by\nmiracles, and therefore it was befitting that Christ alone, and His\ndisciples who were the bearers of His doctrine, should work miracles.\nHence of John the Baptist it is written (John 10:41) that he \"did no\nsign\"; that is, in order that all might fix their attention on\nChrist. As to the use of prophecy, it is clear that she had it, from\nthe canticle spoken by her: \"My soul doth magnify the Lord\" (Luke\n1:46, etc.).\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 27, Art. 6]\n\nWhether After Christ, It Was Proper to the Blessed Virgin to Be\nSanctified in the Womb?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was proper for the Blessed Virgin,\nafter Christ, to be sanctified in the womb. For it has been said (A.\n4) that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb, in order that\nshe might be worthy to be the mother of God. But this is proper to\nher. Therefore she alone was sanctified in the womb.\n\nObj. 2: Further, some men seem to have been more closely connected\nwith Christ than Jeremias and John the Baptist, who are said to have\nbeen sanctified in the womb. For Christ is specially called the Son\nof David and of Abraham, by reason of the promise specially made to\nthem concerning Christ. Isaias also prophesied of Christ in the most\nexpress terms. And the apostles were in converse with Christ Himself.\nAnd yet these are not mentioned as having been sanctified in the\nwomb. Therefore it was not befitting that either Jeremias or John the\nBaptist should be sanctified in the womb.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Job says of himself (Job 31:18): \"From my infancy\nmercy grew up with me; and it came out with me from [my mother's]\nwomb.\" Nevertheless we do not for this reason say that he was\nsanctified in the womb. Neither therefore are we bound to say that\nJeremias and John the Baptist were sanctified in the womb.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written of Jeremias (Jer. 1:5): \"Before thou\ncamest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.\" And of John the\nBaptist it is written (Luke 1:15): \"He shall be filled with the Holy\nGhost, even from his mother's womb.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Augustine (Ep. ad Dardan.) seems to speak dubiously\nof their (Jeremias' and John the Baptist's) sanctification in the\nwomb. For the leaping of John in the womb \"might,\" as he says,\n\"signify the great truth,\" viz. that the woman was the mother of God,\n\"which was to be made known to his elders, though as yet unknown to\nthe infant. Hence in the Gospel it is written, not that the infant in\nher womb believed, but that it 'leaped': and our eyes are witness\nthat not only infants leap but also cattle. But this was unwonted\nbecause it was in the womb. And therefore, just as other miracles are\nwont to be done, this was done divinely, in the infant; not humanly\nby the infant. Perhaps also in this child the use of reason and will\nwas so far accelerated that while yet in his mother's womb he was\nable to acknowledge, believe, and consent, whereas in other children\nwe have to wait for these things till they grow older: this again I\ncount as a miraculous result of the divine power.\"\n\nBut since it is expressly said (of John) in the Gospel that \"he shall\nbe filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb\"; and of\nJeremias, \"Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified\nthee\"; it seems that we must needs assert that they were sanctified\nin the womb, although, while in the womb, they had not the use of\nreason (which is the point discussed by Augustine); just as neither\ndo children enjoy the use of free will as soon as they are sanctified\nby baptism.\n\nNor are we to believe that any others, not mentioned by Scripture,\nwere sanctified in the womb. For such privileges of grace, which are\nbestowed on some, outside the common law, are ordered for the\nsalvation of others, according to 1 Cor. 12:7: \"The manifestation of\nthe Spirit is given to every man unto profit,\" which would not result\nfrom the sanctification of anyone unless it were made known to the\nChurch.\n\nAnd although it is not possible to assign a reason for God's\njudgments, for instance, why He bestows such a grace on one and not\non another, yet there seems to be a certain fittingness in both of\nthese being sanctified in the womb, by their foreshadowing the\nsanctification which was to be effected through Christ. First, as to\nHis Passion, according to Heb. 13:12: \"Jesus, that He might sanctify\nthe people by His own blood, suffered without the gate\": which\nPassion Jeremias foretold openly by words and by symbols, and most\nclearly foreshadowed by his own sufferings. Secondly, as to His\nBaptism (1 Cor. 6:11): \"But you are washed, but you are sanctified\";\nto which Baptism John prepared men by his baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The blessed Virgin, who was chosen by God to be His\nMother, received a fuller grace of sanctification than John the\nBaptist and Jeremias, who were chosen to foreshadow in a special way\nthe sanctification effected by Christ. A sign of this is that it was\ngranted to the Blessed Virgin thenceforward never to sin either\nmortally or venially: whereas to the others who were thus sanctified\nit was granted thenceforward not to sin mortally, through the\nprotection of God's grace.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In other respects these saints might be more closely\nunited to Christ than Jeremias and John the Baptist. But the latter\nwere most closely united to Him by clearly foreshadowing His\nsanctification, as explained above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The mercy of which Job speaks is not the infused\nvirtue; but a certain natural inclination to the act of that virtue.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 28\n\nOF THE VIRGINITY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe now have to consider the virginity of the Mother of God;\nconcerning which there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether she was a virgin in conceiving?\n\n(2) Whether she was a virgin in His Birth?\n\n(3) Whether she remained a virgin after His Birth?\n\n(4) Whether she took a vow of virginity?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 28, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Mother of God Was a Virgin in Conceiving Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God was not a virgin in\nconceiving Christ. For no child having father and mother is conceived\nby a virgin mother. But Christ is said to have had not only a mother,\nbut also a father, according to Luke 2:33: \"His father and mother\nwere wondering at those things which were spoken concerning Him\": and\nfurther on (Luke 2:48) in the same chapter she says: \"Behold I and\nThy father [Vulg.: 'Thy father and I'] have sought Thee sorrowing.\"\nTherefore Christ was not conceived of a virgin mother.\n\nObj. 2: Further (Matt. 1) it is proved that Christ was the Son of\nAbraham and David, through Joseph being descended from David. But\nthis proof would have availed nothing if Joseph were not the father\nof Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ's Mother conceived Him of\nthe seed of Joseph; and consequently that she was not a virgin in\nconceiving Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Gal. 4:4): \"God sent His Son, made of\na woman.\" But according to the customary mode of speaking, the term\n\"woman\" applies to one who is known of a man. Therefore Christ was\nnot conceived by a virgin mother.\n\nObj. 4: Further, things of the same species have the same mode of\ngeneration: since generation is specified by its terminus just as are\nother motions. But Christ belonged to the same species as other men,\naccording to Phil. 2:7: \"Being made in the likeness of men, and in\nhabit found as a man.\" Since therefore other men are begotten of the\nmingling of male and female, it seems that Christ was begotten in the\nsame manner; and that consequently He was not conceived of a virgin\nmother.\n\nObj. 5: Further, every natural form has its determinate matter,\noutside which it cannot be. But the matter of human form appears to\nbe the semen of male and female. If therefore Christ's body was not\nconceived of the semen of male and female, it would not have been\ntruly a human body; which cannot be asserted. It seems therefore that\nHe was not conceived of a virgin mother.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 7:14): \"Behold a virgin shall\nconceive.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ We must confess simply that the Mother of Christ was\na virgin in conceiving for to deny this belongs to the heresy of the\nEbionites and Cerinthus, who held Christ to be a mere man, and\nmaintained that He was born of both sexes.\n\nIt is fitting for four reasons that Christ should be born of a\nvirgin. First, in order to maintain the dignity or the Father Who\nsent Him. For since Christ is the true and natural Son of God, it was\nnot fitting that He should have another father than God: lest the\ndignity belonging to God be transferred to another.\n\nSecondly, this was befitting to a property of the Son Himself, Who is\nsent. For He is the Word of God: and the word is conceived without\nany interior corruption: indeed, interior corruption is incompatible\nwith perfect conception of the word. Since therefore flesh was so\nassumed by the Word of God, as to be the flesh of the Word of God, it\nwas fitting that it also should be conceived without corruption of\nthe mother.\n\nThirdly, this was befitting to the dignity of Christ's humanity in\nwhich there could be no sin, since by it the sin of the world was\ntaken away, according to John 1:29: \"Behold the Lamb of God\" (i.e.\nthe Lamb without stain) \"who taketh away the sin of the world.\" Now\nit was not possible in a nature already corrupt, for flesh to be born\nfrom sexual intercourse without incurring the infection of original\nsin. Whence Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): \"In that union,\"\nviz. the marriage of Mary and Joseph, \"the nuptial intercourse alone\nwas lacking: because in sinful flesh this could not be without\nfleshly concupiscence which arises from sin, and without which He\nwished to be conceived, Who was to be without sin.\"\n\nFourthly, on account of the very end of the Incarnation of Christ,\nwhich was that men might be born again as sons of God, \"not of the\nwill of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God\" (John 1:13),\ni.e. of the power of God, of which fact the very conception of Christ\nwas to appear as an exemplar. Whence Augustine says (De Sanct.\nVirg.): \"It behooved that our Head, by a notable miracle, should be\nborn, after the flesh, of a virgin, that He might thereby signify\nthat His members would be born, after the Spirit, of a virgin Church.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Bede says on Luke 1:33: Joseph is called the father\nof the Saviour, not that he really was His father, as the Photinians\npretended: but that he was considered by men to be so, for the\nsafeguarding of Mary's good name. Wherefore Luke adds (Luke 3:23):\n\"Being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph.\"\n\nOr, according to Augustine (De Cons. Evang. ii), Joseph is called the\nfather of Christ just as \"he is called the husband of Mary, without\nfleshly mingling, by the mere bond of marriage: being thereby united\nto Him much more closely than if he were adopted from another family.\nConsequently that Christ was not begotten of Joseph by fleshly union\nis no reason why Joseph should not be called His father; since he\nwould be the father even of an adopted son not born of his wife.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Jerome says on Matt. 1:18: \"Though Joseph was not\nthe father of our Lord and Saviour, the order of His genealogy is\ntraced down to Joseph\"--first, because \"the Scriptures are not wont\nto trace the female line in genealogies\": secondly, \"Mary and Joseph\nwere of the same tribe\"; wherefore by law he was bound to take her as\nbeing of his kin. Likewise, as Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i),\n\"it was befitting to trace the genealogy down to Joseph, lest in that\nmarriage any slight should be offered to the male sex, which is\nindeed the stronger: for truth suffered nothing thereby, since both\nJoseph and Mary were of the family of David.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As the gloss says on this passage, the word \"_mulier_\nis here used instead of _femina,_ according to the custom of the\nHebrew tongue: which applies the term signifying woman to those of\nthe female sex who are virgins.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: This argument is true of those things which come into\nexistence by the way of nature: since nature, just as it is fixed to\none particular effect, so it is determinate to one mode of producing\nthat effect. But as the supernatural power of God extends to the\ninfinite: just as it is not determinate to one effect, so neither is\nit determinate to one mode of producing any effect whatever.\nConsequently, just as it was possible for the first man to be\nproduced, by the Divine power, \"from the slime of the earth,\" so too\nwas it possible for Christ's body to be made, by Divine power, from a\nvirgin without the seed of the male.\n\nReply Obj. 5: According to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i, ii,\niv), in conception the seed of the male is not by way of matter, but\nby way of agent: and the female alone supplies the matter. Wherefore\nthough the seed of the male was lacking in Christ's conception, it\ndoes not follow that due matter was lacking.\n\nBut if the seed of the male were the matter of the fetus in animal\nconception, it is nevertheless manifest that it is not a matter\nremaining under one form, but subject to transformation. And though\nthe natural power cannot transmute other than determinate matter to a\ndeterminate form; nevertheless the Divine power, which is infinite,\ncan transmute all matter to any form whatsoever. Consequently, just\nas it transmuted the slime of the earth into Adam's body, so could it\ntransmute the matter supplied by His Mother into Christ's body, even\nthough it were not the sufficient matter for a natural conception.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 28, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ's Mother Was a Virgin in His Birth?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Mother was not a virgin in\nHis Birth. For Ambrose says on Luke 2:23: \"He who sanctified a\nstrange womb, for the birth of a prophet, He it is who opened His\nMother's womb, that He might go forth unspotted.\" But opening of the\nwomb excludes virginity. Therefore Christ's Mother was not a virgin\nin His Birth.\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing should have taken place in the mystery of\nChrist, which would make His body to seem unreal. Now it seems to\npertain not to a true but to an unreal body, to be able to go through\na closed passage; since two bodies cannot be in one place at the same\ntime. It was therefore unfitting that Christ's body should come forth\nfrom His Mother's closed womb: and consequently that she should\nremain a virgin in giving birth to Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Gregory says in the Homily for the octave of\nEaster [*xxvi in Evang.], that by entering after His Resurrection\nwhere the disciples were gathered, the doors being shut, our Lord\n\"showed that His body was the same in nature but differed in glory\":\nso that it seems that to go through a closed passage pertains to a\nglorified body. But Christ's body was not glorified in its\nconception, but was passible, having \"the likeness of sinful flesh,\"\nas the Apostle says (Rom. 8:3). Therefore He did not come forth\nthrough the closed womb of the Virgin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ In a sermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. III,\nCap. ix) it is said: \"After giving birth, nature knows not a virgin:\nbut grace enhances her fruitfulness, and effects her motherhood,\nwhile in no way does it injure her virginity.\" Therefore Christ's\nMother was a virgin also in giving birth to Him.\n\n_I answer that,_ Without any doubt whatever we must assert that the\nMother of Christ was a virgin even in His Birth: for the prophet says\nnot only: \"Behold a virgin shall conceive,\" but adds: \"and shall bear\na son.\" This indeed was befitting for three reasons. First, because\nthis was in keeping with a property of Him whose Birth is in\nquestion, for He is the Word of God. For the word is not only\nconceived in the mind without corruption, but also proceeds from the\nmind without corruption. Wherefore in order to show that body to be\nthe body of the very Word of God, it was fitting that it should be\nborn of a virgin incorrupt. Whence in the sermon of the Council of\nEphesus (quoted above) we read: \"Whosoever brings forth mere flesh,\nceases to be a virgin. But since she gave birth to the Word made\nflesh, God safeguarded her virginity so as to manifest His Word, by\nwhich Word He thus manifested Himself: for neither does our word,\nwhen brought forth, corrupt the mind; nor does God, the substantial\nWord, deigning to be born, destroy virginity.\"\n\nSecondly, this is fitting as regards the effect of Christ's\nIncarnation: since He came for this purpose, that He might take away\nour corruption. Wherefore it is unfitting that in His Birth He should\ncorrupt His Mother's virginity. Thus Augustine says in a sermon on\nthe Nativity of Our Lord: \"It was not right that He who came to heal\ncorruption, should by His advent violate integrity.\"\n\nThirdly, it was fitting that He Who commanded us to honor our father\nand mother should not in His Birth lessen the honor due to His Mother.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Ambrose says this in expounding the evangelist's\nquotation from the Law: \"Every male opening the womb shall be called\nholy to the Lord.\" This, says Bede, \"is said in regard to the wonted\nmanner of birth; not that we are to believe that our Lord in coming\nforth violated the abode of her sacred womb, which His entrance\ntherein had hallowed.\" Wherefore the opening here spoken of does not\nimply the unlocking of the enclosure of virginal purity; but the mere\ncoming forth of the infant from the maternal womb.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ wished so to show the reality of His body, as to\nmanifest His Godhead at the same time. For this reason He mingled\nwondrous with lowly things. Wherefore, to show that His body was\nreal, He was born of a woman. But in order to manifest His Godhead,\nHe was born of a virgin, for \"such a Birth befits a God,\" as Ambrose\nsays in the Christmas hymn.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Some have held that Christ, in His Birth, assumed the\ngift of \"subtlety,\" when He came forth from the closed womb of a\nvirgin; and that He assumed the gift of \"agility\" when with dry feet\nHe walked on the sea. But this is not consistent with what has been\ndecided above (Q. 14). For these gifts of a glorified body result\nfrom an overflow of the soul's glory on to the body, as we shall\nexplain further on, in treating of glorified bodies (Suppl., Q. 82):\nand it has been said above (Q. 13, A. 3, ad 1; Q. 16, A. 1, ad 2)\nthat before His Passion Christ \"allowed His flesh to do and to suffer\nwhat was proper to it\" (Damascene, De Fide Orth. iii): nor was there\nsuch an overflow of glory from His soul on to His body.\n\nWe must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously\nby Divine power. Whence Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. 121): \"To\nthe substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no\nobstacle. For truly He had power to enter in by doors not open, in\nWhose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate.\" And Dionysius\nsays in an epistle (Ad Caium iv) that \"Christ excelled man in doing\nthat which is proper to man: this is shown in His supernatural\nconception, of a virgin, and in the unstable waters bearing the\nweight of earthly feet.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 28, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ's Mother Remained a Virgin After His Birth?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Mother did not remain a\nvirgin after His Birth. For it is written (Matt. 1:18): \"Before\nJoseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy\nGhost.\" Now the Evangelist would not have said this--\"before they\ncame together\"--unless he were certain of their subsequent coming\ntogether; for no one says of one who does not eventually dine \"before\nhe dines\" (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.). It seems, therefore, that the\nBlessed Virgin subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and\nconsequently that she did not remain a virgin after (Christ's) Birth.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in the same passage (Matt. 1:20) are related the\nwords of the angel to Joseph: \"Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy\nwife.\" But marriage is consummated by carnal intercourse. Therefore\nit seems that this must have at some time taken place between Mary\nand Joseph: and that, consequently she did not remain a virgin after\n(Christ's) Birth.\n\nObj. 3: Further, again in the same passage a little further on (Matt.\n1:24, 25) we read: \"And\" (Joseph) \"took unto him his wife; and he\nknew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son.\" Now this\nconjunction \"till\" is wont to designate a fixed time, on the\ncompletion of which that takes place which previously had not taken\nplace. And the verb \"knew\" refers here to knowledge by intercourse\n(cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.); just as (Gen. 4:1) it is said that\n\"Adam knew his wife.\" Therefore it seems that after (Christ's) Birth,\nthe Blessed Virgin was known by Joseph; and, consequently, that she\ndid not remain a virgin after the Birth (of Christ).\n\nObj. 4: Further, \"first-born\" can only be said of one who has\nbrothers afterwards: wherefore (Rom. 8:29): \"Whom He foreknew, He\nalso predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son;\nthat He might be the first-born among many brethren.\" But the\nevangelist calls Christ the first-born by His Mother. Therefore she\nhad other children after Christ. And therefore it seems that Christ's\nMother did not remain a virgin after His Birth.\n\nObj. 5: Further, it is written (John 2:12): \"After this He went down\nto Capharnaum, He\"--that is, Christ--\"and His Mother and His\nbrethren.\" But brethren are those who are begotten of the same\nparent. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin had other sons\nafter Christ.\n\nObj. 6: Further, it is written (Matt. 27:55, 56): \"There were\nthere\"--that is, by the cross of Christ--\"many women afar off, who\nhad followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him; among whom was\nMary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the\nmother of the sons of Zebedee.\" Now this Mary who is called \"the\nmother of James and Joseph\" seems to have been also the Mother of\nChrist; for it is written (John 19:25) that \"there stood by the cross\nof Jesus, Mary His Mother.\" Therefore it seems that Christ's Mother\ndid not remain a virgin after His Birth.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 44:2): \"This gate shall be\nshut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it;\nbecause the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it.\" Expounding\nthese words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): \"What\nmeans this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is\nto be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass\nthrough it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is\nthis--'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the\nHoly Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be\nborn of her? And what means this--'it shall be shut for\nevermore'--but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in\nHis Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of\nHelvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth,\nwas carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the\nfirst place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is\nin His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in\nevery respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the\nOnly-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.\n\nSecondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose \"shrine\"\nwas the virginal womb [*\"Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti\" (Office of B. M.\nV., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.)], wherein He had formed the flesh of\nChrist: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by\nintercourse with man.\n\nThirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's\nMother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not\ncontent with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal\nintercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously\npreserved in her.\n\nFourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme\npresumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her\nwhom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy\nGhost.\n\nWe must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a\nvirgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she\nremain a virgin ever afterwards.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): \"Although this\nparticle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must\nobserve that it not infrequently points merely to some thing\npreviously in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind\ntake place eventually, since something may occur to prevent its\nhappening. Thus if a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I set\nsail,' we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set\nsail: but that his mind was set on dining in port.\" In like manner\nthe evangelist says: \"Before they came together\" Mary \"was found with\nchild, of the Holy Ghost,\" not that they came together afterwards:\nbut that, when it seemed that they would come together, this was\nforestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the result\nbeing that afterwards they did not come together.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): \"The Mother\nof God is called (Joseph's) wife from the first promise of her\nespousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal\nintercourse.\" For, as Ambrose says on Luke 1:27: \"The fact of her\nmarriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to\nwitness to the reality of the union.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Some have said that this is not to be understood of\ncarnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom says [*Opus\nImperf. in Matth., Hom. 1: among the spurious works ascribed to\nChrysostom] that \"Joseph did not know her, until she gave birth,\nbeing unaware of her dignity: but after she had given birth, then did\nhe know her. Because by reason of her child she surpassed the whole\nworld in beauty and dignity: since she alone in the narrow abode of\nher womb received Him Whom the world cannot contain.\"\n\nOthers again refer this to knowledge by sight. For as, while Moses\nwas speaking with God, his face was so bright \"that the children of\nIsrael could not steadfastly behold it\"; so Mary, while being\n\"overshadowed\" by the brightness of the \"power of the Most High,\"\ncould not be gazed on by Joseph, until she gave birth. But afterwards\nshe is acknowledged by Joseph, by looking on her face, not by lustful\ncontact.\n\nJerome, however, grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by\nintercourse; but he observes that \"before\" or \"until\" has a twofold\nsense in Scripture. For sometimes it indicates a fixed time, as Gal.\n3:19: The law \"was set because of transgressions, until the seed\nshould come, to whom He made the promise.\" On the other hand, it\nsometimes indicates an indefinite time, as in Ps. 122:2: \"Our eyes\nare unto the Lord our God, until He have mercy on us\"; from which it\nis not to be gathered that our eyes are turned from God as soon as\nHis mercy has been obtained. In this sense those things are indicated\n\"of which we might doubt if they had not been written down: while\nothers are left out to be supplied by our understanding. Thus the\nevangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband\nuntil she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still\nless did he know her afterwards\" (Adversus Helvid. v).\n\nReply Obj. 4: The Scriptures are wont to designate as the first-born,\nnot only a child who is followed by others, but also the one that is\nborn first. \"Otherwise, if a child were not first-born unless\nfollowed by others, the first-fruits would not be due as long as\nthere was no further produce\" [*Jerome, Adversus Helvid. x]: which is\nclearly false, since according to the law the first-fruits had to be\nredeemed within a month (Num. 18:16).\n\nReply Obj. 5: Some, as Jerome says on Matt. 12:49, 50, \"suppose that\nthe brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we\nunderstand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but\ncousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister.\" For\n\"Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are\nunited by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same\nfamily, by common affection.\" Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are\nso called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by\nrelationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome\nsays (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a\nvirgin, \"since he is not said to have had another wife,\" and \"a holy\nman does not live otherwise than chastely.\"\n\nReply Obj. 6: Mary who is called \"the mother of James and Joseph\" is\nnot to be taken for the Mother of our Lord, who is not wont to be\nnamed in the Gospels save under this designation of her dignity--\"the\nMother of Jesus.\" This Mary is to be taken for the wife of Alphaeus,\nwhose son was James the less, known as the \"brother of the Lord\"\n(Gal. 1:19).\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 28, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Mother of God Took a Vow of Virginity?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God did not take a vow\nof virginity. For it is written (Deut. 7:14): \"No one shall be barren\namong you of either sex.\" But sterility is a consequence of\nvirginity. Therefore the keeping of virginity was contrary to the\ncommandment of the Old Law. But before Christ was born the old law\nwas still in force. Therefore at that time the Blessed Virgin could\nnot lawfully take a vow of virginity.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:25): \"Concerning virgins\nI have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel.\" But the\nperfection of the counsels was to take its beginning from Christ, who\nis the \"end of the Law,\" as the Apostle says (Rom. 10:4). It was not\ntherefore becoming that the Virgin should take a vow of virginity.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the gloss of Jerome says on 1 Tim. 5:12, that \"for\nthose who are vowed to virginity, it is reprehensible not only to\nmarry, but also to desire to be married.\" But the Mother of Christ\ncommitted no sin for which she could be reprehended, as stated above\n(Q. 27, A. 4). Since therefore she was \"espoused,\" as related by Luke\n1:27 it seems that she did not take a vow of virginity.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg. iv): \"Mary\nanswered the announcing angel: 'How shall this be done, because I\nknow not man?' She would not have said this unless she had already\nvowed her virginity to God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As we have stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 88,\nA. 6), works of perfection are more praiseworthy when performed in\nfulfilment of a vow. Now it is clear that for reasons already given\n(AA. 1, 2, 3) virginity had a special place in the Mother of God. It\nwas therefore fitting that her virginity should be consecrated to God\nby vow. Nevertheless because, while the Law was in force both men and\nwomen were bound to attend to the duty of begetting, since the\nworship of God was spread according to carnal origin, until Christ\nwas born of that people; the Mother of God is not believed to have\ntaken an absolute vow of virginity, before being espoused to Joseph,\nalthough she desired to do so, yet yielding her own will to God's\njudgment. Afterwards, however, having taken a husband, according as\nthe custom of the time required, together with him she took a vow of\nvirginity.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Because it seemed to be forbidden by the law not to\ntake the necessary steps for leaving a posterity on earth, therefore\nthe Mother of God did not vow virginity absolutely, but under the\ncondition that it were pleasing to God. When, however, she knew that\nit was acceptable to God, she made the vow absolute, before the\nangel's Annunciation.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Just as the fulness of grace was in Christ perfectly,\nyet some beginning of the fulness preceded in His Mother; so also the\nobservance of the counsels, which is an effect of God's grace, began\nits perfection in Christ, but was begun after a fashion in His Virgin\nMother.\n\nReply Obj. 3: These words of the Apostle are to be understood of\nthose who vow chastity absolutely. Christ's Mother did not do this\nuntil she was espoused to Joseph. After her espousals, however, by\ntheir common consent she took a vow of virginity together with her\nspouse.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 29\n\nOF THE ESPOUSALS OF THE MOTHER OF GOD\n(In Two Articles)\n\nWe now consider the espousals of God's Mother: concerning which two\npoints arise for inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin?\n\n(2) Whether there was true marriage between our Lord's Mother and\nJoseph?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 29, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Been Born of an Espoused Virgin?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been born of\nan espoused virgin. For espousals are ordered to carnal intercourse.\nBut our Lord's Mother never wished to have carnal intercourse with\nher husband; because this would be derogatory to the virginity of her\nmind. Therefore she should not have been espoused.\n\nObj. 2: Further, that Christ was born of a virgin was miraculous,\nwhence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii): \"This same power of\nGod brought forth the infant's limbs out of the virginal womb of His\ninviolate Mother, by which in the vigor of manhood He passed through\nthe closed doors. If we are told why this happened, it will cease to\nbe wonderful; if another instance be alleged, it will no longer be\nunique.\" But miracles that are wrought in confirmation of the Faith\nshould be manifest. Since, therefore, by her Espousals this miracle\nwould be less evident, it seems that it was unfitting that Christ\nshould be born of an espoused virgin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the martyr Ignatius, as Jerome says on Matt. 1:18,\ngives as a reason of the espousals of the Mother of God, \"that the\nmanner of His Birth might be hidden from the devil, who would think\nHim to be begotten not of a virgin but of a wife.\" But this seems\nto be no reason at all. First, because by his natural cunning he\nknows whatever takes place in bodies. Secondly, because later on\nthe demons, through many evident signs, knew Christ after a\nfashion: whence it is written (Mk. 1:23, 24): \"A man with an unclean\nspirit . . . cried out, saying: What have we to do with Thee, Jesus\nof Nazareth? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know . . . Thou art the\nHoly one of God.\" Therefore it does not seem fitting that the Mother\nof God should have been espoused.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Jerome gives as another reason, \"lest the Mother of\nGod should be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress.\" But this reason\nseems to have no weight, for if she were not espoused, she could not\nbe condemned for adultery. Therefore it does not seem reasonable that\nChrist should be born of an espoused virgin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:18): \"When as His Mother\nMary was espoused to Joseph\": and (Luke 1:26, 27): \"The angel Gabriel\nwas sent . . . to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting that Christ should be born of an\nespoused virgin; first, for His own sake; secondly, for His Mother's\nsake; thirdly, for our sake. For the sake of Christ Himself, for four\nreasons. First, lest He should be rejected by unbelievers as\nillegitimate: wherefore Ambrose says on Luke 1:26, 27: \"How could we\nblame Herod or the Jews if they seem to persecute one who was born of\nadultery?\"\n\nSecondly, in order that in the customary way His genealogy might be\ntraced through the male line. Thus Ambrose says on Luke 3:23: \"He Who\ncame into the world, according to the custom of the world had to be\nenrolled. Now for this purpose, it is the men that are required,\nbecause they represent the family in the senate and other courts. The\ncustom of the Scriptures, too, shows that the ancestry of the men is\nalways traced out.\"\n\nThirdly, for the safety of the new-born Child: lest the devil should\nplot serious hurt against Him. Hence Ignatius says that she was\nespoused \"that the manner of His Birth might be hidden from the\ndevil.\"\n\nFourthly, that He might be fostered by Joseph: who is therefore\ncalled His \"father,\" as bread-winner.\n\nIt was also fitting for the sake of the Virgin. First, because thus\nshe was rendered exempt from punishment; that is, \"lest she should be\nstoned by the Jews as an adulteress,\" as Jerome says.\n\nSecondly, that thus she might be safeguarded from ill fame. Whence\nAmbrose says on Luke 1:26, 27: \"She was espoused lest she be wounded\nby the ill-fame of violated virginity, in whom the pregnant womb\nwould betoken corruption.\"\n\nThirdly, that, as Jerome says, Joseph might administer to her wants.\n\nThis was fitting, again, for our sake. First, because Joseph is thus\na witness to Christ's being born of a virgin. Wherefore Ambrose says:\n\"Her husband is the more trustworthy witness of her purity, in that\nhe would deplore the dishonor, and avenge the disgrace, were it not\nthat he acknowledged the mystery.\"\n\nSecondly, because thereby the very words of the Virgin are rendered\nmore credible by which she asserted her virginity. Thus Ambrose says:\n\"Belief in Mary's words is strengthened, the motive for a lie is\nremoved. If she had not been espoused when pregnant, she would seem\nto have wished to hide her sin by a lie: being espoused, she had no\nmotive for lying, since a woman's pregnancy is the reward of marriage\nand gives grace to the nuptial bond.\" These two reasons add strength\nto our faith.\n\nThirdly, that all excuse be removed from those virgins who, through\nwant of caution, fall into dishonor. Hence Ambrose says: \"It was not\nbecoming that virgins should expose themselves to evil report, and\ncover themselves with the excuse that the Mother of the Lord had also\nbeen oppressed by ill-fame.\"\n\nFourthly, because by this the universal Church is typified, which is\na virgin and yet is espoused to one Man, Christ, as Augustine says\n(De Sanct. Virg. xii).\n\nA fifth reason may be added: since the Mother of the Lord being both\nespoused and a virgin, both virginity and wedlock are honored in her\nperson, in contradiction to those heretics who disparaged one or the\nother.\n\nReply Obj. 1: We must believe that the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God,\ndesired, from an intimate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to be\nespoused, being confident that by the help of God she would never\ncome to have carnal intercourse: yet she left this to God's\ndiscretion. Wherefore she suffered nothing in detriment to her\nvirginity.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Ambrose says on Luke 1:26: \"Our Lord preferred that\nmen should doubt of His origin rather than of His Mother's purity.\nFor he knew the delicacy of virgin modesty, and how easily the fair\nname of chastity is disparaged: nor did He choose that our faith in\nHis Birth should be strengthened in detriment to His Mother.\" We must\nobserve, however, that some miracles wrought by God are the direct\nobject of faith; such are the miracles of the virginal Birth, the\nResurrection of our Lord, and the Sacrament of the Altar. Wherefore\nour Lord wished these to be more hidden, that belief in them might\nhave greater merit. Whereas other miracles are for the strengthening\nof faith: and these it behooves to be manifest.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. iii), the devil can do many\nthings by his natural power which he is hindered by the Divine power\nfrom doing. Thus it may be that by his natural power the devil could\nknow that the Mother of God knew not man, but was a virgin; yet was\nprevented by God from knowing the manner of the Divine Birth. That\nafterwards the devil after a fashion knew that He was the Son of God,\nmakes no difficulty: because then the time had already come for\nChrist to make known His power against the devil, and to suffer\npersecution aroused by him. But during His infancy it behooved the\nmalice of the devil to be withheld, lest he should persecute Him too\nseverely: for Christ did not wish to suffer such things then, nor to\nmake His power known, but to show Himself to be in all things like\nother infants. Hence Pope Leo (Serm. in Epiph. iv) says that \"the\nMagi found the Child Jesus small in body, dependent on others, unable\nto speak, and in no way differing from the generality of human\ninfants.\" Ambrose, however, expounding Luke 1:26, seems to understand\nthis of the devil's members. For, after giving the above\nreason--namely, that the prince of the world might be deceived--he\ncontinues thus: \"Yet still more did He deceive the princes of the\nworld, since the evil disposition of the demons easily discovers even\nhidden things: but those who spend their lives in worldly vanities\ncan have no acquaintance of Divine things.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: The sentence of adulteresses according to the Law was\nthat they should be stoned, not only if they were already espoused or\nmarried, but also if their maidenhood were still under the protection\nof the paternal roof, until the day when they enter the married\nstate. Thus it is written (Deut. 22:20, 21): \"If . . . virginity be\nnot found in the damsel . . . the men of the city shall stone her to\ndeath, and she shall die; because she hath done a wicked thing in\nIsrael, to play the whore in her father's house.\"\n\nIt may also be said, according to some writers, that the Blessed\nVirgin was of the family or kindred of Aaron, so that she was related\nto Elizabeth, as we are told (Luke 1:36). Now a virgin of the\npriestly tribe was condemned to death for whoredom; for we read (Lev.\n21:9): \"If the daughter of a priest be taken in whoredom, and\ndishonor the name of her father, she shall be burnt with fire.\"\n\nLastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the\nthrowing of stones by ill-fame.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 29, Art. 2]\n\nWhether there was a true marriage between Mary and Joseph?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was no true marriage between\nMary and Joseph. For Jerome says against Helvidius that Joseph \"was\nMary's guardian rather than her husband.\" But if this was a true\nmarriage, Joseph was truly her husband. Therefore there was no true\nmarriage between Mary and Joseph.\n\nObj. 2: Further, on Matt. 1:16: \"Jacob begot Joseph the husband of\nMary,\" Jerome says: \"When thou readest 'husband' suspect not a\nmarriage; but remember that Scripture is wont to speak of those who\nare betrothed as husband and wife.\" But a true marriage is not\neffected by the betrothal, but by the wedding. Therefore, there was\nno true marriage between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 1:19): \"Joseph, her husband,\nbeing a just man, and not willing to take her away [*Douay: 'publicly\nto expose her'], i.e. to take her to his home in order to cohabit with\nher, was minded to put her away privately, i.e. to postpone the\nwedding,\" as Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Matth.] expounds.\nTherefore, it seems that, as the wedding was not yet solemnized,\nthere was no true marriage: especially since, after the marriage\ncontract, no one can lawfully put his wife away.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): \"It cannot\nbe allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his\nunion with Mary\" (since he said that Joseph was Mary's husband) \"on\nthe ground that in giving birth to Christ, she had not conceived of\nhim, but remained a virgin. For by this example the faithful are\ntaught that if after marriage they remain continent by mutual\nconsent, their union is still and is rightly called marriage, even\nwithout intercourse of the sexes.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of\nits attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold;\nfirst, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its\nvery form, from which it receives its species; while the second\nperfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way\na thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a\ncertain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are\npledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And\nthe end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the\nfirst of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the\nother duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in\nrearing their offspring.\n\nThus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the\nVirgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both\nconsented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the\nflesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this\nreason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Matt.\n1:20): \"Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife\": on which words\nAugustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): \"She is called his wife from\nthe first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever\nwas to know by carnal intercourse.\"\n\nBut as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage\nact, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are\nbegotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose\nsays on Luke 1:26, 27: \"Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a\nwife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss\nof virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union.\"\nNevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to\nupbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i):\n\"All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's\nparents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to\nhave been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery:\nsacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there\nwas none.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Jerome uses the term \"husband\" in reference to marriage\nconsummated.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By marriage Jerome means the nuptial intercourse.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i super Matth. [*Opus\nImperfectum, among the supposititious works ascribed to St.\nChrysostom]) the Blessed Virgin was so espoused to Joseph that she\ndwelt in his home: \"for just as she who conceives in her husband's\nhouse is understood to have conceived of him, so she who conceives\nelsewhere is suspect.\" Consequently sufficient precaution would not\nhave been taken to safeguard the fair fame of the Blessed Virgin, if\nshe had not the entry of her husband's house. Wherefore the words,\n\"not willing to take her away\" are better rendered as meaning, \"not\nwilling publicly to expose her,\" than understood of taking her to his\nhouse. Hence the evangelist adds that \"he was minded to put her away\nprivately.\" But although she had the entry of Joseph's house by\nreason of her first promise of espousals, yet the time had not yet\ncome for the solemnizing of the wedding; for which reason they had\nnot yet consummated the marriage. Therefore, as Chrysostom says (Hom.\niv in Matth.): \"The evangelist does not say, 'before she was taken to\nthe house of her husband,' because she was already in the house. For\nit was the custom among the ancients for espoused maidens to enter\nfrequently the houses of them to whom they were betrothed.\" Therefore\nthe angel also said to Joseph: \"Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy\nwife\"; that is: \"Fear not to solemnize your marriage with her.\"\nOthers, however, say that she was not yet admitted to his house, but\nonly betrothed to him. But the first is more in keeping with the\nGospel narrative.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 30\n\nOF THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe now have to consider the Blessed Virgin's Annunciation, concerning\nwhich there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it was befitting that announcement should be made to her\nof that which was to be begotten of her?\n\n(2) By whom should this announcement be made?\n\n(3) In what manner should this announcement be made?\n\n(4) Of the order observed in the Annunciation.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Necessary to Announce to the Blessed Virgin That Which\nWas to Be Done in Her?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the\nBlessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. For there seems to\nhave been no need of the Annunciation except for the purpose of\nreceiving the Virgin's consent. But her consent seems to have been\nunnecessary: because the Virginal Conception was foretold by a\nprophecy of \"predestination,\" which is \"fulfilled without our\nconsent,\" as a gloss says on Matt. 1:22. There was no need,\ntherefore, for this Annunciation.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Blessed Virgin believed in the Incarnation, for\nto disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation;\nbecause, as the Apostle says (Rom. 3:22): \"The justice of God (is) by\nfaith of Jesus Christ.\" But one needs no further instruction\nconcerning what one believes without doubt. Therefore the Blessed\nVirgin had no need for the Incarnation of her Son to be announced to\nher.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ in her\nbody, so every pious soul conceives Him spiritually. Thus the Apostle\nsays (Gal. 4:19): \"My little children, of whom I am in labor again,\nuntil Christ be formed in you.\" But to those who conceive Him\nspiritually no announcement is made of this conception. Therefore\nneither should it have been announced to the Blessed Virgin that she\nwas to conceive the Son of God in her womb.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is related (Luke 1:31) that the angel said to\nher: \"Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth\na son.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was reasonable that it should be announced to the\nBlessed Virgin that she was to conceive Christ. First, in order to\nmaintain a becoming order in the union of the Son of God with the\nVirgin--namely, that she should be informed in mind concerning Him,\nbefore conceiving Him in the flesh. Thus Augustine says (De Sancta\nVirgin. iii): \"Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ,\nthan in conceiving the flesh of Christ\"; and further on he adds: \"Her\nnearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she\nnot borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her\nflesh.\"\n\nSecondly, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery,\nbeing instructed therein by God.\n\nThirdly, that she might offer to God the free gift of her obedience:\nwhich she proved herself right ready to do, saying: \"Behold the\nhandmaid of the Lord.\"\n\nFourthly, in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock\nbetween the Son of God and human nature. Wherefore in the\nAnnunciation the Virgin's consent was besought in lieu of that of the\nentire human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the\ncausality of our will; not without its consent.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Blessed Virgin did indeed believe explicitly in the\nfuture Incarnation; but, being humble, she did not think such high\nthings of herself. Consequently she required instruction in this\nmatter.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The spiritual conception of Christ through faith is\npreceded by the preaching of the faith, for as much as \"faith is by\nhearing\" (Rom. 10:17). Yet man does not know for certain thereby that\nhe has grace; but he does know that the faith, which he has received,\nis true.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the annunciation should have been made by an angel to the\nBlessed Virgin?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Annunciation should not have been\nmade by an angel to our Blessed Lady. For revelations to the highest\nangels are made immediately by God, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier.\nvii). But the Mother of God is exalted above all the angels.\nTherefore it seems that the mystery of the Incarnation should have\nbeen announced to her by God immediately, and not by an angel.\n\nObj. 2: Further, if in this matter it behooved the common order to be\nobserved, by which Divine things are announced to men by angels; in\nlike manner Divine things are announced to a woman by a man:\nwherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:34, 35): \"Let women keep\nsilence in the churches . . . but if they would learn anything, let\nthem ask their husbands at home.\" Therefore it seems that the mystery\nof the Incarnation should have been announced to the Blessed Virgin\nby some man: especially seeing that Joseph, her husband, was\ninstructed thereupon by an angel, as is related (Matt. 1:20, 21)\n\nObj. 3: Further, none can becomingly announce what he knows not. But\nthe highest angels did not fully know the mystery of the Incarnation:\nwherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that the question, \"Who is\nthis that cometh from Edom?\" (Isa. 63:1) is to be understood as made\nby them. Therefore it seems that the announcement of the Incarnation\ncould not be made becomingly by any angel.\n\nObj. 4: Further, greater things should be announced by messengers of\ngreater dignity. But the mystery of the Incarnation is the greatest\nof all things announced by angels to men. It seems, therefore, if it\nbehooved to be announced by an angel at all, that this should have\nbeen done by an angel of the highest order. But Gabriel is not of the\nhighest order, but of the order of archangels, which is the last but\none: wherefore the Church sings: \"We know that the archangel Gabriel\nbrought thee a message from God\" [*Feast of Purification B.V.M. ix\nResp. Brev. O.P.]. Therefore this announcement was not becomingly\nmade by the archangel Gabriel.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 1:26): \"The angel Gabriel was\nsent by God,\" etc.\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting for the mystery of the Incarnation to\nbe announced to the Mother of God by an angel, for three reasons.\nFirst, that in this also might be maintained the order established by\nGod, by which Divine things are brought to men by means of the\nangels. Wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that \"the angels\nwere the first to be taught the Divine mystery of the loving kindness\nof Jesus: afterwards the grace of knowledge was imparted to us\nthrough them. Thus, then, the most god-like Gabriel made known to\nZachary that a prophet son would be born to him; and, to Mary, how\nthe Divine mystery of the ineffable conception of God would be\nrealized in her.\"\n\nSecondly, this was becoming to the restoration of human nature which\nwas to be effected by Christ. Wherefore Bede says in a homily (in\nAnnunt.): \"It was an apt beginning of man's restoration that an angel\nshould be sent by God to the Virgin who was to be hallowed by the\nDivine Birth: since the first cause of man's ruin was through the\nserpent being sent by the devil to cajole the woman by the spirit of\npride.\"\n\nThirdly, because this was becoming to the virginity of the Mother of\nGod. Wherefore Jerome says in a sermon on the Assumption [*Ascribed\nto St. Jerome but not his work]: \"It is well that an angel be sent to\nthe Virgin; because virginity is ever akin to the angelic nature.\nSurely to live in the flesh and not according to the flesh is not an\nearthly but a heavenly life.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Mother of God was above the angels as regards the\ndignity to which she was chosen by God. But as regards the present\nstate of life, she was beneath the angels. For even Christ Himself,\nby reason of His passible life, \"was made a little lower than the\nangels,\" according to Heb. 2:9. But because Christ was both wayfarer\nand comprehensor, He did not need to be instructed by angels, as\nregards knowledge of Divine things. The Mother of God, however, was\nnot yet in the state of comprehension: and therefore she had to be\ninstructed by angels concerning the Divine Conception.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Assumption (De\nAssump. B.V.M. [*Work of another author: among the works of St.\nAugustine]) a true estimation of the Blessed Virgin excludes her from\ncertain general rules. For \"neither did she 'multiply her\nconceptions' nor was she 'under man's, i.e. her husband's,' power\n(Gen. 3:16), who in her spotless womb conceived Christ of the Holy\nGhost.\" Therefore it was fitting that she should be informed of the\nmystery of the Incarnation by means not of a man, but of an angel.\nFor this reason it was made known to her before Joseph: since the\nmessage was brought to her before she conceived, but to Joseph after\nshe had conceived.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As may be gathered from the passage quoted from\nDionysius, the angels were acquainted with the mystery of the\nIncarnation: and yet they put this question, being desirous that\nChrist should give them more perfect knowledge of the details of this\nmystery, which are incomprehensible to any created intellect. Thus\nMaximus [*Maximus of Constantinople] says that \"there can be no\nquestion that the angels knew that the Incarnation was to take place.\nBut it was not given to them to trace the manner of our Lord's\nconception, nor how it was that He remained whole in the Father,\nwhole throughout the universe, and was whole in the narrow abode of\nthe Virgin.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Some say that Gabriel was of the highest order; because\nGregory says (Hom. de Centum Ovibus [*34 in Evang.]): \"It was right\nthat one of the highest angels should come, since his message was\nmost sublime.\" But this does nat imply that he was of the highest\norder of all, but in regard to the angels: since he was an archangel.\nThus the Church calls him an archangel, and Gregory himself in a\nhomily (De Centum Ovibus 34) says that \"those are called archangels\nwho announce sublime things.\" It is therefore sufficiently credible\nthat he was the highest of the archangels. And, as Gregory says (De\nCentum Ovibus 34), this name agrees with his office: for \"Gabriel\nmeans 'Power of God.' This message therefore was fittingly brought by\nthe 'Power of God,' because the Lord of hosts and mighty in battle\nwas coming to overcome the powers of the air.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Angel of Annunciation Should Have Appeared to the Virgin\nin a Bodily Vision?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the angel of the Annunciation should\nnot have appeared to the Virgin in a bodily vision. For \"intellectual\nvision is more excellent than bodily vision,\" as Augustine says (Gen.\nad lit. xii), and especially more becoming to an angel: since by\nintellectual vision an angel is seen in his substance; whereas in a\nbodily vision he is seen in the bodily shape which he assumes. Now\nsince it behooved a sublime messenger to come to announce the Divine\nConception, so, seemingly, he should have appeared in the most\nexcellent kind of vision. Therefore it seems that the angel of the\nAnnunciation appeared to the Virgin in an intellectual vision.\n\nObj. 2: Further, imaginary vision also seems to excel bodily vision:\njust as the imagination is a higher power than the senses. But \"the\nangel . . . appeared to Joseph in his sleep\" (Matt. 1:20), which was\nclearly an imaginary vision. Therefore it seems that he should have\nappeared to the Blessed Virgin also in an imaginary vision.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the bodily vision of a spiritual substance stupefies\nthe beholder; thus we sing of the Virgin herself: \"And the Virgin\nseeing the light was filled with fear\" [*Feast of Annunciation,\nB.V.M. ii Resp. Brev. O.P.]. But it was better that her mind should\nbe preserved from being thus troubled. Therefore it was not fitting\nthat this announcement should be made in a bodily vision.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine in a sermon (De Annunt. iii) pictures\nthe Blessed Virgin as speaking thus: \"To me came the archangel\nGabriel with glowing countenance, gleaming robe, and wondrous step.\"\nBut these cannot pertain to other than bodily vision. Therefore the\nangel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the Blessed\nVirgin.\n\n_I answer that,_ The angel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily\nvision to the Blessed Virgin. And this indeed was fitting, first in\nregard to that which was announced. For the angel came to announce\nthe Incarnation of the invisible God. Wherefore it was becoming that,\nin order to make this known, an invisible creature should assume a\nform in which to appear visibly: forasmuch as all the apparitions of\nthe Old Testament are ordered to that apparition in which the Son of\nGod appeared in the flesh.\n\nSecondly, it was fitting as regards the dignity of the Mother of God,\nwho was to receive the Son of God not only in her mind, but in her\nbodily womb. Therefore it behooved not only her mind, but also her\nbodily senses to be refreshed by the angelic vision.\n\nThirdly, it is in keeping with the certainty of that which was\nannounced. For we apprehend with greater certainty that which is\nbefore our eyes, than what is in our imagination. Thus Chrysostom\nsays (Hom. iv in Matth.) that the angel \"came to the Virgin not in\nher sleep, but visibly. For since she was receiving from the angel a\nmessage exceeding great, before such an event she needed a vision of\ngreat solemnity.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Intellectual vision excels merely imaginary and merely\nbodily vision. But Augustine himself says (De Annunt. iii) that\nprophecy is more excellent if accompanied by intellectual and\nimaginary vision, than if accompanied by only one of them. Now the\nBlessed Virgin perceived not only the bodily vision, but also the\nintellectual illumination. Wherefore this was a more excellent\nvision. Yet it would have been more excellent if she had perceived\nthe angel himself in his substance by her intellectual vision. But it\nwas incompatible with her state of wayfarer that she should see an\nangel in his essence.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The imagination is indeed a higher power than the\nexterior sense: but because the senses are the principle of human\nknowledge, the greatest certainty is in them, for the principles of\nknowledge must needs always be most certain. Consequently Joseph, to\nwhom the angel appeared in his sleep, did not have so excellent a\nvision as the Blessed Virgin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says on Luke 1:11: \"We are disturbed, and\nlose our presence of mind, when we are confronted by the presence of\na superior power.\" And this happens not only in bodily, but also in\nimaginary vision. Wherefore it is written (Gen. 15:12) that \"when the\nsun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great and\ndarksome horror seized upon him.\" But by being thus disturbed man is\nnot harmed to such an extent that therefore he ought to forego the\nvision of an angel. First because from the very fact that man is\nraised above himself, in which matter his dignity is concerned, his\ninferior powers are weakened; and from this results the aforesaid\ndisturbance: thus, also, when the natural heat is drawn within a\nbody, the exterior parts tremble. Secondly, because, as Origen says\n(Hom. iv in Luc.): \"The angel who appeared, knowing hers was a human\nnature, first sought to remedy the disturbance of mind to which a man\nis subject.\" Wherefore both to Zachary and to Mary, as soon as they\nwere disturbed, he said: \"Fear not.\" For this reason, as we read in\nthe life of Anthony, \"it is difficult to discern good from evil\nspirits. For if joy succeed fear, we should know that the help is\nfrom the Lord: because security of soul is a sign of present majesty.\nBut if the fear with which we are stricken persevere, it is an enemy\nthat we see.\"\n\nMoreover it was becoming to virginal modesty that the Virgin should\nbe troubled. Because, as Ambrose says on Luke 1:20: \"It is the part\nof a virgin to be timid, to fear the advances of men, and to shrink\nfrom men's addresses.\"\n\nBut others say that as the Blessed Virgin was accustomed to angelic\nvisions, she was not troubled at seeing this angel, but with wonder\nat hearing what the angel said to her, for she did not think so\nhighly of herself. Wherefore the evangelist does not say that she\nwas troubled at seeing the angel, but \"at his saying.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Annunciation Took Place in Becoming Order?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Annunciation did not take place\nin becoming order. For the dignity of the Mother of God results from\nthe child she conceived. But the cause should be made known before\nthe effect. Therefore the angel should have announced to the Virgin\nthe conception of her child before acknowledging her dignity in\ngreeting her.\n\nObj. 2: Further, proof should be omitted in things which admit of no\ndoubt; and premised where doubt is possible. But the angel seems\nfirst to have announced what the virgin might doubt, and which,\nbecause of her doubt, would make her ask: \"How shall this be done?\"\nand afterwards to have given the proof, alleging both the instance of\nElizabeth and the omnipotence of God. Therefore the Annunciation was\nmade by the angel in unbecoming order.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the greater cannot be adequately proved by the less.\nBut it was a greater wonder for a virgin than for an old woman to be\nwith child. Therefore the angel's proof was insufficient to\ndemonstrate the conception of a virgin from that of an old woman.\n\n_On the contrary,_ it is written (Rom. 13:1): \"Those that are of God,\nare well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God'].\" Now\nthe angel was \"sent by God\" to announce unto the Virgin, as is\nrelated Luke 1:26. Therefore the Annunciation was made by the angel\nin the most perfect order.\n\n_I answer that,_ The Annunciation was made by the angel in a becoming\nmanner. For the angel had a threefold purpose in regard to the\nVirgin. First, to draw her attention to the consideration of a matter\nof such moment. This he did by greeting her by a new and unwonted\nsalutation. Wherefore Origen says, commenting on Luke (Hom. vi), that\nif \"she had known that similar words had been addressed to anyone\nelse, she, who had knowledge of the Law, would never have been\nastonished at the seeming strangeness of the salutation.\" In which\nsalutation he began by asserting her worthiness of the conception, by\nsaying, \"Full of grace\"; then he announced the conception in the\nwords, \"The Lord is with thee\"; and then foretold the honor which\nwould result to her therefrom, by saying, \"Blessed art thou among\nwomen.\"\n\nSecondly, he purposed to instruct her about the mystery of the\nIncarnation, which was to be fulfilled in her. This he did by\nforetelling the conception and birth, saying: \"Behold, thou shalt\nconceive in thy womb,\" etc.; and by declaring the dignity of the\nchild conceived, saying: \"He shall be great\"; and further, by making\nknown the mode of conception, when he said: \"The Holy Ghost shall\ncome upon thee.\"\n\nThirdly, he purposed to lead her mind to consent. This he did by the\ninstance of Elizabeth, and by the argument from Divine omnipotence.\n\nReply Obj. 1: To a humble mind nothing is more astonishing than to\nhear its own excellence. Now, wonder is most effective in drawing the\nmind's attention. Therefore the angel, desirous of drawing the\nVirgin's attention to the hearing of so great a mystery, began by\npraising her.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Ambrose says explicitly on Luke 1:34, that the Blessed\nVirgin did not doubt the angel's words. For he says: \"Mary's answer\nis more temperate than the words of the priest. She says: How shall\nthis be? He replies: Whereby shall I know this? He denies that he\nbelieves, since he denies that he knows this. She does not doubt\nfulfilment when she asks how it shall be done.\"\n\nAugustine, however, seems to assert that she doubted. For he says (De\nQq. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. li): \"To Mary, in doubt about the\nconception, the angel declares the possibility thereof.\" But such a\ndoubt is one of wonder rather than of unbelief. And so the angel\nadduces a proof, not as a cure for unbelief, but in order to remove\nher astonishment.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says (Hexaemeron v): \"For this reason had\nmany barren women borne children, that the virginal birth might be\ncredible.\"\n\nThe conception of the sterile Elizabeth is therefore adduced, not\nas a sufficient argument, but as a kind of figurative example:\nconsequently in support of this instance, the convincing argument\nis added taken from the Divine omnipotence.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 31\n\nOF THE MATTER FROM WHICH THE SAVIOUR'S BODY WAS CONCEIVED\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the Saviour's conception. First, as to the\nmatter from which His body was conceived; secondly, as to the author\nof His conception; thirdly, as to the manner and order of His\nconception.\n\nConcerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the flesh of Christ was derived from Adam?\n\n(2) Whether it was derived from David?\n\n(3) Of the genealogy of Christ which is given in the Gospels;\n\n(4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be born of a woman?\n\n(5) Whether His body was formed from the purest blood of the Virgin?\n\n(6) Whether the flesh of Christ was in the patriarchs as to something\nsignate?\n\n(7) Whether the flesh of Christ in the patriarchs was subject to sin?\n\n(8) Whether Christ paid tithes in the loins of Abraham?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Flesh of Christ Was Derived from Adam?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was not derived from\nAdam. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:47): \"The first man was of the\nearth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly.\" Now, the\nfirst man is Adam: and the second man is Christ. Therefore Christ is\nnot derived from Adam, but has an origin distinct from him.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the conception of Christ should have been most\nmiraculous. But it is a greater miracle to form man's body from the\nslime of the earth, than from human matter derived from Adam. It\nseems therefore unfitting that Christ should take flesh from Adam.\nTherefore the body of Christ should not have been formed from the\nmass of the human race derived from Adam, but of some other matter.\n\nObj. 3: Further, by \"one man sin entered into this world,\" i.e. by\nAdam, because in him all nations sinned originally, as is clear from\nRom. 5:12. But if Christ's body was derived from Adam, He would have\nbeen in Adam originally when he sinned: therefore he would have\ncontracted original sin; which is unbecoming in His purity. Therefore\nthe body of Christ was not formed of matter derived from Adam.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Heb. 2:16): \"Nowhere doth\nHe\"--that is, the Son of God--\"take hold of the angels: but of the\nseed of Abraham He taketh hold.\" But the seed of Abraham was derived\nfrom Adam. Therefore Christ's body was formed of matter derived from\nAdam.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ assumed human nature in order to cleanse it\nof corruption. But human nature did not need to be cleansed save in\nas far as it was soiled in its tainted origin whereby it was\ndescended from Adam. Therefore it was becoming that He should assume\nflesh of matter derived from Adam, that the nature itself might be\nhealed by the assumption.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The second man, i.e. Christ, is said to be of heaven,\nnot indeed as to the matter from which His body was formed, but\neither as to the virtue whereby it was formed; or even as to His very\nGodhead. But as to matter, Christ's body was earthly, as Adam's body\nwas.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 29, A. 1, ad 2) the mystery of\nChrist's Incarnation is miraculous, not as ordained to strengthen\nfaith, but as an article of faith. And therefore in the mystery of\nthe Incarnation we do not seek that which is most miraculous, as in\nthose miracles that are wrought for the confirmation of faith, but\nwhat is most becoming to Divine wisdom, and most expedient to the\nsalvation of man, since this is what we seek in all matters of faith.\n\nIt may also be said that in the mystery of the Incarnation the\nmiracle is not only in reference to the matter of the conception, but\nrather in respect of the manner of the conception and birth; inasmuch\nas a virgin conceived and gave birth to God.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 15, A. 1, ad 2), Christ's body was\nin Adam in respect of a bodily substance--that is to say, that the\ncorporeal matter of Christ's body was derived from Adam: but it was\nnot there by reason of seminal virtue, because it was not conceived\nfrom the seed of man. Thus it did not contract original sin, as\nothers who are descended from Adam by man's seed.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Took Flesh of the Seed of David?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not take flesh of the seed\nof David. For Matthew, in tracing the genealogy of Christ, brings it\ndown to Joseph. But Joseph was not Christ's father, as shown above\n(Q. 28, A. 1, ad 1, 2). Therefore it seems that Christ was not\ndescended from David.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Aaron was of the tribe of Levi, as related Ex. 6.\nNow Mary the Mother of Christ is called the cousin of Elizabeth, who\nwas a daughter of Aaron, as is clear from Luke 1:5, 36. Therefore,\nsince David was of the tribe of Juda, as is shown Matt. 1, it seems\nthat Christ was not descended from David.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written of Jechonias (Jer. 22:30): \"Write this\nman barren . . . for there shall not be a man of his seed that shall\nsit upon the throne of David.\" Whereas of Christ it is written (Isa.\n9:7): \"He shall sit upon the throne of David.\" Therefore Christ was\nnot of the seed of Jechonias: nor, consequently, of the family of\nDavid, since Matthew traces the genealogy from David through\nJechonias.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 1:3): \"Who was made to him of\nthe seed of David according to the flesh.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ is said to have been the son especially of\ntwo of the patriarchs, Abraham and David, as is clear from Matt. 1:1.\nThere are many reasons for this. First to these especially was the\npromise made concerning Christ. For it was said to Abraham (Gen.\n22:18): \"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed\":\nwhich words the Apostle expounds of Christ (Gal. 3:16): \"To Abraham\nwere the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, 'And to his\nseeds' as of many; but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is\nChrist.\" And to David it was said (Ps. 131:11): \"Of the fruit of thy\nwomb I will set upon thy throne.\" Wherefore the Jewish people,\nreceiving Him with kingly honor, said (Matt. 21:9): \"Hosanna to the\nSon of David.\"\n\nA second reason is because Christ was to be king, prophet, and\npriest. Now Abraham was a priest; which is clear from the Lord saying\nunto him (Gen. 15:9): \"Take thee [Vulg.: 'Me'] a cow of three years\nold,\" etc. He was also a prophet, according to Gen. 20:7: \"He is a\nprophet; and he shall pray for thee.\" Lastly David was both king and\nprophet.\n\nA third reason is because circumcision had its beginning in Abraham:\nwhile in David God's election was most clearly made manifest,\naccording to 1 Kings 13:14: \"The Lord hath sought Him a man according\nto His own heart.\" And consequently Christ is called in a most\nspecial way the Son of both, in order to show that He came for the\nsalvation both of the circumcised and of the elect among the Gentiles.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Faustus the Manichean argued thus, in the desire to\nprove that Christ is not the Son of David, because He was not\nconceived of Joseph, in whom Matthew's genealogy terminates.\nAugustine answered this argument thus (Contra Faust. xxii): \"Since\nthe same evangelist affirms that Joseph was Mary's husband and that\nChrist's mother was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed of\nAbraham, what must we believe, but that Mary was not a stranger to\nthe family of David: and that it is not without reason that she was\ncalled the wife of Joseph, by reason of the close alliance of their\nhearts, although not mingled in the flesh; and that the genealogy is\ntraced down to Joseph rather than to her by reason of the dignity of\nthe husband? So therefore we believe that Mary was also of the family\nof David: because we believe the Scriptures, which assert both that\nChrist was of the seed of David according to the flesh, and that Mary\nwas His Mother, not by sexual intercourse but retaining her\nvirginity.\" For as Jerome says on Matt. 1:18: \"Joseph and Mary were\nof the same tribe: wherefore he was bound by law to marry her as she\nwas his kinswoman. Hence it was that they were enrolled together at\nBethlehem, as being descended from the same stock.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Gregory of Nazianzum answers this objection by saying\nthat it happened by God's will, that the royal family was united to\nthe priestly race, so that Christ, who is both king and priest,\nshould be born of both according to the flesh. Wherefore Aaron, who\nwas the first priest according to the Law, married a wife of the\ntribe of Juda, Elizabeth, daughter of Aminadab. It is therefore\npossible that Elizabeth's father married a wife of the family of\nDavid, through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of\nDavid, would be a cousin of Elizabeth. Or conversely, and with\ngreater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary's father, who was of the\nfamily of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron.\n\nAgain, it may be said with Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii) that if\nJoachim, Mary's father, was of the family of Aaron (as the heretic\nFaustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings), then we\nmust believe that Joachim's mother, or else his wife, was of the\nfamily of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way\ndescended from David.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says on Luke 3:25, this prophetical passage\ndoes not deny that a posterity will be born of the seed of Jechonias.\nAnd so Christ is of his seed. Neither is the fact that Christ reigned\ncontrary to prophecy, for He did not reign with worldly honor; since\nHe declared: \"My kingdom is not of this world.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ's Genealogy Is Suitably Traced by the Evangelists?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's genealogy is not suitably\ntraced by the Evangelists. For it is written (Isa. 53:8): \"Who shall\ndeclare His generation?\" Therefore Christ's genealogy should not have\nbeen set down.\n\nObj. 2: Further, one man cannot possibly have two fathers. But\nMatthew says that \"Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary\": whereas\nLuke says that Joseph was the son of Heli. Therefore they contradict\none another.\n\nObj. 3: Further, there seem to be divergencies between them on\nseveral points. For Matthew, at the commencement of his book,\nbeginning from Abraham and coming down to Joseph, enumerates\nforty-two generations. Whereas Luke sets down Christ's genealogy\nafter His Baptism, and beginning from Christ traces the series of\ngenerations back to God, counting in all seventy-seven generations,\nthe first and last included. It seems therefore that their accounts\nof Christ's genealogy do not agree.\n\nObj. 4: Further, we read (4 Kings 8:24) that Joram begot Ochozias,\nwho was succeeded by his son Joas: who was succeeded by his son\nAmasius: after whom reigned his son Azarias, called Ozias; who was\nsucceeded by his son Joathan. But Matthew says that Joram begot\nOzias. Therefore it seems that his account of Christ's genealogy is\nunsuitable, since he omits three kings in the middle thereof.\n\nObj. 5: Further, all those who are mentioned in Christ's genealogy\nhad both a father and a mother, and many of them had brothers also.\nNow in Christ's genealogy Matthew mentions only three\nmothers--namely, Thamar, Ruth, and the wife of Urias. He also\nmentions the brothers of Judas and Jechonias, and also Phares and\nZara. But Luke mentions none of these. Therefore the evangelists seem\nto have described the genealogy of Christ in an unsuitable manner.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The authority of Scripture suffices.\n\n_I answer that,_ As is written (2 Tim. 3:16), \"All Holy Scripture is\ninspired of God [Vulg.: 'All scripture inspired of God is\nprofitable'], etc. Now what is done by God is done in perfect order,\naccording to Rom. 13:1: \"Those that are of God are ordained [Vulg.:\n'Those that are, are ordained of God'].\" Therefore Christ's genealogy\nis set down by the evangelists in a suitable order.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Jerome says on Matt. 1, Isaias speaks of the\ngeneration of Christ's Godhead. Whereas Matthew relates the\ngeneration of Christ in His humanity; not indeed by explaining the\nmanner of the Incarnation, which is also unspeakable; but by\nenumerating Christ's forefathers from whom He was descended according\nto the flesh.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Various answers have been made by certain writers to\nthis objection which was raised by Julian the Apostate; for some, as\nGregory of Nazianzum, say that the people mentioned by the two\nevangelists are the same, but under different names, as though they\neach had two. But this will not stand: because Matthew mentions one\nof David's sons--namely, Solomon; whereas Luke mentions\nanother--namely, Nathan, who according to the history of the kings (2\nKings 5:14) were clearly brothers.\n\nWherefore others said that Matthew gave the true genealogy of Christ:\nwhile Luke gave the supposititious genealogy; hence he began: \"Being\n(as it was supposed) the son of Joseph.\" For among the Jews there\nwere some who believed that, on account of the crimes of the kings of\nJuda, Christ would be born of the family of David, not through the\nkings, but through some other line of private individuals.\n\nOthers again have supposed that Matthew gave the forefathers\naccording to the flesh: whereas Luke gave these according to the\nspirit, that is, righteous men, who are called (Christ's) forefathers\nby likeness of virtue.\n\nBut an answer is given in the Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. [*Part i, qu.\nlvi; part 2, qu. vi] to the effect that we are not to understand that\nJoseph is said by Luke to be the son of Heli: but that at the time of\nChrist, Heli and Joseph were differently descended from David. Hence\nChrist is said to have been supposed to be the son of Joseph, and\nalso to have been the son of Heli as though (the Evangelist) were to\nsay that Christ, from the fact that He was the son of Joseph, could\nbe called the son of Heli and of all those who were descended from\nDavid; as the Apostle says (Rom. 9:5): \"Of whom\" (viz. the Jews) \"is\nChrist according to the flesh.\"\n\nAugustine again gives three solutions (De Qq. Evang. ii), saying:\n\"There are three motives by one or other of which the evangelist was\nguided. For either one evangelist mentions Joseph's father of whom he\nwas begotten; whilst the other gives either his maternal grandfather\nor some other of his later forefathers; or one was Joseph's natural\nfather: the other is father by adoption. Or, according to the Jewish\ncustom, one of those having died without children, a near relation of\nhis married his wife, the son born of the latter union being reckoned\nas the son of the former\": which is a kind of legal adoption, as\nAugustine himself says (De Consensu Evang. ii, Cf. Retract. ii).\n\nThis last motive is the truest: Jerome also gives it commenting on\nMatt. 1:16; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history (I, vii),\nsays that it is given by Africanus the historian. For these writers\nsay that Mathan and Melchi, at different times, each begot a son of\none and the same wife, named Estha. For Mathan, who traced his\ndescent through Solomon, had married her first, and died, leaving one\nson, whose name was Jacob: and after his death, as the law did not\nforbid his widow to remarry, Melchi, who traced his descent through\nMathan, being of the same tribe though not of the same family as\nMathan, married his widow, who bore him a son, called Heli; so that\nJacob and Heli were uterine brothers born to different fathers. Now\none of these, Jacob, on his brother Heli dying without issue, married\nthe latter's widow, according to the prescription of the law, of whom\nhe had a son, Joseph, who by nature was his own son, but by law was\naccounted the son of Heli. Wherefore Matthew says \"Jacob begot\nJoseph\": whereas Luke, who was giving the legal genealogy, speaks of\nno one as begetting.\n\nAnd although Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) says that the Blessed\nVirgin Mary was connected with Joseph in as far as Heli was accounted\nas his father, for he says that she was descended from Melchi: yet\nmust we also believe that she was in some way descended from Solomon\nthrough those patriarchs enumerated by Matthew, who is said to have\nset down Christ's genealogy according to the flesh; and all the more\nsince Ambrose states that Christ was of the seed of Jechonias.\n\nReply Obj. 3: According to Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii) \"Matthew\npurposed to delineate the royal personality of Christ; Luke the\npriestly personality: so that in Matthew's genealogy is signified the\nassumption of our sins by our Lord Jesus Christ\": inasmuch as by his\ncarnal origin \"He assumed 'the likeness of sinful flesh.' But in\nLuke's genealogy the washing away of our sins is signified,\" which is\neffected by Christ's sacrifice. \"For which reason Matthew traces the\ngenerations downwards, Luke upwards.\" For the same reason too\n\"Matthew descends from David through Solomon, in whose mother David\nsinned; whereas Luke ascends to David through Nathan, through whose\nnamesake, the prophet, God expiated his sin.\" And hence it is also\nthat, because \"Matthew wished to signify that Christ had condescended\nto our mortal nature, he set down the genealogy of Christ at the very\noutset of his Gospel, beginning with Abraham and descending to Joseph\nand the birth of Christ Himself. Luke, on the contrary, sets forth\nChrist's genealogy not at the outset, but after Christ's Baptism, and\nnot in the descending but in the ascending order: as though giving\nprominence to the office of the priest in expiating our sins, to\nwhich John bore witness, saying: 'Behold Him who taketh away the sin\nof the world.' And in the ascending order, he passes Abraham and\ncontinues up to God, to whom we are reconciled by cleansing and\nexpiating. With reason too he follows the origin of adoption; because\nby adoption we become children of God: whereas by carnal generation\nthe Son of God became the Son of Man. Moreover he shows sufficiently\nthat he does not say that Joseph was the son of Heli as though\nbegotten by him, but because he was adopted by him, since he says\nthat Adam was the son of God, inasmuch as he was created by God.\"\n\nAgain, the number forty pertains to the time of our present life:\nbecause of the four parts of the world in which we pass this mortal\nlife under the rule of Christ. And forty is the product of four\nmultiplied by ten: while ten is the sum of the numbers from one to\nfour. The number ten may also refer to the decalogue; and the number\nfour to the present life; or again to the four Gospels, according to\nwhich Christ reigns in us. And thus \"Matthew, putting forward the\nroyal personality of Christ, enumerates forty persons not counting\nHim\" (cf. Augustine, De Consensu Evang. ii). But this is to be taken\non the supposition that it be the same Jechonias at the end of the\nsecond, and at the commencement of the third series of fourteen, as\nAugustine understands it. According to him this was done in order to\nsignify \"that under Jechonias there was a certain defection to\nstrange nations during the Babylonian captivity; which also\nforeshadowed the fact that Christ would pass from the Jews to the\nGentiles.\"\n\nOn the other hand, Jerome (on Matt. 1:12-15) says that there were two\nJoachims--that is, Jechonias, father and son: both of whom are\nmentioned in Christ's genealogy, so as to make clear the distinction\nof the generations, which the evangelist divides into three series of\nfourteen; which amounts in all to forty-two persons. Which number may\nalso be applied to the Holy Church: for it is the product of six,\nwhich signifies the labor of the present life, and seven, which\nsignifies the rest of the life to come: for six times seven are\nforty-two. The number fourteen, which is the sum of ten and four, can\nalso be given the same signification as that given to the number\nforty, which is the product of the same numbers by multiplication.\n\nBut the number used by Luke in Christ's genealogy signifies the\ngenerality of sins. \"For the number ten is shown in the ten precepts\nof the Law to be the number of righteousness. Now, to sin is to go\nbeyond the restriction of the Law. And eleven is the number beyond\nten.\" And seven signifies universality: because \"universal time is\ninvolved in seven days.\" Now seven times eleven are seventy-seven: so\nthat this number signifies the generality of sins which are taken\naway by Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 4: As Jerome says on Matt. 1:8, 11: \"Because Joram allied\nhimself with the family of the most wicked Jezabel, therefore his\nmemory is omitted down to the third generation, lest it should be\ninserted among the holy predecessors of the Nativity.\" Hence as\nChrysostom [*Cf. Opus Imperf. in Matth. Hom. i, falsely ascribed to\nChrysostom] says: \"Just as great was the blessing conferred on Jehu,\nwho wrought vengeance on the house of Achab and Jezabel, so also\ngreat was the curse on the house of Joram, through the wicked\ndaughter of Achab and Jezabel, so that until the fourth generation\nhis posterity is cut off from the number of kings, according to Ex.\n20:5: I shall visit [Vulg.: 'Visiting'] the iniquity of the fathers\nupon the children unto the third and fourth generations.\"\n\nIt must also be observed that there were other kings who sinned and\nare mentioned in Christ's genealogy: but their impiety was not\ncontinuous. For, as it is stated in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov.\nTest. qu. lxxxv: \"Solomon through his father's merits is included in\nthe series of kings; and Roboam . . . through the merits of Asa,\" who\nwas son of his (Roboam's) son, Abiam. \"But the impiety of those three\n[*i.e. Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias, of whom St. Augustine asks in\nthis question lxxxv, why they were omitted by St. Matthew] was\ncontinuous.\"\n\nReply Obj. 5: As Jerome says on Matt. 1:3: \"None of the holy women\nare mentioned in the Saviour's genealogy, but only those whom\nScripture censures, so that He who came for the sake of sinners, by\nbeing born of sinners, might blot out all sin.\" Thus Thamar is\nmentioned, who is censured for her sin with her father-in-law; Rahab\nwho was a whore; Ruth who was a foreigner; and Bethsabee, the wife of\nUrias, who was an adulteress. The last, however, is not mentioned by\nname, but is designated through her husband; both on account of his\nsin, for he was cognizant of the adultery and murder; and further in\norder that, by mentioning the husband by name, David's sin might be\nrecalled. And because Luke purposes to delineate Christ as the\nexpiator of our sins, he makes no mention of these women. But he does\nmention Juda's brethren, in order to show that they belong to God's\npeople: whereas Ismael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, Jacob's\nbrother, were cut off from God's people, and for this reason are not\nmentioned in Christ's genealogy. Another motive was to show the\nemptiness of pride of birth: for many of Juda's brethren were born of\nhand-maidens, and yet all were patriarchs and heads of tribes. Phares\nand Zara are mentioned together, because, as Ambrose says on Luke\n3:23, \"they are the type of the twofold life of man: one, according\nto the Law,\" signified by Zara; \"the other by Faith,\" of which Phares\nis the type. The brethren of Jechonias are included, because they all\nreigned at various times: which was not the case with other kings:\nor, again, because they were alike in wickedness and misfortune.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Matter of Christ's Body Should Have Been Taken from a\nWoman?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should\nnot have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble than\nthe female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that\nwhich is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that He should\nnot have taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve\nwas formed from the rib of a man.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whoever is conceived of a woman is shut up in her\nwomb. But it ill becomes God, Who fills heaven and earth, as is\nwritten Jer. 23:24, to be shut up within the narrow limits of the\nwomb. Therefore it seems that He should not have been conceived of a\nwoman.\n\nObj. 3: Further, those who are conceived of a woman contract a\ncertain uncleanness: as it is written (Job 25:4): \"Can man be\njustified compared with God? Or he that is born of a woman appear\nclean?\" But it was unbecoming that any uncleanness should be in\nChrist: for He is the Wisdom of God, of whom it is written (Wis.\n7:25) that \"no defiled thing cometh into her.\" Therefore it does not\nseem right that He should have taken flesh from a woman.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 4:4): \"God sent His Son, made\nof a woman.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Although the Son of God could have taken flesh from\nwhatever matter He willed, it was nevertheless most becoming that He\nshould take flesh from a woman. First because in this way the entire\nhuman nature was ennobled. Hence Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu.\n11): \"It was suitable that man's liberation should be made manifest\nin both sexes. Consequently, since it behooved a man, being of the\nnobler sex, to assume, it was becoming that the liberation of the\nfemale sex should be manifested in that man being born of a woman.\"\n\nSecondly, because thus the truth of the Incarnation is made evident.\nWherefore Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): \"Thou shalt find in Christ\nmany things both natural, and supernatural. In accordance with nature\nHe was within the womb,\" viz. of a woman's body: \"but it was above\nnature that a virgin should conceive and give birth: that thou\nmightest believe that He was God, who was renewing nature; and that\nHe was man who, according to nature, was being born of a man.\" And\nAugustine says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii): \"If Almighty God had created\na man formed otherwise than in a mother's womb, and had suddenly\nproduced him to sight . . . would He not have strengthened an\nerroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that He\nhad become a true man? And whilst He is doing all things wondrously,\nwould He have taken away that which He accomplished in mercy? But\nnow, He, the mediator between God and man, has so shown Himself,\nthat, uniting both natures in the unity of one Person, He has given a\ndignity to ordinary by extraordinary things, and tempered the\nextraordinary by the ordinary.\"\n\nThirdly, because in this fashion the begetting of man is accomplished\nin every variety of manner. For the first man was made from the\n\"slime of the earth,\" without the concurrence of man or woman: Eve\nwas made of man but not of woman: and other men are made from both\nman and woman. So that this fourth manner remained as it were proper\nto Christ, that He should be made of a woman without the concurrence\nof a man.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The male sex is more noble than the female, and for\nthis reason He took human nature in the male sex. But lest the female\nsex should be despised, it was fitting that He should take flesh of a\nwoman. Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): \"Men, despise not\nyourselves: the Son of God became a man: despise not yourselves,\nwomen; the Son of God was born of a woman.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Augustine thus (Contra Faust. xxiii) replies to\nFaustus, who urged this objection; \"By no means,\" says he, \"does the\nCatholic Faith, which believes that Christ the Son of God was born of\na virgin, according to the flesh, suppose that the same Son of God\nwas so shut up in His Mother's womb, as to cease to be elsewhere, as\nthough He no longer continued to govern heaven and earth, and as\nthough He had withdrawn Himself from the Father. But you, Manicheans,\nbeing of a mind that admits of nought but material images, are\nutterly unable to grasp these things.\" For, as he again says (Ep. ad\nVolus. cxxxvii), \"it belongs to the sense of man to form conceptions\nonly through tangible bodies, none of which can be entire everywhere,\nbecause they must of necessity be diffused through their innumerable\nparts in various places . . . Far otherwise is the nature of the soul\nfrom that of the body: how much more the nature of God, the Creator\nof soul and body! . . . He is able to be entire everywhere, and to be\ncontained in no place. He is able to come without moving from the\nplace where He was; and to go without leaving the spot whence He\ncame.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: There is no uncleanness in the conception of man from a\nwoman, as far as this is the work of God: wherefore it is written\n(Acts 10:15): \"That which God hath cleansed do not thou call common,\"\ni.e. unclean. There is, however, a certain uncleanness therein,\nresulting from sin, as far as lustful desire accompanies conception\nby sexual union. But this was not the case with Christ, as shown\nabove (Q. 28, A. 1). But if there were any uncleanness therein, the\nWord of God would not have been sullied thereby, for He is utterly\nunchangeable. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Quinque Haereses v):\n\"God saith, the Creator of man: What is it that troubles thee in My\nBirth? I was not conceived by lustful desire. I made Myself a mother\nof whom to be born. If the sun's rays can dry up the filth in the\ndrain, and yet not be defiled: much more can the Splendor of eternal\nlight cleanse whatever It shines upon, but Itself cannot be sullied.\"\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Flesh of Christ Was Conceived of the Virgin's Purest\nBlood?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the flesh of Christ was not conceived\nof the Virgin's purest blood: For it is said in the collect (Feast of\nthe Annunciation) that God \"willed that His Word should take flesh\nfrom a Virgin.\" But flesh differs from blood. Therefore Christ's body\nwas not taken from the Virgin's blood.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as the woman was miraculously formed from the man,\nso Christ's body was formed miraculously from the Virgin. But the\nwoman is not said to have been formed from the man's blood, but\nrather from his flesh and bones, according to Gen. 2:23: \"This now is\nbone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.\" It seems therefore that\nneither should Christ's body have been formed from the Virgin's\nblood, but from her flesh and bones.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's body was of the same species as other men's\nbodies. But other men's bodies are not formed from the purest blood\nbut from the semen and the menstrual blood. Therefore it seems that\nneither was Christ's body conceived of the purest blood of the Virgin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that \"the Son\nof God, from the Virgin's purest blood, formed Himself flesh,\nanimated with a rational soul.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4), in Christ's conception His\nbeing born of a woman was in accordance with the laws of nature, but\nthat He was born of a virgin was above the laws of nature. Now, such\nis the law of nature that in the generation of an animal the female\nsupplies the matter, while the male is the active principle of\ngeneration; as the Philosopher proves (De Gener. Animal. i). But a\nwoman who conceives of a man is not a virgin. And consequently it\nbelongs to the supernatural mode of Christ's generation, that the\nactive principle of generation was the supernatural power of God: but\nit belongs to the natural mode of His generation, that the matter\nfrom which His body was conceived is similar to the matter which\nother women supply for the conception of their offspring. Now, this\nmatter, according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal.), is the\nwoman's blood, not any of her blood, but brought to a more perfect\nstage of secretion by the mother's generative power, so as to be apt\nfor conception. And therefore of such matter was Christ's body\nconceived.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Since the Blessed Virgin was of the same nature as\nother women, it follows that she had flesh and bones of the same\nnature as theirs. Now, flesh and bones in other women are actual\nparts of the body, the integrity of which results therefrom: and\nconsequently they cannot be taken from the body without its being\ncorrupted or diminished. But as Christ came to heal what was corrupt,\nit was not fitting that He should bring corruption or diminution to\nthe integrity of His Mother. Therefore it was becoming that Christ's\nbody should be formed not from the flesh or bones of the Virgin, but\nfrom her blood, which as yet is not actually a part, but is\npotentially the whole, as stated in _De Gener. Animal._ i. Hence He\nis said to have taken flesh from the Virgin, not that the matter from\nwhich His body was formed was actual flesh, but blood, which is flesh\npotentially.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated in the First Part (Q. 92, A. 3, ad 2), Adam,\nthrough being established as a kind of principle of human nature, had\nin his body a certain proportion of flesh and bone, which belonged to\nhim, not as an integral part of his personality, but in regard to his\nstate as a principle of human nature. And from this was the woman\nformed, without detriment to the man. But in the Virgin's body there\nwas nothing of this sort, from which Christ's body could be formed\nwithout detriment to His Mother's body.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Woman's semen is not apt for generation, but is\nsomething imperfect in the seminal order, which, on account of the\nimperfection of the female power, it has not been possible to bring\nto complete seminal perfection. Consequently this semen is not the\nnecessary matter of conception; as the Philosopher says (De Gener.\nAnimal. i): wherefore there was none such in Christ's conception: all\nthe more since, though it is imperfect in the seminal order, a\ncertain concupiscence accompanies its emission, as also that of the\nmale semen: whereas in that virginal conception there could be no\nconcupiscence. Wherefore Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that\nChrist's body was not conceived \"seminally.\" But the menstrual blood,\nthe flow of which is subject to monthly periods, has a certain\nnatural impurity of corruption: like other superfluities, which\nnature does not heed, and therefore expels. Of such menstrual blood\ninfected with corruption and repudiated by nature, the conception is\nnot formed; but from a certain secretion of the pure blood which by a\nprocess of elimination is prepared for conception, being, as it were,\nmore pure and more perfect than the rest of the blood. Nevertheless,\nit is tainted with the impurity of lust in the conception of other\nmen: inasmuch as by sexual intercourse this blood is drawn to a place\napt for conception. This, however, did not take place in Christ's\nconception: because this blood was brought together in the Virgin's\nwomb and fashioned into a child by the operation of the Holy Ghost.\nTherefore is Christ's body said to be \"formed of the most chaste and\npurest blood of the Virgin.\"\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Was in Adam and the Other Patriarchs, As to\nSomething Signate?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was in Adam and the\npatriarchs as to something signate. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit.\nx) that the flesh of Christ was in Adam and Abraham \"by way of a\nbodily substance.\" But bodily substance is something signate.\nTherefore Christ's flesh was in Adam, Abraham, and the other\npatriarchs, according to something signate.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is said (Rom. 1:3) that Christ \"was made . . . of\nthe seed of David according to the flesh.\" But the seed of David was\nsomething signate in him. Therefore Christ was in David, according to\nsomething signate, and for the same reason in the other patriarchs.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the human race is Christ's kindred, inasmuch as He\ntook flesh therefrom. But if that flesh were not something signate in\nAdam, the human race, which is descended from Adam, would seem to\nhave no kindred with Christ: but rather with those other things from\nwhich the matter of His flesh was taken. Therefore it seems that\nChrist's flesh was in Adam and the other patriarchs according to\nsomething signate.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that in whatever\nway Christ was in Adam and Abraham, other men were there also; but\nnot conversely. But other men were not in Adam and Abraham by way of\nsome signate matter, but only according to origin, as stated in the\nFirst Part (Q. 119, A. 1, A. 2, ad 4). Therefore neither was Christ\nin Adam and Abraham according to something signate; and, for the same\nreason, neither was He in the other patriarchs.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5, ad 1), the matter of Christ's\nbody was not the flesh and bones of the Blessed Virgin, nor anything\nthat was actually a part of her body, but her blood which was her\nflesh potentially. Now, whatever was in the Blessed Virgin, as\nreceived from her parents, was actually a part of her body.\nConsequently that which the Blessed Virgin received from her parents\nwas not the matter of Christ's body. Therefore we must say that\nChrist's body was not in Adam and the other patriarchs according to\nsomething signate, in the sense that some part of Adam's or of anyone\nelse's body could be singled out and designated as the very matter\nfrom which Christ's body was to be formed: but it was there according\nto origin, just as was the flesh of other men. For Christ's body is\nrelated to Adam and the other patriarchs through the medium of His\nMother's body. Consequently Christ's body was in the patriarchs, in\nno other way than was His Mother's body, which was not in the\npatriarchs according to signate matter: as neither were the bodies of\nother men, as stated in the First Part (Q. 119, A. 1, A. 2, ad 4).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The expression \"Christ was in Adam according to bodily\nsubstance,\" does not mean that Christ's body was a bodily substance\nin Adam: but that the bodily substance of Christ's body, i.e. the\nmatter which He took from the Virgin, was in Adam as in its active\nprinciple, but not as in its material principle: in other words, by\nthe generative power of Adam and his descendants down to the Blessed\nVirgin, this matter was prepared for Christ's conception. But this\nmatter was not fashioned into Christ's body by the seminal power\nderived from Adam. Therefore Christ is said to have been in Adam by\nway of origin, according to bodily substance: but not according to\nseminal virtue.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although Christ's body was not in Adam and the other\npatriarchs, according to seminal virtue, yet the Blessed Virgin's\nbody was thus in them, through her being conceived from the seed of a\nman. For this reason, through the medium of the Blessed Virgin,\nChrist is said to be of the seed of David, according to the flesh, by\nway of origin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ and the human race are kindred, through the\nlikeness of species. Now, specific likeness results not from remote\nbut from proximate matter, and from the active principle which begets\nits like in species. Thus, then, the kinship of Christ and the human\nrace is sufficiently preserved by His body being formed from the\nVirgin's blood, derived in its origin from Adam and the other\npatriarchs. Nor is this kinship affected by the matter whence this\nblood is taken, as neither is it in the generation of other men, as\nstated in the First Part (Q. 119, A. 2, ad 3).\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 7]\n\nWhether Christ's Flesh in the Patriarchs Was Infected by Sin?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was not infected by\nsin in the patriarchs. For it is written (Wis. 7:25) that \"no defiled\nthing cometh into\" Divine Wisdom. But Christ is the Wisdom of God\naccording to 1 Cor. 1:24. Therefore Christ's flesh was never defiled\nby sin.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ\n\"assumed the first-fruits of our nature.\" But in the primitive state\nhuman flesh was not infected by sin. Therefore Christ's flesh was not\ninfected either in Adam or in the other patriarchs.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that \"human nature\never had, together with the wound, the balm with which to heal it.\"\nBut that which is infected cannot heal a wound; rather does it need\nto be healed itself. Therefore in human nature there was ever\nsomething preserved from infection, from which afterwards Christ's\nbody was formed.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Christ's body is not related to Adam and the other\npatriarchs, save through the medium of the Blessed Virgin's body, of\nwhom He took flesh. But the body of the Blessed Virgin was wholly\nconceived in original sin, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 3, ad 1), and\nthus, as far as it was in the patriarchs, it was subject to sin.\nTherefore the flesh of Christ, as far as it was in the patriarchs,\nwas subject to sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ When we say that Christ or His flesh was in Adam and\nthe other patriarchs, we compare Him, or His flesh, to Adam and the\nother patriarchs. Now, it is manifest that the condition of the\npatriarchs differed from that of Christ: for the patriarchs were\nsubject to sin, whereas Christ was absolutely free from sin.\nConsequently a twofold error may occur on this point. First, by\nattributing to Christ, or to His flesh, that condition which was in\nthe patriarchs; by saying, for instance, that Christ sinned in Adam,\nsince after some fashion He was in him. But this is false; because\nChrist was not in Adam in such a way that Adam's sin belonged to\nChrist: forasmuch as He is not descended from him according to the\nlaw of concupiscence, or according to seminal virtue; as stated above\n(A. 1, ad 3, A. 6, ad 1; Q. 15, A. 1, ad 2).\n\nSecondly, error may occur by attributing the condition of Christ or\nof His flesh to that which was actually in the patriarchs: by saying,\nfor instance, that, because Christ's flesh, as existing in Christ,\nwas not subject to sin, therefore in Adam also and in the patriarchs\nthere was some part of his body that was not subject to sin, and from\nwhich afterwards Christ's body was formed; as some indeed held. For\nthis is quite impossible. First, because Christ's flesh was not in\nAdam and in the other patriarchs, according to something signate,\ndistinguishable from the rest of his flesh, as pure from impure; as\nalready stated (A. 6). Secondly, because since human flesh is\ninfected by sin, through being conceived in lust, just as the entire\nflesh of a man is conceived through lust, so also is it entirely\ndefiled by sin. Consequently we must say that the entire flesh of the\npatriarchs was subjected to sin, nor was there anything in them that\nwas free from sin, and from which afterwards Christ's body could be\nformed.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ did not assume the flesh of the human race\nsubject to sin, but cleansed from all infection of sin. Thus it is\nthat \"no defiled thing cometh into the Wisdom of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our\nnature, as to the likeness of condition; forasmuch as He assumed\nflesh not infected by sin, like unto the flesh of man before sin. But\nthis is not to be understood to imply a continuation of that\nprimitive purity, as though the flesh of innocent man was preserved\nin its freedom from sin until the formation of Christ's body.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Before Christ, there was actually in human nature a\nwound, i.e. the infection of original sin. But the balm to heal the\nwound was not there actually, but only by a certain virtue of origin,\nforasmuch as from those patriarchs the flesh of Christ was to be\npropagated.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 31, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Christ Paid Tithes in Abraham's Loins?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ \"paid tithes\" in Abraham's\nloins. For the Apostle says (Heb. 7:6-9) that Levi, the\ngreat-grandson of Abraham, \"paid tithes in Abraham,\" because, when\nthe latter paid tithes to Melchisedech, \"he was yet in his loins.\" In\nlike manner Christ was in Abraham's loins when the latter paid\ntithes. Therefore Christ Himself also paid tithes in Abraham.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ is of the seed of Abraham according to the\nflesh which He received from His Mother. But His Mother paid tithes\nin Abraham. Therefore for a like reason did Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, \"in Abraham tithe was levied on that which needed\nhealing,\" as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x). But all flesh subject\nto sin needed healing. Since therefore Christ's flesh was the subject\nof sin, as stated above (A. 7), it seems that Christ's flesh paid\ntithes in Abraham.\n\nObj. 4: Further, this does not seem to be at all derogatory to\nChrist's dignity. For the fact that the father of a bishop pays\ntithes to a priest does not hinder his son, the bishop, from being of\nhigher rank than an ordinary priest. Consequently, although we may\nsay that Christ paid tithes when Abraham paid them to Melchisedech,\nit does not follow that Christ was not greater than Melchisedech.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x) that \"Christ did\nnot pay tithes there,\" i.e. in Abraham, \"for His flesh derived from\nhim, not the heat of the wound, but the matter of the antidote.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It behooves us to say that the sense of the passage\nquoted from the Apostle is that Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham.\nFor the Apostle proves that the priesthood according to the order of\nMelchisedech is greater than the Levitical priesthood, from the fact\nthat Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech, while Levi, from whom the\nlegal priesthood was derived, was yet in his loins. Now, if Christ\nhad also paid tithes in Abraham, His priesthood would not have been\naccording to the order of Melchisedech, but of a lower order.\nConsequently we must say that Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham's\nloins, as Levi did.\n\nFor since he who pays a tithe keeps nine parts to himself, and\nsurrenders the tenth to another, inasmuch as the number ten is the\nsign of perfection, as being, in a sort, the terminus of all numbers\nwhich mount from one to ten, it follows that he who pays a tithe\nbears witness to his own imperfection and to the perfection of\nanother. Now, to sin is due the imperfection of the human race, which\nneeds to be perfected by Him who cleanses from sin. But to heal from\nsin belongs to Christ alone, for He is the \"Lamb that taketh away the\nsin of the world\" (John 1:29), whose figure was Melchisedech, as the\nApostle proves (Heb. 7). Therefore by giving tithes to Melchisedech,\nAbraham foreshadowed that he, as being conceived in sin, and all who\nwere to be his descendants in contracting original sin, needed that\nhealing which is through Christ. And Isaac, Jacob, and Levi, and all\nthe others were in Abraham in such a way so as to be descended from\nhim, not only as to bodily substance, but also as to seminal virtue,\nby which original sin is transmitted. Consequently, they all paid\ntithes in Abraham, i.e. foreshadowed as needing to be healed by\nChrist. And Christ alone was in Abraham in such a manner as to\ndescend from him, not by seminal virtue, but according to bodily\nsubstance. Therefore He was not in Abraham so as to need to be\nhealed, but rather \"as the balm with which the wound was to be\nhealed.\" Therefore He did not pay tithes in Abraham's loins.\n\nThus the answer to the first objection is made manifest.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Because the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original\nsin, she was in Abraham as needing to be healed. Therefore she paid\ntithes in him, as descending from him according to seminal virtue.\nBut this is not true of Christ's body, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's flesh is said to have been subject to sin,\naccording as it was in the patriarchs, by reason of the condition in\nwhich it was in His forefathers, who paid the tithes: but not by\nreason of its condition as actually in Christ, who did not pay the\ntithes.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The levitical priesthood was handed down through carnal\norigin: wherefore it was not less in Abraham than in Levi.\nConsequently, since Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedech as to one\ngreater than he, it follows that the priesthood of Melchisedech,\ninasmuch as he was a figure of Christ, was greater than that of Levi.\nBut the priesthood of Christ does not result from carnal origin, but\nfrom spiritual grace. Therefore it is possible that a father pay\ntithes to a priest, as the less to the greater, and yet his son, if\nhe be a bishop, is greater than that priest, not through carnal\norigin, but through the spiritual grace which he has received from\nChrist.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 32\n\nOF THE ACTIVE PRINCIPLE IN CHRIST'S CONCEPTION\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe shall now consider the active principle in Christ's conception:\nconcerning which there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the Holy Ghost was the active principle of Christ's\nconception?\n\n(2) Whether it can be said that Christ was conceived of the Holy\nGhost?\n\n(3) Whether it can be said that the Holy Ghost is Christ's father\naccording to the flesh?\n\n(4) Whether the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in Christ's\nconception?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Accomplishment of Christ's Conception Should Be\nAttributed to the Holy Ghost?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the accomplishment of Christ's\nconception should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost, because, as\nAugustine says (De Trin. i), \"The works of the Trinity are\nindivisible, just as the Essence of the Trinity is indivisible.\" But\nthe accomplishment of Christ's conception was the work of God.\nTherefore it seems that it should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost\nany more than to the Father or the Son.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Gal. 4:4): \"When the fulness of\ntime was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman\"; which words\nAugustine expounds by saying (De Trin. iv): \"Sent, in so far as made\nof a woman.\" But the sending of the Son is especially attributed to\nthe Father, as stated in the First Part (Q. 43, A. 8). Therefore His\nconception also, by reason of which He was \"made of a woman,\" should\nbe attributed principally to the Father.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Prov. 9:1): \"Wisdom hath built\nherself a house.\" Now, Christ is Himself the Wisdom of God; according\nto 1 Cor. 1:24: \"Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.\" And\nthe house of this Wisdom is Christ's body, which is also called His\ntemple, according to John 2:21: \"But He spoke of the temple of His\nbody.\" Therefore it seems that the accomplishment of Christ's\nconception should be attributed principally to the Son, and not,\ntherefore, to the Holy Ghost.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 1:35): \"The Holy Ghost shall\ncome upon Thee.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The whole Trinity effected the conception of\nChrist's body: nevertheless, this is attributed to the Holy Ghost,\nfor three reasons. First, because this is befitting to the cause of\nthe Incarnation, considered on the part of God. For the Holy Ghost is\nthe love of Father and Son, as stated in the First Part (Q. 37, A.\n1). Now, that the Son of God took to Himself flesh from the Virgin's\nwomb was due to the exceeding love of God: wherefore it is said (John\n3:16): \"God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son.\"\n\nSecondly, this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, on the\npart of the nature assumed. Because we are thus given to understand\nthat human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of\nPerson, not by reason of its merits, but through grace alone; which\nis attributed to the Holy Ghost, according to 1 Cor. 12:4: \"There are\ndiversities of graces, but the same Spirit.\" Wherefore Augustine says\n(Enchiridion xl): \"The manner in which Christ was born of the Holy\nGhost . . . suggests to us the grace of God, whereby man, without any\nmerits going before, in the very beginning of his nature when he\nbegan to exist was joined to God the Word, into so great unity of\nPerson, that He Himself should be the Son of God.\"\n\nThirdly, because this is befitting the term of the Incarnation. For\nthe term of the Incarnation was that that man, who was being\nconceived, should be the Holy one and the Son of God. Now, both of\nthese are attributed to the Holy Ghost. For by Him men are made to be\nsons of God, according to Gal. 4:6: \"Because you are sons, God hath\nsent the Spirit of His Son into your [Vulg.: 'our'] hearts, crying:\nAbba, Father.\" Again, He is the \"Spirit of sanctification,\" according\nto Rom. 1:4. Therefore, just as other men are sanctified spiritually\nby the Holy Ghost; so as to be the adopted sons of God, so was Christ\nconceived in sanctity by the Holy Ghost, so as to be the natural Son\nof God. Hence, according to a gloss on Rom. 1:4, the words, \"Who was\npredestinated the Son of God, in power,\" are explained by what\nimmediately follows: \"According to the Spirit of sanctification, i.e.\nthrough being conceived of the Holy Ghost.\" And the Angel of the\nAnnunciation himself, after saying, \"The Holy Ghost shall come upon\nthee,\" draws the conclusion: \"Therefore also the Holy which shall be\nborn of thee shall be called the Son of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The work of the conception is indeed common to the\nwhole Trinity; yet in some way it is attributed to each of the\nPersons. For to the Father is attributed authority in regard to the\nPerson of the Son, who by this conception took to Himself (human\nnature). The taking itself (of human nature) is attributed to the\nSon: but the formation of the body taken by the Son is attributed to\nthe Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son,\naccording to Gal. 4:6: \"God sent the Spirit of His Son.\" For just as\nthe power of the soul which is in the semen, through the spirit\nenclosed therein, fashions the body in the generation of other men,\nso the Power of God, which is the Son Himself, according to 1 Cor.\n1:24: \"Christ, the Power of God,\" through the Holy Ghost formed the\nbody which He assumed. This is also shown by the words of the angel:\n\"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,\" as it were, in order to\nprepare and fashion the matter of Christ's body; \"and the Power of\nthe Most High,\" i.e. Christ, \"shall overshadow thee--that is to say,\nthe incorporeal Light of the Godhead shall in thee take the corporeal\nsubstance of human nature: for a shadow is formed by light and body,\"\nas Gregory says (Moral. xviii). The \"Most High\" is the Father, whose\nPower is the Son.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The mission refers to the Person assuming, who is sent\nby the Father; but the conception refers to the body assumed, which\nis formed by the operation of the Holy Ghost. And therefore, though\nmission and conception are in the same subject; since they differ in\nour consideration of them, mission is attributed to the Father, but\nthe accomplishment of the conception to the Holy Ghost; whereas the\nassumption of flesh is attributed to the Son.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. 52):\n\"This may be understood in two ways. For, first, Christ's house is\nthe Church, which He built with His blood. Secondly, His body may be\ncalled His house, just as it is called His temple . . . and what is\ndone by the Holy Ghost is done by the Son of God, because Theirs is\none Nature and one Will.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Should Be Said That Christ Was Conceived of (_de_) the\nHoly Ghost?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that we should not say that Christ was\nconceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost. Because on Rom. 11:36: \"For of\nHim (_ex ipso_) and by Him, and in Him, are all things,\" the gloss of\nAugustine says: \"Notice that he does not say, 'of Him' (_de ipso_),\nbut 'of Him' (_ex ipso_). For of Him (_ex ipso_), are heaven and\nearth, since He made them: but not of Him [de ipso, since they are\nnot made of His substance.\" But the Holy Ghost did not form Christ's\nbody of (_de_) His own substance. Therefore we should not say that\nChrist was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the active principle of (_de_) which something is\nconceived is as the seed in generation. But the Holy Ghost did not\ntake the place of seed in Christ's conception. For Jerome says\n(Expos. Cathol. Fidei) [*Written by Pelagius]: \"We do not say, as\nsome wicked wretches hold, that the Holy Ghost took the place of\nseed: but we say that Christ's body was wrought,\" i.e. formed, \"by\nthe power and might of the Creator.\" Therefore we should not say that\nChrist's body was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.\n\nObj. 3: Further, no one thing is made of two, except they be in some\nway mingled. But Christ's body was formed of (_de_) the Virgin Mary.\nIf therefore we say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy\nGhost, it seems that a mingling took place of the Holy Ghost with the\nmatter supplied by the Virgin: and this is clearly false. Therefore\nwe should not say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:18): \"Before they came\ntogether, she was found with child, of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Conception is not attributed to Christ's body alone,\nbut also to Christ Himself by reason of His body. Now, in the Holy\nGhost we may observe a twofold habitude to Christ. For to the Son of\nGod Himself, who is said to have been conceived, He has a habitude of\nconsubstantiality: while to His body He has the habitude of efficient\ncause. And this preposition of (_de_) signifies both habitudes: thus\nwe say that a certain man is \"of (_de_) his father.\" And therefore we\ncan fittingly say that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost in such\na way that the efficiency of the Holy Ghost be referred to the body\nassumed, and the consubstantiality to the Person assuming.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's body, through not being consubstantial with\nthe Holy Ghost, cannot properly be said to be conceived \"of\" (_de_)\nthe Holy Ghost, but rather \"from (_ex_) the Holy Ghost,\" as Ambrose\nsays (De Spir. Sanct. ii.): \"What is from someone is either from his\nsubstance or from his power: from his substance, as the Son who is\nfrom the Father; from his power, as all things are from God, just as\nMary conceived from the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: It seems that on this point there is a difference of\nopinion between Jerome and certain other Doctors, who assert that the\nHoly Ghost took the place of seed in this conception. For Chrysostom\nsays (Hom. i in Matth. [*Opus Imperf., among the supposititious\nwritings]): \"When God's Only-Begotten was about to enter into the\nVirgin, the Holy Ghost preceded Him; that by the previous entrance of\nthe Holy Ghost, Christ might be born unto sanctification according to\nHis body, the Godhead entering instead of the seed.\" And Damascene\nsays (De Fide Orth. iii): \"God's wisdom and power overshadowed her,\nlike unto a Divine seed.\"\n\nBut these expressions are easily explained. Because Chrysostom and\nDamascene compare the Holy Ghost, or also the Son, who is the Power\nof the Most High, to seed, by reason of the active power therein;\nwhile Jerome denies that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed,\nconsidered as a corporeal substance which is transformed in\nconception.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xl), Christ is said to\nbe conceived or born of the Holy Ghost in one sense; of the Virgin\nMary in another--of the Virgin Mary materially; of the Holy Ghost\nefficiently. Therefore there was no mingling here.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Holy Ghost Should Be Called Christ's Father in Respect of\nHis Humanity?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost should be called\nChrist's father in respect of His humanity. Because, according to the\nPhilosopher (De Gener. Animal. i): \"The Father is the active\nprinciple in generation, the Mother supplies the matter.\" But the\nBlessed Virgin is called Christ's Mother, by reason of the matter\nwhich she supplied in His conception. Therefore it seems that the\nHoly Ghost can be called His father, through being the active\nprinciple in His conception.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as the minds of other holy men are fashioned by the\nHoly Ghost, so also was Christ's body fashioned by the Holy Ghost.\nBut other holy men, on account of the aforesaid fashioning, are\ncalled the children of the whole Trinity, and consequently of the\nHoly Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ should be called the Son\nof the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as His body was fashioned by the Holy\nGhost.\n\nObj. 3: Further, God is called our Father by reason of His having\nmade us, according to Deut. 32:6: \"Is not He thy Father, that hath\npossessed thee, and made thee and created thee?\" But the Holy Ghost\nmade Christ's body, as stated above (AA. 1, 2). Therefore the Holy\nGhost should be called Christ's Father in respect of the body\nfashioned by Him.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): \"Christ was born\nof the Holy Ghost not as a Son, and of the Virgin Mary as a Son.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The words \"fatherhood,\" \"motherhood,\" and \"sonship,\"\nresult from generation; yet not from any generation, but from that of\nliving things, especially animals. For we do not say that fire\ngenerated is the son of the fire generating it, except, perhaps,\nmetaphorically; we speak thus only of animals in whom generation is\nmore perfect. Nevertheless, the word \"son\" is not applied to\neverything generated in animals, but only to that which is generated\ninto likeness of the generator. Wherefore, as Augustine says\n(Enchiridion xxxix), we do not say that a hair which is generated in\na man is his son; nor do we say that a man who is born is the son of\nthe seed; for neither is the hair like the man nor is the man born\nlike the seed, but like the man who begot him. And if the likeness be\nperfect, the sonship is perfect, whether in God or in man. But if the\nlikeness be imperfect, the sonship is imperfect. Thus in man there is\na certain imperfect likeness to God, both as regards his being\ncreated to God's image and as regards His being created unto the\nlikeness of grace. Therefore in both ways man can be called His son,\nboth because he is created to His image and because he is likened to\nHim by grace. Now, it must be observed that what is said in its\nperfect sense of a thing should not be said thereof in its imperfect\nsense: thus, because Socrates is said to be naturally a man, in the\nproper sense of \"man,\" never is he called man in the sense in which\nthe portrait of a man is called a man, although, perhaps, he may\nresemble another man. Now, Christ is the Son of God in the perfect\nsense of sonship. Wherefore, although in His human nature He was\ncreated and justified, He ought not to be called the Son of God,\neither in respect of His being created or of His being justified, but\nonly in respect of His eternal generation, by reason of which He is\nthe Son of the Father alone. Therefore nowise should Christ be called\nthe Son of the Holy Ghost, nor even of the whole Trinity.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ was conceived of the Virgin Mary, who supplied\nthe matter of His conception unto likeness of species. For this\nreason He is called her Son. But as man He was conceived of the Holy\nGhost as the active principle of His conception, but not unto\nlikeness of species, as a man is born of his father. Therefore Christ\nis not called the Son of the Holy Ghost.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Men who are fashioned spiritually by the Holy Ghost\ncannot be called sons of God in the perfect sense of sonship. And\ntherefore they are called sons of God in respect of imperfect\nsonship, which is by reason of the likeness of grace, which flows\nfrom the whole Trinity.\n\nBut with Christ it is different, as stated above.\n\nThe same reply avails for the Third Objection.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Blessed Virgin Cooperated Actively in the Conception of\nChrist's Body?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cooperated\nactively in the conception of Christ's body. For Damascene says (De\nFide Orth. iii) that \"the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin, purifying\nher, and bestowing on her the power to receive and to bring forth the\nWord of God.\" But she had from nature the passive power of\ngeneration, like any other woman. Therefore He bestowed on her an\nactive power of generation. And thus she cooperated actively in\nChrist's conception.\n\nObj. 2: Further, all the powers of the vegetative soul are active, as\nthe Commentator says (De Anima ii). But the generative power, in both\nman and woman, belongs to the vegetative soul. Therefore, both in man\nand woman, it cooperates actively in the conception of the child.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the conception of a child the woman supplies the\nmatter from which the child's body is naturally formed. But nature is\nan intrinsic principle of movement. Therefore it seems that in the\nvery matter supplied by the Blessed Virgin there was an active\nprinciple.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The active principle in generation is called the\n\"seminal virtue.\" But, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x), Christ's\nbody \"was taken from the Virgin, only as to corporeal matter, by the\nDivine power of conception and formation, but not by any human\nseminal virtue.\" Therefore the Blessed Virgin did not cooperate\nactively in, the conception of Christ's body.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some say that the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively\nin Christ's conception, both by natural and by a supernatural power.\nBy natural power, because they hold that in all natural matter there\nis an active principle; otherwise they believe that there would be no\nsuch thing as natural transformation. But in this they are deceived.\nBecause a transformation is said to be natural by reason not only of\nan active but also of a passive intrinsic principle: for the\nPhilosopher says expressly (Phys. viii) that in heavy and light\nthings there is a passive, and not an active, principle of natural\nmovement. Nor is it possible for matter to be active in its own\nformation, since it is not in act. Nor, again, is it possible for\nanything to put itself in motion except it be divided into two parts,\none being the mover, the other being moved: which happens in animate\nthings only, as is proved _Phys._ viii.\n\nBy a supernatural power, because they say that the mother requires\nnot only to supply the matter, which is the menstrual blood, but also\nthe semen, which, being mingled with that of the male, has an active\npower in generation. And since in the Blessed Virgin there was no\nresolution of semen, by reason of her inviolate virginity, they say\nthat the Holy Ghost supernaturally bestowed on her an active power in\nthe conception of Christ's body, which power other mothers have by\nreason of the semen resolved. But this cannot stand, because, since\n\"each thing is on account of its operation\" (De Coel. ii), nature\nwould not, for the purpose of the act of generation, distinguish the\nmale and female sexes, unless the action of the male were distinct\nfrom that of the female. Now, in generation there are two distinct\noperations--that of the agent and that of the patient. Wherefore it\nfollows that the entire active operation is on the part of the male,\nand the passive on the part of the female. For this reason in plants,\nwhere both forces are mingled, there is no distinction of male and\nfemale.\n\nSince, therefore, the Blessed Virgin was not Christ's Father, but His\nMother, it follows that it was not given to her to exercise an active\npower in His conception: whether to cooperate actively so as to be\nHis Father, or not to cooperate at all, as some say. Whence it would\nfollow that this active power was bestowed on her to no purpose. We\nmust therefore say that in Christ's conception itself she did not\ncooperate actively, but merely supplied the matter thereof.\nNevertheless, before the conception she cooperated actively in the\npreparation of the matter so that it should be apt for the conception.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This conception had three privileges--namely, that it\nwas without original sin; that it was not that of a man only, but of\nGod and man; and that it was a virginal conception. And all three\nwere effected by the Holy Ghost. Therefore Damascene says, as to the\nfirst, that the Holy Ghost \"came upon the Virgin, purifying\nher\"--that is, preserving her from conceiving with original sin. As\nto the second, he says: \"And bestowing on her the power to receive,\"\ni.e. to conceive, \"the Word of God.\" As to the third, he says: \"And\nto give birth\" to Him, i.e. that she might, while remaining a virgin,\nbring Him forth, not actively, but passively, just as other mothers\nachieve this through the action of the male seed.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The generative power of the female is imperfect\ncompared to that of the male. And, therefore, just as in the arts the\ninferior art gives a disposition to the matter to which the higher\nart gives the form, as is stated _Phys._ ii, so also the generative\npower of the female prepares the matter, which is then fashioned by\nthe active power of the male.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In order for a transformation to be natural, there is\nno need for an active principle in matter, but only for a passive\nprinciple, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 33\n\nOF THE MODE AND ORDER OF CHRIST'S CONCEPTION\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the mode and order of Christ's conception,\nconcerning which there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ's body was formed in the first instant of its\nconception?\n\n(2) Whether it was animated in the first instant of its conception?\n\n(3) Whether it was assumed by the Word in the first instant of its\nconception?\n\n(4) Whether this conception was natural or miraculous?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Was Formed in the First Instant of Its\nConception?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was not formed in the\nfirst instant of its conception. For it is written (John 2:20):\n\"Six-and-forty years was this Temple in building\"; on which words\nAugustine comments as follows (De Trin. iv): \"This number applies\nmanifestly to the perfection of our Lord's body.\" He says, further\n(QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 56): \"It is not without reason that the Temple,\nwhich was a type of His body, is said to have been forty-six years in\nbuilding: so that as many years as it took to build the Temple, in so\nmany days was our Lord's body perfected.\" Therefore Christ's body was\nnot perfectly formed in the first instant of its conception.\n\nObj. 2: Further, there was need of local movement for the formation\nof Christ's body in order that the purest blood of the Virgin's body\nmight be brought where generation might aptly take place. Now, no\nbody can be moved locally in an instant: since the time taken in\nmovement is divided according to the division of the thing moved, as\nis proved _Phys._ vi. Therefore Christ's body was not formed in an\ninstant.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's body was formed of the purest blood of the\nVirgin, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 5). But that matter could not be\nin the same instant both blood and flesh, because thus matter would\nhave been at the same time the subject of two forms. Therefore the\nlast instant in which it was blood was distinct from the first\ninstant in which it was flesh. But between any two instants there is\nan interval of time. Therefore Christ's body was not formed in an\ninstant, but during a space of time.\n\nObj. 4: Further, as the augmentative power requires a fixed time for\nits act, so also does the generative power: for both are natural\npowers belonging to the vegetative soul. But Christ's body took a\nfixed time to grow, like the bodies of other men: for it is written\n(Luke 2:52) that He \"advanced in wisdom and age.\" Therefore it seems\nfor the same reason that the formation of His body, since that, too,\nbelongs to the generative power, was not instantaneous, but took a\nfixed time, like the bodies of other men.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xviii): \"As soon as the angel\nannounced it, as soon as the Spirit came down, the Word was in the\nwomb, within the womb the Word was made flesh.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ In the conception of Christ's body three points may\nbe considered: first, the local movement of the blood to the place of\ngeneration; secondly, the formation of the body from that matter;\nthirdly, the development whereby it was brought to perfection of\nquantity. Of these, the second is the conception itself; the first is\na preamble; the third, a result of the conception.\n\nNow, the first could not be instantaneous: since this would be\ncontrary to the very nature of the local movement of any body\nwhatever, the parts of which come into a place successively. The\nthird also requires a succession of time: both because there is no\nincrease without local movement, and because increase is effected by\nthe power of the soul already informing the body, the operation of\nwhich power is subject to time.\n\nBut the body's very formation, in which conception principally\nconsists, was instantaneous, for two reasons. First, because of the\ninfinite power of the agent, viz. the Holy Ghost, by whom Christ's\nbody was formed, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 1). For the greater the\npower of an agent, the more quickly can it dispose matter; and,\nconsequently, an agent of infinite power can dispose matter\ninstantaneously to its due form. Secondly, on the part of the Person\nof the Son, whose body was being formed. For it was unbecoming that\nHe should take to Himself a body as yet unformed. While, if the\nconception had been going on for any time before the perfect\nformation of the body, the whole conception could not be attributed\nto the Son of God, since it is not attributed to Him except by reason\nof the assumption of that body. Therefore in the first instant in\nwhich the various parts of the matter were united together in the\nplace of generation, Christ's body was both perfectly formed and\nassumed. And thus is the Son of God said to have been conceived; nor\ncould it be said otherwise.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Neither quotation from Augustine refers to formation\nalone of Christ's body, but to its formation, together with a fixed\ndevelopment up to the time of His birth. Wherefore in the aforesaid\nnumber are foreshadowed the number of months during which Christ was\nin the Virgin's womb.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This local movement is not comprised within the\nconception itself, but is a preamble thereto.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It is not possible to fix the last instant in which\nthat matter was blood: but it is possible to fix the last period of\ntime which continued without any interval up to the first instant in\nwhich Christ's body was formed. And this instant was the terminus of\nthe time occupied by the local movement of the matter towards the\nplace of generation.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Increase is caused by the augmentative power of that\nwhich is the subject of increase: but the formation of the body is\ncaused by the generative power, not of that which is generated, but\nof the father generating from seed, in which the formative power\nderived from the father's soul has its operation. But Christ's body\nwas not formed by the seed of man, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 5, ad\n3), but by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the formation\nthereof should be such as to be worthy of the Holy Ghost. But the\ndevelopment of Christ's body was the effect of the augmentative power\nin Christ's soul: and since this was of the same species as ours, it\nbehooved His body to develop in the same way as the bodies of other\nmen, so as to prove the reality of His human nature.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Was Animated in the First Instant of Its\nConception?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was not animated in the\nfirst instant of its conception. For Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Julian.):\n\"Christ's flesh was not of another nature than ours: nor was the\nbeginning of His animation different from that of other men.\" But the\nsoul is not infused into other men at the first instant of their\nconception. Therefore neither should Christ's soul have been infused\ninto His body in the first instant of its conception.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the soul, like any natural form, requires\ndeterminate quantity in its matter. But in the first instant of its\nconception Christ's body was not of the same quantity as the bodies\nof other men when they are animated: otherwise, if afterwards its\ndevelopment had been continuous, either its birth would have occurred\nsooner, or at the time of birth He would have been a bigger child\nthan others. The former alternative is contrary to what Augustine\nsays (De Trin. iv), where he proves that Christ was in the Virgin's\nwomb for the space of nine months: while the latter is contrary to\nwhat Pope Leo says (Serm. iv in Epiph.): \"They found the child Jesus\nnowise differing from the generality of infants.\" Therefore Christ's\nbody was not animated in the first instant of its conception.\n\nObj. 3: Further, whenever there is \"before\" and \"after\" there must be\nseveral instants. But according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal.\nii) in the generation of a man there must needs be \"before\" and\n\"after\": for he is first of all a living thing, and afterwards, an\nanimal, and after that, a man. Therefore the animation of Christ\ncould not be effected in the first instant of His conception.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): \"At the very\ninstant that there was flesh, it was the flesh of the Word of God, it\nwas flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ For the conception to be attributed to the very Son\nof God, as we confess in the Creed, when we say, \"who was conceived\nby the Holy Ghost,\" we must needs say that the body itself, in being\nconceived, was assumed by the Word of God. Now it has been shown\nabove (Q. 6, AA. 1, 2) that the Word of God assumed the body by means\nof the soul, and the soul by means of the spirit, i.e. the intellect.\nWherefore in the first instant of its conception Christ's body must\nneeds have been animated by the rational soul.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The beginning of the infusion of the soul may be\nconsidered in two ways. First, in regard to the disposition of the\nbody. And thus, the beginning of the infusion of the soul into\nChrist's body was the same as in other men's bodies: for just as the\nsoul is infused into another man's body as soon as it is formed, so\nwas it with Christ. Secondly, this beginning may be considered merely\nin regard to time. And thus, because Christ's body was perfectly\nformed in a shorter space of time, so after a shorter space of time\nwas it animated.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The soul requires due quantity in the matter into which\nit is infused: but this quantity allows of a certain latitude because\nit is not fixed to a certain amount. Now the quantity that a body has\nwhen the soul is first infused into it is in proportion to the\nperfect quantity to which it will attain by development: that is to\nsay, men of greater stature have greater bodies at the time of first\nanimation. But Christ at the perfect age was of becoming and middle\nstature: in proportion to which was the quantity of His body at the\ntime when other men's bodies are animated; though it was less than\ntheirs at the first instant of His conception. Nevertheless that\nquantity was not too small to safeguard the nature of an animated\nbody; since it would have sufficed for the animation of a small man's\nbody.\n\nReply Obj. 3: What the Philosopher says is true in the generation of\nother men, because the body is successively formed and disposed for\nthe soul: whence, first, as being imperfectly disposed, it receives\nan imperfect soul; and afterwards, when it is perfectly disposed, it\nreceives a perfect soul. But Christ's body, on account of the\ninfinite power of the agent, was perfectly disposed instantaneously.\nWherefore, at once and in the first instant it received a perfect\nform, that is, the rational soul.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ's Flesh Was First of All Conceived and Afterwards\nAssumed?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was first of all\nconceived, and afterwards assumed. Because what is not cannot be\nassumed. But Christ's flesh began to exist when it was conceived.\nTherefore it seems that it was assumed by the Word of God after it\nwas conceived.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's flesh was assumed by the Word of God, by\nmeans of the rational soul. But it received the rational soul at the\nterm of the conception. Therefore it was assumed at the term of the\nconception. But at the term of the conception it was already\nconceived. Therefore it was first of all conceived and afterwards\nassumed.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in everything generated, that which is imperfect\nprecedes in time that which is perfect: which is made clear by the\nPhilosopher (Metaph. ix). But Christ's body is something generated.\nTherefore it did not attain to its ultimate perfection, which\nconsisted in the union with the Word of God, at the first instant of\nits conception; but, first of all, the flesh was conceived and\nafterwards assumed.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Fide ad Petrum xviii [*Written\nby Fulgentius]): \"Hold steadfastly, and doubt not for a moment that\nChrist's flesh was not conceived in the Virgin's womb, before being\nassumed by the Word.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above, we may say properly that \"God was\nmade man,\" but not that \"man was made God\": because God took to\nHimself that which belongs to man--and that which belongs to man did\nnot pre-exist, as subsisting in itself, before being assumed by the\nWord. But if Christ's flesh had been conceived before being assumed\nby the Word, it would have had at some time an hypostasis other than\nthat of the Word of God. And this is against the very nature of the\nIncarnation, which we hold to consist in this, that the Word of God\nwas united to human nature and to all its parts in the unity of\nhypostasis: nor was it becoming that the Word of God should, by\nassuming human nature, destroy a pre-existing hypostasis of human\nnature or of any part thereof. It is consequently contrary to faith\nto assert that Christ's flesh was first of all conceived and\nafterwards assumed by the Word of God.\n\nReply Obj. 1: If Christ's flesh had been formed or conceived, not\ninstantaneously, but successively, one of two things would follow:\neither that what was assumed was not yet flesh, or that the flesh was\nconceived before it was assumed. But since we hold that the\nconception was effected instantaneously, it follows that in that\nflesh the beginning and the completion of its conception were in the\nsame instant. So that, as Augustine [*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum\nxviii] says: \"We say that the very Word of God was conceived in\ntaking flesh, and that His very flesh was conceived by the Word\ntaking flesh.\"\n\nFrom the above the reply to the Second Objection is clear. For in the\nsame moment that this flesh began to be conceived, its conception and\nanimation were completed.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The mystery of the Incarnation is not to be looked upon\nas an ascent, as it were, of a man already existing and mounting up\nto the dignity of the Union: as the heretic Photinus maintained.\nRather is it to be considered as a descent, by reason of the perfect\nWord of God taking unto Himself the imperfection of our nature;\naccording to John 6:38: \"I came down from heaven.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ's Conception Was Natural?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's conception was natural. For\nChrist is called the Son of Man by reason of His conception in the\nflesh. But He is a true and natural Son of Man: as also is He the\ntrue and natural Son of God. Therefore His conception was natural.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no creature can be the cause of a miraculous effect.\nBut Christ's conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin, who is a\nmere creature: for we say that the Virgin conceived Christ. Therefore\nit seems that His conception was not miraculous, but natural.\n\nObj. 3: Further, for a transformation to be natural, it is enough\nthat the passive principle be natural, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 4).\nBut in Christ's conception the passive principle on the part of His\nMother was natural, as we have shown (Q. 32, A. 4). Therefore\nChrist's conception was natural.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Ep. ad Caium Monach.): \"Christ\ndoes in a superhuman way those things that pertain to man: this is\nshown in the miraculous virginal conception.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): \"In this mystery\nthou shalt find many things that are natural, and many that are\nsupernatural.\" For if we consider in this conception anything\nconnected with the matter thereof, which was supplied by the mother,\nit was in all such things natural. But if we consider it on the part\nof the active power, thus it was entirely miraculous. And since\njudgment of a thing should be pronounced in respect of its form\nrather than of its matter: and likewise in respect of its activity\nrather than of its passiveness: therefore is it that Christ's\nconception should be described simply as miraculous and supernatural,\nalthough in a certain respect it was natural.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ is said to be a natural Son of Man, by reason of\nHis having a true human nature, through which He is a Son of Man,\nalthough He had it miraculously; thus, too, the blind man to whom\nsight has been restored sees naturally by sight miraculously received.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin, not\nas the active principle thereof, but because she supplied the matter,\nand because the conception took place in her womb.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A natural passive principle suffices for a\ntransformation to be natural, when it is moved by its proper active\nprinciple in a natural and wonted way. But this is not so in the case\nin point. Therefore this conception cannot be called simply natural.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 34\n\nOF THE PERFECTION OF THE CHILD CONCEIVED\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the perfection of the child conceived: and\nconcerning this there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ was sanctified by grace in the first instant of\nHis conception?\n\n(2) Whether in that same instant He had the use of free-will?\n\n(3) Whether in that same instant He could merit?\n\n(4) Whether in that same instant He was a perfect comprehensor?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 34, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Was Sanctified in the First Instant of His Conception?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was not sanctified in the\nfirst instant of His conception. For it is written (1 Cor. 15:46):\n\"That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural:\nafterwards that which is spiritual.\" But sanctification by grace is\nsomething spiritual. Therefore Christ received the grace of\nsanctification, not at the very beginning of His conception, but\nafter a space of time.\n\nObj. 2: Further, sanctification seems to be a cleansing from sin:\naccording to 1 Cor. 6:1: \"And such some of you were,\" namely,\nsinners, \"but you are washed, but you are sanctified.\" But sin was\nnever in Christ. Therefore it was not becoming that He should be\nsanctified by grace.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as by the Word of God \"all things were made,\" so\nfrom the Word incarnate all men who are made holy receive holiness,\naccording to Heb. 2:11: \"Both he that sanctifieth and they who are\nsanctified are all of one.\" But \"the Word of God, by whom all things\nwere made, was not Himself made\"; as Augustine says (De Trin. i).\nTherefore Christ, by whom all are made holy, was not Himself made\nholy.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 1:35): \"The Holy which shall\nbe born of thee shall be called the Son of God\"; and (John 10:36):\n\"Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 7, AA. 9, 10, 12), the abundance\nof grace sanctifying Christ's soul flows from the very union of the\nWord, according to John 1:14: \"We saw His glory . . . as it were of\nthe Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.\" For it has\nbeen shown above (Q. 33, AA. 2, 3) that in the first instant of\nconception, Christ's body was both animated and assumed by the Word\nof God. Consequently, in the first instant of His conception, Christ\nhad the fulness of grace sanctifying His body and His soul.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The order set down by the Apostle in this passage\nrefers to those who by advancing attain to the spiritual state. But\nthe mystery of the Incarnation is considered as a condescension of\nthe fulness of the Godhead into human nature rather than as the\npromotion of human nature, already existing, as it were, to the\nGodhead. Therefore in the man Christ there was perfection of\nspiritual life from the very beginning.\n\nReply Obj. 2: To be sanctified is to be made holy. Now something is\nmade not only from its contrary, but also from that which is opposite\nto it, either by negation or by privation: thus white is made either\nfrom black or from not-white. We indeed from being sinners are made\nholy: so that our sanctification is a cleansing from sin. Whereas\nChrist, as man, was made holy, because He was not always thus\nsanctified by grace: yet He was not made holy from being a sinner,\nbecause He never sinned; but He was made holy from not-holy as man,\nnot indeed by privation, as though He were at some time a man and not\nholy; but by negation--that is, when He was not man He had not human\nsanctity. Therefore at the same time He was made man and a holy man.\nFor this reason the angel said (Luke 1:35): \"The Holy which shall be\nborn of thee.\" Which words Gregory expounds as follows (Moral.\nxviii): \"In order to show the distinction between His holiness and\nours, it is declared that He shall be born holy. For we, though we\nare made holy, yet are not born holy, because by the mere condition\nof a corruptible nature we are tied . . . But He alone is truly born\nholy who . . . was not conceived by the combining of carnal union.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Father creates things through the Son, and the\nwhole Trinity sanctifies men through the Man Christ, but not in the\nsame way. For the Word of God has the same power and operation as God\nthe Father: hence the Father does not work through the Son as an\ninstrument, which is both mover and moved. Whereas the humanity of\nChrist is as the instrument of the Godhead, as stated above (Q. 7, A.\n1, ad 3; Q. 8, A. 1, ad 1). Therefore Christ's humanity is both\nsanctified and sanctifier.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 34, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ As Man Had the Use of Free-will in the First Instant\nof His Conception?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ as man had not the use of\nfree-will in the first instant of His conception. For a thing is,\nbefore it acts or operates. Now the use of free-will is an operation.\nSince, therefore, Christ's soul began to exist in the first instant\nof His conception, as was made clear above (Q. 33, A. 2), it seems\nimpossible that He should have the use of free-will in the first\ninstant of His conception.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the use of free-will consists in choice. But choice\npresupposes the deliberation of counsel: for the Philosopher says\n(Ethic. iii) that choice is \"the desire of what has been previously\nthe object of deliberation.\" Therefore it seems impossible that\nChrist should have had the use of free-will in the first instant of\nHis conception.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the free-will is \"a faculty of the will and reason,\"\nas stated in the First Part (Q. 83, A. 2, Obj. 2): consequently the\nuse of free-will is an act of the will and the reason or intellect.\nBut the act of the intellect presupposes an act of the senses; and\nthis cannot exist without proper disposition of the organs--a\ncondition which would seem impossible in the first instant of\nChrist's conception. Therefore it seems that Christ could not have\nthe use of free-will at the first instant of His conception.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book on the Trinity\n(Gregory: Regist. ix, Ep. 61): \"As soon as the Word entered the womb,\nwhile retaining the reality of His Nature, He was made flesh, and a\nperfect man.\" But a perfect man has the use of free-will. Therefore\nChrist had the use of free-will in the first instant of His\nconception.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), spiritual perfection was\nbecoming to the human nature which Christ took, which perfection He\nattained not by making progress, but by receiving it from the very\nfirst. Now ultimate perfection does not consist in power or habit,\nbut in operation; wherefore it is said (De Anima ii, text. 5) that\noperation is a \"second act.\" We must, therefore, say that in the\nfirst instant of His conception Christ had that operation of the soul\nwhich can be had in an instant. And such is the operation of the will\nand intellect, in which the use of free-will consists. For the\noperation of the intellect and will is sudden and instantaneous, much\nmore, indeed, than corporeal vision; inasmuch as to understand, to\nwill, and to feel, are not movements that may be described as \"acts\nof an imperfect being,\" which attains perfection successively, but\nare \"the acts of an already perfect being,\" as is said, _De Anima_\niii, text. 28. We must therefore say that Christ had the use of\nfree-will in the first instant of His conception.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Existence precedes action by nature, but not in time;\nbut at the same time the agent has perfect existence, and begins to\nact unless it is hindered. Thus fire, as soon as it is generated,\nbegins to give heat and light. The action of heating, however, is not\nterminated in an instant, but continues for a time; whereas the\naction of giving light is perfected in an instant. And such an\noperation is the use of free-will, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As soon as counsel or deliberation is ended, there may\nbe choice. But those who need the deliberation of counsel, as soon as\nthis comes to an end are certain of what ought to be chosen: and\nconsequently they choose at once. From this it is clear that the\ndeliberation of counsel does not of necessity precede choice save for\nthe purpose of inquiring into what is uncertain. But Christ, in the\nfirst instant of His conception, had the fulness of sanctifying\ngrace, and in like manner the fulness of known truth; according to\nJohn 1:14: \"Full of grace and truth.\" Wherefore, as being possessed\nof certainty about all things, He could choose at once in an instant.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's intellect, in regard to His infused\nknowledge, could understand without turning to phantasms, as stated\nabove (Q. 11, A. 2). Consequently His intellect and will could\nact without any action of the senses.\n\nNevertheless it was possible for Him, in the first instant of His\nconception, to have an operation of the senses: especially as to the\nsense of touch, which the infant can exercise in the womb even before\nit has received the rational soul, as is said, _De Gener. Animal._\nii, 3, 4. Wherefore, since Christ had the rational soul in the first\ninstant of His conception, through His body being already fashioned\nand endowed with sensible organs, much more was it possible for Him\nto exercise the sense of touch in that same instant.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 34, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Could Merit in the First Instant of His Conception?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ could not merit in the first\ninstant of His conception. For the free-will bears the same relation\nto merit as to demerit. But the devil could not sin in the first\ninstant of his creation, as was shown in the First Part, Q. 63, A. 5.\nTherefore neither could Christ's soul merit in the first instant of\nits creation--that is, in the first instant of Christ's conception.\n\nObj. 2: Further, that which man has in the first instant of his\nconception seems to be natural to him: for it is in this that his\nnatural generation is terminated. But we do not merit by what is\nnatural to us, as is clear from what has been said in the Second Part\n(I-II, Q. 109, A. 5; Q. 114, A. 2). Therefore it seems that the use\nof free-will, which Christ as man had in the first instant of His\nconception, was not meritorious.\n\nObj. 3: Further, that which a man has once merited he makes, in a\nway, his own: consequently it seems that he cannot merit the same\nthing again: for no one merits what is already his. If, therefore,\nChrist merited in the first instant of His conception, it follows\nthat afterwards He merited nothing. But this is evidently untrue.\nTherefore Christ did not merit in the first instant of His conception.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine [*Paterius, Expos. Vet. et Nov. Test.\nsuper Ex. 40] says: \"Increase of merit was absolutely impossible to\nthe soul of Christ.\" But increase of merit would have been possible\nhad He not merited in the first instant of His conception. Therefore\nChrist merited in the first instant of His conception.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), Christ was sanctified by\ngrace in the first instant of His conception. Now, sanctification is\ntwofold: that of adults who are sanctified in consideration of their\nown act; and that of infants who are sanctified in consideration of,\nnot their own act of faith, but that of their parents or of the\nChurch. The former sanctification is more perfect than the latter:\njust as act is more perfect than habit; and \"that which is by itself,\nthan that which is by another\" [*Aristotle, _Phys._ viii]. Since,\ntherefore, the sanctification of Christ was most perfect, because He\nwas so sanctified that He might sanctify others; consequently He was\nsanctified by reason of His own movement of the free-will towards\nGod. Which movement, indeed, of the free-will is meritorious.\nConsequently, Christ did merit in the first instant of His conception.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Free-will does not bear the same relation to good as to\nevil: for to good it is related of itself, and naturally; whereas to\nevil it is related as to a defect, and beside nature. Now, as the\nPhilosopher says (De Coelo ii, text. 18): \"That which is beside\nnature is subsequent to that which is according to nature; because\nthat which is beside nature is an exception to nature.\" Therefore the\nfree-will of a creature can be moved to good meritoriously in the\nfirst instant of its creation, but not to evil sinfully; provided,\nhowever, its nature be unimpaired.\n\nReply Obj. 2: That which man has at the first moment of his creation,\nin the ordinary course of nature, is natural to him; but nothing\nhinders a creature from receiving from God a gift of grace at the\nvery beginning of its creation. In this way did Christ's soul in the\nfirst instant of its creation receive grace by which it could merit.\nAnd for this reason is that grace, by way of a certain likeness, said\nto be natural to this Man, as explained by Augustine (Enchiridion xl).\n\nReply Obj. 3: Nothing prevents the same thing belonging to someone\nfrom several causes. And thus it is that Christ was able by\nsubsequent actions and sufferings to merit the glory of immortality,\nwhich He also merited in the first instant of His conception: not,\nindeed, so that it became thereby more due to Him than before, but so\nthat it was due to Him from more causes than before.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 34, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Was a Perfect Comprehensor in the First Instant of His\nConception?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was not a perfect comprehensor\nin the first instant of His conception. For merit precedes reward, as\nfault precedes punishment. But Christ merited in the first instant of\nHis conception, as stated above (A. 3). Since, therefore, the state\nof comprehension is the principal reward, it seems that Christ was\nnot a comprehensor in the first instant of His conception.\n\nObj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Luke 24:26): \"Ought not Christ to\nhave suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?\" But\nglory belongs to the state of comprehension. Therefore Christ was not\nin the state of comprehension in the first instant of His conception,\nwhen as yet He had not suffered.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what befits neither man nor angel seems proper to\nGod; and therefore is not becoming to Christ as man. But to be always\nin the state of beatitude befits neither man nor angel: for if they\nhad been created in beatitude, they would not have sinned afterwards.\nTherefore Christ, as man, was not in the state of beatitude in the\nfirst instant of His conception.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 64:5): \"Blessed is he whom Thou\nhast chosen, and taken to Thee\"; which words, according to the gloss,\nrefer to Christ's human nature, which \"was taken by the Word of God\nunto the unity of Person.\" But human nature was taken by the Word of\nGod in the first instant of His conception. Therefore, in the first\ninstant of His conception, Christ, as man, was in the state of\nbeatitude; which is to be a comprehensor.\n\n_I answer that,_ As appears from what was said above (A. 3), it was\nunbecoming that in His conception Christ should receive merely\nhabitual grace without the act. Now, He received grace \"not by\nmeasure\" (John 3:34), as stated above (Q. 7, A. 11). But the grace of\nthe \"wayfarer,\" being short of that of the \"comprehensor,\" is in less\nmeasure than that of the comprehensor. Wherefore it is manifest that\nin the first instant of His conception Christ received not only as\nmuch grace as comprehensors have, but also greater than that which\nthey all have. And because that grace was not without its act, it\nfollows that He was a comprehensor in act, seeing God in His Essence\nmore clearly than other creatures.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 19, A. 3), Christ did not merit the\nglory of the soul, in respect of which He is said to have been a\ncomprehensor, but the glory of the body, to which He came through His\nPassion.\n\nWherefore the reply to the Second Objection is clear.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Since Christ was both God and man, He had, even in His\nhumanity, something more than other creatures--namely, that He was in\nthe state of beatitude from the very beginning.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 35\n\nOF CHRIST'S NATIVITY\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nAfter considering Christ's conception, we must treat of His nativity.\nFirst, as to the nativity itself; secondly, as to His manifestation\nafter birth.\n\nConcerning the first there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether nativity regards the nature or the person?\n\n(2) Whether another, besides His eternal, birth should be attributed\nto Christ?\n\n(3) Whether the Blessed Virgin is His Mother in respect of His\ntemporal birth?\n\n(4) Whether she ought to be called the Mother of God?\n\n(5) Whether Christ is the Son of God the Father and of the Virgin\nMother in respect of two filiations?\n\n(6) Of the mode of the Nativity;\n\n(7) Of its place;\n\n(8) Of the time of the Nativity.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Nativity Regards the Nature Rather Than the Person?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that nativity regards the nature rather\nthan the person. For Augustine [*Fulgentius] says (De Fide ad\nPetrum): \"The eternal Divine Nature could not be conceived and born\nof human nature, except in a true human nature.\" Consequently it\nbecomes the Divine Nature to be conceived and born by reason of the\nhuman nature. Much more, therefore, does it regard human nature\nitself.\n\nObj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), \"nature\"\nis so denominated from \"nativity.\" But things are denominated from\none another by reason of some likeness. Therefore it seems that\nnativity regards the nature rather than the person.\n\nObj. 3: Further, properly speaking, that is born which begins to\nexist by nativity. But Christ's Person did not begin to exist by His\nnativity, whereas His human nature did. Therefore it seems that the\nnativity properly regards the nature, and not the person.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): \"Nativity\nregards the hypostasis, not the nature.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Nativity can be attributed to someone in two ways:\nfirst, as to its subject; secondly, as to its terminus. To him that\nis born it is attributed as to its subject: and this, properly\nspeaking, is the hypostasis, not the nature. For since to be born is\nto be generated; as a thing is generated in order for it to be, so is\na thing born in order for it to be. Now, to be, properly speaking,\nbelongs to that which subsists; since a form that does not subsist is\nsaid to be only inasmuch as by it something is: and whereas person or\nhypostasis designates something as subsisting, nature designates\nform, whereby something subsists. Consequently, nativity is\nattributed to the person or hypostasis as to the proper subject of\nbeing born, but not to the nature.\n\nBut to the nature nativity is attributed as to its terminus. For the\nterminus of generation and of every nativity is the form. Now, nature\ndesignates something as a form: wherefore nativity is said to be \"the\nroad to nature,\" as the Philosopher states (Phys. ii): for the\npurpose of nature is terminated in the form or nature of the species.\n\nReply Obj. 1: On account of the identity of nature and hypostasis in\nGod, nature is sometimes put instead of person or hypostasis. And in\nthis sense Augustine says that the Divine Nature was conceived and\nborn, inasmuch as the Person of the Son was conceived and born in the\nhuman nature.\n\nReply Obj. 2: No movement or change is denominated from the subject\nmoved, but from the terminus of the movement, whence the subject has\nits species. For this reason nativity is not denominated from the\nperson born, but from nature, which is the terminus of nativity.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Nature, properly speaking, does not begin to exist:\nrather is it the person that begins to exist in some nature. Because,\nas stated above, nature designates that by which something is;\nwhereas person designates something as having subsistent being.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 2]\n\nWhether a Temporal Nativity Should Be Attributed to Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that temporal nativity is not to be\nattributed to Christ. For \"to be born is a certain movement of a\nthing that did not exist before it was born, which movement procures\nfor it the benefit of existence\" [*Cf. Augustine, De Unit. Trin.\nxii]. But Christ was from all eternity. Therefore He could not be\nborn in time.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what is perfect in itself needs not to be born. But\nthe Person of the Son of God was perfect from eternity. Therefore He\nneeds not to be born in time. Therefore it seems that He had no\ntemporal birth.\n\nObj. 3: Further, properly speaking, nativity regards the person. But\nin Christ there is only one person. Therefore in Christ there is but\none nativity.\n\nObj. 4: Further, what is born by two nativities is born twice. But\nthis proposition is false; \"Christ was born twice\": because the\nnativity whereby He was born of the Father suffers no interruption;\nsince it is eternal. Whereas interruption is required to warrant the\nuse of the adverb \"twice\": for a man is said to run twice whose\nrunning is interrupted. Therefore it seems that we should not admit a\ndouble nativity in Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): \"We confess\ntwo nativities in Christ: one of the Father--eternal; and one which\noccurred in these latter times for our sake.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), nature is compared to\nnativity, as the terminus to movement or change. Now, movement is\ndiversified according to the diversity of its termini, as the\nPhilosopher shows (Phys. v). But, in Christ there is a twofold\nnature: one which He received of the Father from eternity, the other\nwhich He received from His Mother in time. Therefore we must needs\nattribute to Christ a twofold nativity: one by which He was born of\nthe Father from all eternity; one by which He was born of His Mother\nin time.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This was the argument of a certain heretic, Felician,\nand is solved thus by Augustine (Contra Felic. xii). \"Let us\nsuppose,\" says he, \"as many maintain, that in the world there is a\nuniversal soul, which, by its ineffable movement, so gives life to\nall seed, that it is not compounded with things begotten, but bestows\nlife that they may be begotten. Without doubt, when this soul reaches\nthe womb, being intent on fashioning the passible matter to its own\npurpose, it unites itself to the personality thereof, though\nmanifestly it is not of the same substance; and thus of the active\nsoul and passive matter, one man is made out of two substances. And\nso we confess that the soul is born from out the womb; but not as\nthough, before birth, it was nothing at all in itself. Thus, then,\nbut in a way much more sublime, the Son of God was born as man, just\nas the soul is held to be born together with the body: not as though\nthey both made one substance, but that from both, one person results.\nYet we do not say that the Son of God began thus to exist: lest it be\nthought that His Divinity is temporal. Nor do we acknowledge the\nflesh of the Son of God to have been from eternity: lest it be\nthought that He took, not a true human body, but some resemblance\nthereof.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is thus\nsolved by Cyril in an epistle [*Cf. Acta Concil. Ephes., p. 1, cap.\nviii]: \"We do not say that the Son of God had need, for His own sake,\nof a second nativity, after that which is from the Father: for it is\nfoolish and a mark of ignorance to say that He who is from all\neternity, and co-eternal with the Father, needs to begin again to\nexist. But because for us and for our salvation, uniting the human\nnature to His Person, He became the child of a woman, for this reason\ndo we say that He was born in the flesh.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Nativity regards the person as its subject, the nature\nas its terminus. Now, it is possible for several transformations to\nbe in the same subject: yet must they be diversified in respect of\ntheir termini. But we do not say this as though the eternal nativity\nwere a transformation or a movement, but because it is designated by\nway of a transformation or movement.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Christ can be said to have been born twice in respect\nof His two nativities. For just as he is said to run twice who runs\nat two different times, so can He be said to be born twice who is\nborn once from eternity and once in time: because eternity and time\ndiffer much more than two different times, although each signifies a\nmeasure of duration.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Blessed Virgin Can Be Called Christ's Mother in Respect\nof His Temporal Nativity?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cannot be called\nChrist's Mother in respect of His temporal nativity. For, as stated\nabove (Q. 32, A. 4), the Blessed Virgin Mary did not cooperate\nactively in begetting Christ, but merely supplied the matter. But\nthis does not seem sufficient to make her His Mother: otherwise wood\nmight be called the mother of the bed or bench. Therefore it seems\nthat the Blessed Virgin cannot be called the Mother of Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ was born miraculously of the Blessed Virgin.\nBut a miraculous begetting does not suffice for motherhood or\nsonship: for we do not speak of Eve as being the daughter of Adam.\nTherefore neither should Christ be called the Son of the Blessed\nVirgin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, motherhood seems to imply partial separation of the\nsemen. But, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii), \"Christ's body was\nformed, not by a seminal process, but by the operation of the Holy\nGhost.\" Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin should not be\ncalled the Mother of Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:18): \"The generation of\nChrist was in this wise. When His Mother Mary was espoused to\nJoseph,\" etc.\n\n_I answer that,_ The Blessed Virgin Mary is in truth and by nature\nthe Mother of Christ. For, as we have said above (Q. 5, A. 2; Q. 31,\nA. 5), Christ's body was not brought down from heaven, as the heretic\nValentine maintained, but was taken from the Virgin Mother, and\nformed from her purest blood. And this is all that is required for\nmotherhood, as has been made clear above (Q. 31, A. 5; Q. 32, A. 4).\nTherefore the Blessed Virgin is truly Christ's Mother.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 32, A. 3), not every generation\nimplies fatherhood or motherhood and sonship, but only the generation\nof living things. Consequently when inanimate things are made from\nsome matter, the relationship of motherhood and sonship does not\nfollow from this, but only in the generation of living things, which\nis properly called nativity.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): \"The temporal\nnativity by which Christ was born for our salvation is, in a way,\nnatural, since a Man was born of a woman, and after the due lapse of\ntime from His conception: but it is also supernatural, because He was\nbegotten, not of seed, but of the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin,\nabove the law of conception.\" Thus, then, on the part of the mother,\nthis nativity was natural, but on the part of the operation of the\nHoly Ghost it was supernatural. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is the\ntrue and natural Mother of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 31, A. 5, ad 3; Q. 32, A. 4), the\nresolution of the woman's semen is not necessary for conception;\nneither, therefore, is it required for motherhood.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Blessed Virgin should be called the Mother of God?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin should not be\ncalled the Mother of God. For in the Divine mysteries we should not\nmake any assertion that is not taken from Holy Scripture. But we read\nnowhere in Holy Scripture that she is the mother or parent of God,\nbut that she is the \"mother of Christ\" or of \"the Child,\" as may be\nseen from Matt. 1:18. Therefore we should not say that the Blessed\nVirgin is the Mother of God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ is called God in respect of His Divine\nNature. But the Divine Nature did not first originate from the\nVirgin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin should not be called the Mother\nof God.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the word \"God\" is predicated in common of Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is Mother of\nGod it seems to follow that she was the Mother of Father, Son, and\nHoly Ghost, which cannot be allowed. Therefore the Blessed Virgin\nshould not be called Mother of God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ In the chapters of Cyril, approved in the Council\nof Ephesus (P. 1, Cap. xxvi), we read: \"If anyone confess not that\nthe Emmanuel is truly God, and that for this reason the Holy Virgin\nis the Mother of God, since she begot of her flesh the Word of God\nmade flesh, let him be anathema.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 16, A. 1), every word that\nsignifies a nature in the concrete can stand for any hypostasis of\nthat nature. Now, since the union of the Incarnation took place in\nthe hypostasis, as above stated (Q. 2, A. 3), it is manifest that\nthis word \"God\" can stand for the hypostasis, having a human and a\nDivine nature. Therefore whatever belongs to the Divine and to the\nhuman nature can be attributed to that Person: both when a word is\nemployed to stand for it, signifying the Divine Nature, and when a\nword is used signifying the human nature. Now, conception and birth\nare attributed to the person and hypostasis in respect of that nature\nin which it is conceived and born. Since, therefore, the human nature\nwas taken by the Divine Person in the very beginning of the\nconception, as stated above (Q. 33, A. 3), it follows that it can be\ntruly said that God was conceived and born of the Virgin. Now from\nthis is a woman called a man's mother, that she conceived him and\ngave birth to him. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is truly called the\nMother of God. For the only way in which it could be denied that the\nBlessed Virgin is the Mother of God would be either if the humanity\nwere first subject to conception and birth, before this man were the\nSon of God, as Photinus said; or if the humanity were not assumed\nunto unity of the Person or hypostasis of the Word of God, as\nNestorius maintained. But both of these are erroneous. Therefore it\nis heretical to deny that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is solved by\nsaying that, although we do not find it said expressly in Scripture\nthat the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, yet we do find it\nexpressly said in Scripture that \"Jesus Christ is true God,\" as may\nbe seen 1 John 5:20, and that the Blessed Virgin is the \"Mother of\nJesus Christ,\" which is clearly expressed Matt. 1:18. Therefore, from\nthe words of Scripture it follows of necessity that she is the Mother\nof God.\n\nAgain, it is written (Rom. 9:5) that Christ is of the Jews \"according\nto the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever.\" But He\nis not of the Jews except through the Blessed Virgin. Therefore He\nwho is \"above all things, God blessed for ever,\" is truly born of the\nBlessed Virgin as of His Mother.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This was an argument of Nestorius. But Cyril, in a\nletter against Nestorius [*Cf. Acta Conc. Ephes., p. 1, cap. ii],\nanswers it thus: \"Just as when a man's soul is born with its body,\nthey are considered as one being: and if anyone wish to say that the\nmother of the flesh is not the mother of the soul, he says too much.\nSomething like this may be perceived in the generation of Christ. For\nthe Word of God was born of the substance of God the Father: but\nbecause He took flesh, we must of necessity confess that in the flesh\nHe was born of a woman.\" Consequently we must say that the Blessed\nVirgin is called the Mother of God, not as though she were the Mother\nof the Godhead, but because she is the mother, according to His human\nnature, of the Person who has both the divine and the human nature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although the name \"God\" is common to the three Persons,\nyet sometimes it stands for the Person of the Father alone, sometimes\nonly for the Person of the Son or of the Holy Ghost, as stated above\n(Q. 16, A. 1; First Part, Q. 39, A. 4). So that when we say, \"The\nBlessed Virgin is the Mother of God,\" this word \"God\" stands only for\nthe incarnate Person of the Son.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 5]\n\nWhether There Are Two Filiations in Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there are two filiations in Christ.\nFor nativity is the cause of filiation. But in Christ there are two\nnativities. Therefore in Christ there are also two filiations.\n\nObj. 2: Further, filiation, which is said of a man as being the son\nof someone, his father or his mother, depends, in a way, on him:\nbecause the very being of a relation consists _in being referred to\nanother;_ wherefore if one of two relatives be destroyed, the other\nis destroyed also. But the eternal filiation by which Christ is the\nSon of God the Father depends not on His Mother, because nothing\neternal depends on what is temporal. Therefore Christ is not His\nMother's Son by temporal filiation. Either, therefore, He is not her\nSon at all, which is in contradiction to what has been said above\n(AA. 3, 4), or He must needs be her Son by some other temporal\nfiliation. Therefore in Christ there are two filiations.\n\nObj. 3: Further, one of two relatives enters the definition of the\nother; hence it is clear that of two relatives, one is specified from\nthe other. But one and the same cannot be in diverse species.\nTherefore it seems impossible that one and the same relation be\nreferred to extremes which are altogether diverse. But Christ is said\nto be the Son of the Eternal Father and a temporal mother, who are\nterms altogether diverse. Therefore it seems that Christ cannot, by\nthe same relation, be called the Son of the Father and of His Mother\nTherefore in Christ there are two filiations.\n\n_On the contrary,_ As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii), things\npertaining to the nature are multiple in Christ; but not those things\nthat pertain to the Person. But filiation belongs especially to the\nPerson, since it is a personal property, as appears from what was\nsaid in the First Part (Q. 32, A. 3; Q. 40, A. 2). Therefore there is\nbut one filiation in Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ opinions differ on this question. For some,\nconsidering only the cause of filiation, which is nativity, put two\nfiliations in Christ, just as there are two nativities. _On the\ncontrary,_ others, considering only the subject of filiation, which\nis the person or hypostasis, put only one filiation in Christ, just\nas there is but one hypostasis or person. Because the unity or\nplurality of a relation is considered in respect, not of its terms,\nbut of its cause or of its subject. For if it were considered in\nrespect of its terms, every man would of necessity have in himself\ntwo filiations--one in reference to his father, and another in\nreference to his mother. But if we consider the question aright, we\nshall see that every man bears but one relation to both his father\nand his mother, on account of the unity of the cause thereof. For man\nis born by one birth of both father and mother: whence he bears but\none relation to both. The same is said of one master who teaches many\ndisciples the same doctrine, and of one lord who governs many\nsubjects by the same power. But if there be various causes\nspecifically diverse, it seems that in consequence the relations\ndiffer in species: wherefore nothing hinders several such relations\nbeing in the same subject. Thus if a man teach grammar to some and\nlogic to others, his teaching is of a different kind in one case and\nin the other; and therefore one and the same man may have different\nrelations as the master of different disciples, or of the same\ndisciples in regard to diverse doctrines. Sometimes, however, it\nhappens that a man bears a relation to several in respect of various\ncauses, but of the same species: thus a father may have several sons\nby several acts of generation. Wherefore the paternity cannot differ\nspecifically, since the acts of generation are specifically the same.\nAnd because several forms of the same species cannot at the same time\nbe in the same subject, it is impossible for several paternities to\nbe in a man who is the father of several sons by natural generation.\nBut it would not be so were he the father of one son by natural\ngeneration and of another by adoption.\n\nNow, it is manifest that Christ was not born by one and the same\nnativity, of the Father from eternity, and of His Mother in time:\nindeed, these two nativities differ specifically. Wherefore, as to\nthis, we must say that there are various filiations, one temporal and\nthe other eternal. Since, however, the subject of filiation is\nneither the nature nor part of the nature, but the person or\nhypostasis alone; and since in Christ there is no other hypostasis or\nperson than the eternal, there can be no other filiation in Christ\nbut that which is in the eternal hypostasis. Now, every relation\nwhich is predicated of God from time does not put something real in\nthe eternal God, but only something according to our way of thinking,\nas we have said in the First Part (Q. 13, A. 7). Therefore the\nfiliation by which Christ is referred to His Mother cannot be a real\nrelation, but only a relation of reason.\n\nConsequently each opinion is true to a certain extent. For if we\nconsider the adequate causes of filiation, we must needs say that\nthere are two filiations in respect of the twofold nativity. But if\nwe consider the subject of filiation, which can only be the eternal\nsuppositum, then no other than the eternal filiation in Christ is a\nreal relation. Nevertheless, He has the relation of Son in regard to\nHis Mother, because it is implied in the relation of motherhood to\nChrist. Thus God is called Lord by a relation which is implied in the\nreal relation by which the creature is subject to God. And although\nlordship is not a real relation in God, yet is He really Lord through\nthe real subjection of the creature to Him. In the same way Christ is\nreally the Son of the Virgin Mother through the real relation of her\nmotherhood to Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Temporal nativity would cause a real temporal filiation\nin Christ if there were in Him a subject capable of such filiation.\nBut this cannot be; since the eternal suppositum cannot be receptive\nof a temporal relation, as stated above. Nor can it be said that it\nis receptive of temporal filiation by reason of the human nature,\njust as it is receptive of the temporal nativity; because human\nnature would need in some way to be the subject of filiation, just as\nin a way it is the subject of nativity; for since an Ethiopian is\nsaid to be white by reason of his teeth, it must be that his teeth\nare the subject of whiteness. But human nature can nowise be the\nsubject of filiation, because this relation regards directly the\nperson.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Eternal filiation does not depend on a temporal mother,\nbut together with this eternal filiation we understand a certain\ntemporal relation dependent on the mother, in respect of which\nrelation Christ is called the Son of His Mother.\n\nReply Obj. 3: One and being are mutually consequent, as is said\n_Metaph._ iv. Therefore, just as it happens that in one of the\nextremes of a relation there is something real, whereas in the other\nthere is not something real, but merely a certain aspect, as the\nPhilosopher observes of knowledge and the thing known; so also it\nhappens that on the part of one extreme there is one relation,\nwhereas on the part of the other there are many. Thus in man on the\npart of his parents there is a twofold relation, the one of\npaternity, the other of motherhood, which are specifically diverse,\ninasmuch as the father is the principle of generation in one way, and\nthe mother in another (whereas if many be the principle of one action\nand in the same way--for instance, if many together draw a ship\nalong--there would be one and the same relation in all of them); but\non the part of the child there is but one filiation in reality,\nthough there be two in aspect, corresponding to the two relations in\nthe parents, as considered by the intellect. And thus in one way\nthere is only one real filiation in Christ, which is in respect of\nthe Eternal Father: yet there is another temporal relation in regard\nto His temporal mother.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Christ Was Born Without His Mother Suffering?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was not born without His\nMother suffering. For just as man's death was a result of the sin of\nour first parents, according to Gen. 2:17: \"In what day soever ye\nshall eat, ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt] die\";\nso were the pains of childbirth, according to Gen. 3:16: \"In sorrow\nshalt thou bring forth children.\" But Christ was willing to undergo\ndeath. Therefore for the same reason it seems that His birth should\nhave been with pain.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But\nChrist ended His life in pain, according to Isa. 53:4: \"Surely . . .\nHe hath carried our sorrows.\" Therefore it seems that His nativity\nwas not without the pains of childbirth.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the book on the birth of our Saviour\n[*Protevangelium Jacobi xix, xx] it is related that midwives were\npresent at Christ's birth; and they would be wanted by reason of the\nmother's suffering pain. Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin\nsuffered pain in giving birth to her Child.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ.\n[*Supposititious]), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: \"In\nconceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without\npain.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant\nopening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (Q. 28,\nA. 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed\nwomb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage.\nConsequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there\nany corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that\nGod-Man \"was born into the world,\" according to Isa. 35:1, 2: \"Like\nthe lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy\nand praise.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The pains of childbirth in the woman follow from\nthe mingling of the sexes. Wherefore (Gen. 3:16) after the words, \"in\nsorrow shalt thou bring forth children,\" the following are added: \"and\nthou shalt be under thy husband's power.\" But, as Augustine says\n(Serm. de Assumpt. B. Virg., [*Supposititious]), from this sentence we\nmust exclude the Virgin-Mother of God; who, \"because she conceived\nChrist without the defilement of sin, and without the stain of sexual\nmingling, therefore did she bring Him forth without pain, without\nviolation of her virginal integrity, without detriment to the purity\nof her maidenhood.\" Christ, indeed, suffered death, but through His\nown spontaneous desire, in order to atone for us, not as a necessary\nresult of that sentence, for He was not a debtor unto death.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As \"by His death\" Christ \"destroyed our death\"\n[*Preface of the Mass in Paschal-time], so by His pains He freed us\nfrom our pains; and so He wished to die a painful death. But the\nmother's pains in childbirth did not concern Christ, who came to atone\nfor our sins. And therefore there was no need for His Mother to suffer\nin giving birth.\n\nReply Obj. 3: We are told (Luke 2:7) that the Blessed Virgin\nherself \"wrapped up in swaddling clothes\" the Child whom she had\nbrought forth, \"and laid Him in a manger.\" Consequently the narrative\nof this book, which is apocryphal, is untrue. Wherefore Jerome says\n(Adv. Helvid. iv): \"No midwife was there, no officious women\ninterfered. She was both mother and midwife. 'With swaddling clothes,'\nsays he, 'she wrapped up the child, and laid Him in a manger.'\" These\nwords prove the falseness of the apocryphal ravings.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 7]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Been Born in Bethlehem?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been born in\nBethlehem. For it is written (Isa. 2:3): \"The law shall come forth\nfrom Sion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.\" But Christ is\ntruly the Word of God. Therefore He should have come into the world\nat Jerusalem.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is said (Matt. 2:23) that it is written of Christ\nthat \"He shall be called a Nazarene\"; which is taken from Isa. 11:1:\n\"A flower shall rise up out of his root\"; for \"Nazareth\" is\ninterpreted \"a flower.\" But a man is named especially from the place\nof his birth. Therefore it seems that He should have been born in\nNazareth, where also He was conceived and brought up.\n\nObj. 3: Further, for this was our Lord born into the world, that He\nmight make known the true faith, according to John 18:37: \"For this\nwas I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give\ntestimony to the truth.\" But this would have been easier if He had\nbeen born in the city of Rome, which at that time ruled the world;\nwhence Paul, writing to the Romans (1:8) says: \"Your faith is spoken\nof in the whole world.\" Therefore it seems that He should not have\nbeen born in Bethlehem.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mic. 5:2): \"And thou, Bethlehem,\nEphrata . . . out of thee shall He come forth unto Me, that is to be\nthe ruler in Israel.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ willed to be born in Bethlehem for two\nreasons. First, because \"He was made . . . of the seed of David\naccording to the flesh,\" as it is written (Rom. 1:3); to whom also\nwas a special promise made concerning Christ; according to 2 Kings\n23:1: \"The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the\nGod of Jacob . . . said.\" Therefore He willed to be born at\nBethlehem, where David was born, in order that by the very birthplace\nthe promise made to David might be shown to be fulfilled. The\nEvangelist points this out by saying: \"Because He was of the house\nand of the family of David.\" Secondly, because, as Gregory says (Hom.\nviii in Evang.): \"Bethlehem is interpreted 'the house of bread.' It\nis Christ Himself who said, 'I am the living Bread which came down\nfrom heaven.'\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As David was born in Bethlehem, so also did he choose\nJerusalem to set up his throne there, and to build there the Temple\nof God, so that Jerusalem was at the same time a royal and a priestly\ncity. Now, Christ's priesthood and kingdom were \"consummated\"\nprincipally in His Passion. Therefore it was becoming that He should\nchoose Bethlehem for His Birthplace and Jerusalem for the scene of\nHis Passion.\n\nAt the same time, too, He put to silence the vain boasting of men who\ntake pride in being born in great cities, where also they desire\nespecially to receive honor. Christ, on the contrary, willed to be\nborn in a mean city, and to suffer reproach in a great city.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ wished \"to flower\" by His holy life, not in His\ncarnal birth. Therefore He wished to be fostered and brought up at\nNazareth. But He wished to be born at Bethlehem away from home;\nbecause, as Gregory says (Hom. viii in Evang.), through the human\nnature which He had taken, He was born, as it were, in a foreign\nplace--foreign not to His power, but to His Nature. And, again, as\nBede says on Luke 2:7: \"In order that He who found no room at the inn\nmight prepare many mansions for us in His Father's house.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: According to a sermon in the Council of Ephesus [*P.\niii, cap. ix]: \"If He had chosen the great city of Rome, the change\nin the world would be ascribed to the influence of her citizens. If\nHe had been the son of the Emperor, His benefits would have been\nattributed to the latter's power. But that we might acknowledge the\nwork of God in the transformation of the whole earth, He chose a poor\nmother and a birthplace poorer still.\"\n\n\"But the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may\nconfound the strong\" (1 Cor. 1:27). And therefore, in order the more\nto show His power, He set up the head of His Church in Rome itself,\nwhich was the head of the world, in sign of His complete victory,\nin order that from that city the faith might spread throughout the\nworld; according to Isa. 26:5, 6: \"The high city He shall lay\nlow . . . the feet of the poor,\" i.e. of Christ, \"shall tread it\ndown; the steps of the needy,\" i.e. of the apostles Peter and Paul.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 35, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Christ Was Born at a Fitting Time?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was not born at a fitting\ntime. Because Christ came in order to restore liberty to His own. But\nHe was born at a time of subjection--namely, when the whole world, as\nit were, tributary to Augustus, was being enrolled, at his command as\nLuke relates (2:1). Therefore it seems that Christ was not born at a\nfitting time.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the promises concerning the coming of Christ\nwere not made to the Gentiles; according to Rom. 9:4: \"To whom\nbelong . . . the promises.\" But Christ was born during the reign of\na foreigner, as appears from Matt. 2:1: \"When Jesus was born in the\ndays of King Herod.\" Therefore it seems that He was not born at a\nfitting time.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the time of Christ's presence on earth is compared\nto the day, because He is the \"Light of the world\"; wherefore He says\nHimself (John 9:4): \"I must work the works of Him that sent Me,\nwhilst it is day.\" But in summer the days are longer than in winter.\nTherefore, since He was born in the depth of winter, eight days\nbefore the Kalends of January, it seems that He was not born at a\nfitting time.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 4:4): \"When the fulness of the\ntime was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There is this difference between Christ and other\nmen, that, whereas they are born subject to the restrictions of time,\nChrist, as Lord and Maker of all time, chose a time in which to be\nborn, just as He chose a mother and a birthplace. And since \"what is\nof God is well ordered\" and becomingly arranged, it follows that\nChrist was born at a most fitting time.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ came in order to bring us back from a state of\nbondage to a state of liberty. And therefore, as He took our mortal\nnature in order to restore us to life, so, as Bede says (Super Luc.\nii, 4, 5), \"He deigned to take flesh at such a time that, shortly\nafter His birth, He would be enrolled in Caesar's census, and thus\nsubmit Himself to bondage for the sake of our liberty.\"\n\nMoreover, at that time, when the whole world lived under one ruler,\npeace abounded on the earth. Therefore it was a fitting time for the\nbirth of Christ, for \"He is our peace, who hath made both one,\" as it\nis written (Eph. 2:14). Wherefore Jerome says on Isa. 2:4: \"If we\nsearch the page of ancient history, we shall find that throughout the\nwhole world there was discord until the twenty-eighth year of\nAugustus Caesar: but when our Lord was born, all war ceased\";\naccording to Isa. 2:4: \"Nation shall not lift up sword against\nnation.\"\n\nAgain, it was fitting that Christ should be born while the world was\ngoverned by one ruler, because \"He came to gather His own [Vulg.:\n'the children of God'] together in one\" (John 11:52), that there\nmight be \"one fold and one shepherd\" (John 10:16).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ wished to be born during the reign of a\nforeigner, that the prophecy of Jacob might be fulfilled (Gen.\n49:10): \"The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler\nfrom his thigh, till He come that is to be sent.\" Because, as\nChrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus Imperf., falsely ascribed\nto Chrysostom]), as long as the Jewish \"people was governed by Jewish\nkings, however wicked, prophets were sent for their healing. But now\nthat the Law of God is under the power of a wicked king, Christ is\nborn; because a grave and hopeless disease demanded a more skilful\nphysician.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As says the author of the book _De Qq. Nov. et Vet.\nTest.,_ \"Christ wished to be born, when the light of day begins to\nincrease in length,\" so as to show that He came in order that man\nmight come nearer to the Divine Light, according to Luke 1:79: \"To\nenlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.\"\n\nIn like manner He chose to be born in the rough winter season, that\nHe might begin from then to suffer in body for us.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 36\n\nOF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE NEWLY BORN CHRIST\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the manifestation of the newly born Christ:\nconcerning which there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?\n\n(2) Whether it should have been made known to some?\n\n(3) To whom should it have been made known?\n\n(4) Whether He should have made Himself known, or should He rather\nhave been manifested by others?\n\n(5) By what other means should it have been made known?\n\n(6) Of the order of these manifestations;\n\n(7) Of the star by means of which His birth was made known;\n\n(8) of the adoration of the Magi, who were informed of Christ's\nnativity by means of the star.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ's Birth Should Have Been Made Known to All?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should have been made\nknown to all. Because fulfilment should correspond to promise. Now,\nthe promise of Christ's coming is thus expressed (Ps. 49:3): \"God\nshall come manifestly. But He came by His birth in the flesh.\"\nTherefore it seems that His birth should have been made known to the\nwhole world.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): \"Christ came into this\nworld to save sinners.\" But this is not effected save in as far as\nthe grace of Christ is made known to them; according to Titus 2:11,\n12: \"The grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men,\ninstructing us, that denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we\nshould live soberly, and justly, and godly in this world.\" Therefore\nit seems that Christ's birth should have been made known to all.\n\nObj. 3: Further, God is most especially inclined to mercy; according\nto Ps. 144:9: \"His tender mercies are over all His works.\" But in His\nsecond coming, when He will \"judge justices\" (Ps. 70:3), He will come\nbefore the eyes of all; according to Matt. 24:27: \"As lightning\ncometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west, so shall\nalso the coming of the Son of Man be.\" Much more, therefore, should\nHis first coming, when He was born into the world according to the\nflesh, have been made known to all.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 45:15): \"Thou art a hidden\nGod, the Holy [Vulg.: 'the God] of Israel, the Saviour.\" And, again\n(Isa. 43:3): \"His look was, as it were, hidden and despised.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was unfitting that Christ's birth should be made\nknown to all men without distinction. First, because this would have\nbeen a hindrance to the redemption of man, which was accomplished by\nmeans of the Cross; for, as it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): \"If they had\nknown it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.\"\n\nSecondly, because this would have lessened the merit of faith, which\nHe came to offer men as the way to righteousness, according to Rom.\n3:22: \"The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ.\" For if, when\nChrist was born, His birth had been made known to all by evident\nsigns, the very nature of faith would have been destroyed, since it\nis \"the evidence of things that appear not,\" as stated, Heb. 11:1.\n\nThirdly, because thus the reality of His human nature would have come\ninto doubt. Whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii): \"If He\nhad not passed through the different stages of age from babyhood to\nyouth, had neither eaten nor slept, would He not have strengthened an\nerroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that He\nhad become true man? And while He is doing all things wondrously,\nwould He have taken away that which He accomplished in mercy?\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: According to the gloss, the words quoted must be\nunderstood of Christ's coming as judge.\n\nReply Obj. 2: All men were to be instructed unto salvation,\nconcerning the grace of God our Saviour, not at the very time of His\nbirth, but afterwards, in due time, after He had \"wrought salvation\nin the midst of the earth\" (Ps. 73:12). Wherefore after His Passion\nand Resurrection, He said to His disciples (Matt. 28:19):\n\"Going . . . teach ye all nations.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: For judgment to be passed, the authority of the judge\nneeds to be known: and for this reason it behooves that the coming of\nChrist unto judgment should be manifest. But His first coming was\nunto the salvation of all, which is by faith that is of things not\nseen. And therefore it was fitting that His first coming should be\nhidden.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ's Birth Should Have Been Made Known to Some?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been\nmade known to anyone. For, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3), it befitted\nthe salvation of mankind that Christ's first coming should be hidden.\nBut Christ came to save all; according to 1 Tim. 4:10: \"Who is the\nSaviour of all men, especially of the faithful.\" Therefore Christ's\nbirth should not have been made known to anyone.\n\nObj. 2: Further, before Christ was born, His future birth was made\nknown to the Blessed Virgin and Joseph. Therefore it was not\nnecessary that it should be made known to others after His birth.\n\nObj. 3: Further, no wise man makes known that from which arise\ndisturbance and harm to others. But, when Christ's birth was made\nknown, disturbance arose: for it is written (Matt. 2:3) that \"King\nHerod, hearing\" of Christ's birth, \"was troubled, and all Jerusalem\nwith him.\" Moreover, this brought harm to others; because it was the\noccasion of Herod's killing \"all the male children that were in\nBethlehem . . . from two years old and under.\" Therefore it seems\nunfitting for Christ's birth to have been made known to anyone.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Christ's birth would have been profitable to none\nif it had been hidden from all. But it behooved Christ's birth to be\nprofitable: else He were born in vain. Therefore it seems that\nChrist's birth should have been made known to some.\n\n_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1) \"what is of God is\nwell ordered.\" Now it belongs to the order of Divine wisdom that\nGod's gifts and the secrets of His wisdom are not bestowed on all\nequally, but to some immediately, through whom they are made known to\nothers. Wherefore, with regard to the mystery of the Resurrection it\nis written (Acts 10:40, 41): \"God . . . gave\" Christ rising again \"to\nbe made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses\npre-ordained by God.\" Consequently, that His birth might be\nconsistent with this, it should have been made known, not to all, but\nto some, through whom it could be made known to others.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As it would have been prejudicial to the salvation of\nmankind if God's birth had been made known to all men, so also would\nit have been if none had been informed of it. Because in either case\nfaith is destroyed, whether a thing be perfectly manifest, or whether\nit be entirely unknown, so that no one can hear it from another; for\n\"faith cometh by hearing\" (Rom. 10:17).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Mary and Joseph needed to be instructed concerning\nChrist's birth before He was born, because it devolved on them to\nshow reverence to the child conceived in the womb, and to serve Him\neven before He was born. But their testimony, being of a domestic\ncharacter, would have aroused suspicion in regard to Christ's\ngreatness: and so it behooved it to be made known to others, whose\ntestimony could not be suspect.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The very disturbance that arose when it was known that\nChrist was born was becoming to His birth. First, because thus the\nheavenly dignity of Christ is made manifest. Wherefore Gregory says\n(Hom. x in Evang.): \"After the birth of the King of heaven, the\nearthly king is troubled: doubtless because earthly grandeur is\ncovered with confusion when the heavenly majesty is revealed.\"\n\nSecondly, thereby the judicial power of Christ was foreshadowed. Thus\nAugustine says in a sermon (30 de Temp.) on the Epiphany: \"What will\nHe be like in the judgment-seat; since from His cradle He struck\nterror into the heart of a proud king?\"\n\nThirdly, because thus the overthrow of the devil's kingdom was\nforeshadowed. For, as Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Epiphany\n(Serm. v [*Opus Imperfectum in Matth., Hom. ii, falsely ascribed to\nSt. John Chrysostom]): \"Herod was not so much troubled in himself as\nthe devil in Herod. For Herod thought Him to be a man, but the devil\nthought Him to be God. Each feared a successor to his kingdom: the\ndevil, a heavenly successor; Herod, an earthly successor.\" But their\nfear was needless: since Christ had not come to set up an earthly\nkingdom, as Pope Leo says, addressing himself to Herod: \"Thy palace\ncannot hold Christ: nor is the Lord of the world content with the\npaltry power of thy scepter.\" That the Jews were troubled, who, on\nthe contrary, should have rejoiced, was either because, as Chrysostom\nsays, \"wicked men could not rejoice at the coming of the Holy one,\"\nor because they wished to court favor with Herod, whom they feared;\nfor \"the populace is inclined to favor too much those whose cruelty\nit endures.\"\n\nAnd that the children were slain by Herod was not harmful to them,\nbut profitable. For Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (66 de\nDiversis): \"It cannot be questioned that Christ, who came to set man\nfree, rewarded those who were slain for Him; since, while hanging on\nthe cross, He prayed for those who were putting Him to death.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Those to Whom Christ's Birth Was Made Known Were Suitably\nChosen?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that those to whom Christ's birth was made\nknown were not suitably chosen. For our Lord (Matt. 10:5) commanded His\ndisciples, \"Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles,\" so that He might\nbe made known to the Jews before the Gentiles. Therefore it seems that\nmuch less should Christ's birth have been at once revealed to the\nGentiles who \"came from the east,\" as stated Matt. 2:1.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the revelation of Divine truth should be made\nespecially to the friends of God, according to Job 37 [Vulg.: Job\n36:33]: \"He sheweth His friend concerning it.\" But the Magi seem to\nbe God's foes; for it is written (Lev. 19:31): \"Go not aside after\nwizards (_magi_), neither ask anything of soothsayers.\" Therefore\nChrist's birth should not have been made known to the Magi.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ came in order to set free the whole world\nfrom the power of the devil; whence it is written (Malachi 1:11):\n\"From the rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great\namong the Gentiles.\" Therefore He should have been made known, not\nonly to those who dwelt in the east, but also to some from all parts\nof the world.\n\nObj. 4: Further, all the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of\nChrist. But the sacraments of the Old Law were dispensed through the\nministry of the legal priesthood. Therefore it seems that Christ's\nbirth should have been made known rather to the priests in the Temple\nthan to the shepherds in the fields.\n\nObj. 5: Further, Christ was born of a Virgin-Mother, and was as yet a\nlittle child. It was therefore more suitable that He should be made\nknown to youths and virgins than to old and married people or to\nwidows, such as Simeon and Anna.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 13:18): \"I know whom I have\nchosen.\" But what is done by God's wisdom is done becomingly.\nTherefore those to whom Christ's birth was made known were suitably\nchosen.\n\n_I answer that,_ Salvation, which was to be accomplished by Christ,\nconcerns all sorts and conditions of men: because, as it is written\n(Col. 3:11), in Christ \"there is neither male nor female, [*These\nwords are in reality from Gal. 3:28] neither Gentile nor Jew . . .\nbond nor free,\" and so forth. And in order that this might be\nforeshadowed in Christ's birth, He was made known to men of all\nconditions. Because, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany\n(32 de Temp.), \"the shepherds were Israelites, the Magi were\nGentiles. The former were nigh to Him, the latter far from Him. Both\nhastened to Him together as to the cornerstone.\" There was also\nanother point of contrast: for the Magi were wise and powerful; the\nshepherds simple and lowly. He was also made known to the righteous\nas Simeon and Anna; and to sinners, as the Magi. He was made known\nboth to men, and to women--namely, to Anna--so as to show no\ncondition of men to be excluded from Christ's redemption.\n\nReply Obj. 1: That manifestation of Christ's birth was a kind of\nforetaste of the full manifestation which was to come. And as in the\nlater manifestation the first announcement of the grace of Christ was\nmade by Him and His Apostles to the Jews and afterwards to the\nGentiles, so the first to come to Christ were the shepherds, who were\nthe first-fruits of the Jews, as being near to Him; and afterwards\ncame the Magi from afar, who were \"the first-fruits of the Gentiles,\"\nas Augustine says (Serm. 30 de Temp. cc.).\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (Serm. 30\nde Temp.): \"As unskilfulness predominates in the rustic manners of\nthe shepherd, so ungodliness abounds in the profane rites of the\nMagi. Yet did this Corner-Stone draw both to Itself; inasmuch as He\ncame 'to choose the foolish things that He might confound the wise,'\nand 'not to call the just, but sinners,'\" so that \"the proud might\nnot boast, nor the weak despair.\" Nevertheless, there are those who\nsay that these Magi were not wizards, but wise astronomers, who are\ncalled Magi among the Persians or Chaldees.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says [*Hom. ii in Matth. in the Opus\nImperf., among the supposititious works of Chrysostom]: \"The Magi\ncame from the east, because the first beginning of faith came from\nthe land where the day is born; since faith is the light of the\nsoul.\" Or, \"because all who come to Christ come from Him and through\nHim\": whence it is written (Zech. 6:12): \"Behold a Man, the Orient is\nHis name.\" Now, they are said to come from the east literally, either\nbecause, as some say, they came from the farthest parts of the east,\nor because they came from the neighboring parts of Judea that lie to\nthe east of the region inhabited by the Jews. Yet it is to be\nbelieved that certain signs of Christ's birth appeared also in other\nparts of the world: thus, at Rome the river flowed with oil\n[*Eusebius, Chronic. II, Olymp. 185]; and in Spain three suns were\nseen, which gradually merged into one [*Cf. Eusebius, Chronic. II,\nOlymp. 184].\n\nReply Obj. 4: As Chrysostom observes (Theophylact., Enarr. in Luc.\nii, 8), the angel who announced Christ's birth did not go to\nJerusalem, nor did he seek the Scribes and Pharisees, for they were\ncorrupted, and full of ill-will. But the shepherds were\nsingle-minded, and were like the patriarchs and Moses in their mode\nof life.\n\nMoreover, these shepherds were types of the Doctors of the Church, to\nwhom are revealed the mysteries of Christ that were hidden from the\nJews.\n\nReply Obj. 5: As Ambrose says (on Luke 2:25): \"It was right that our\nLord's birth should be attested not only by the shepherds, but also\nby people advanced in age and virtue\": whose testimony is rendered\nthe more credible by reason of their righteousness.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Himself Should Have Made His Birth Known?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should have Himself made His\nbirth known. For \"a direct cause is always of greater power than an\nindirect cause,\" as is stated _Phys._ viii. But Christ made His birth\nknown through others--for instance, to the shepherds through the\nangels, and to the Magi through the star. Much more, therefore,\nshould He Himself have made His birth known.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 20:32): \"Wisdom that is hid\nand treasure that is not seen; what profit is there in them both?\"\nBut Christ had, to perfection, the treasure of wisdom and grace from\nthe beginning of His conception. Therefore, unless He had made the\nfulness of these gifts known by words and deeds, wisdom and grace\nwould have been given Him to no purpose. But this is unreasonable:\nbecause \"God and nature do nothing without a purpose\" (De Coelo i).\n\nObj. 3: Further, we read in the book _De Infantia Salvatoris_ that in\nHis infancy Christ worked many miracles. It seems therefore that He\ndid Himself make His birth known.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Leo says (Serm. xxxiv) that the Magi found\nthe \"infant Jesus in no way different from the generality of human\ninfants.\" But other infants do not make themselves known. Therefore\nit was not fitting that Christ should Himself make His birth known.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ's birth was ordered unto man's salvation,\nwhich is by faith. But saving faith confesses Christ's Godhead and\nhumanity. It behooved, therefore, Christ's birth to be made known in\nsuch a way that the proof of His Godhead should not be prejudicial to\nfaith in His human nature. But this took place while Christ presented\na likeness of human weakness, and yet, by means of God's creatures,\nHe showed the power of the Godhead in Himself. Therefore Christ made\nHis birth known, not by Himself, but by means of certain other\ncreatures.\n\nReply Obj. 1: By the way of generation and movement we must of\nnecessity come to the imperfect before the perfect. And therefore\nChrist was made known first through other creatures, and afterwards\nHe Himself manifested Himself perfectly.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although hidden wisdom is useless, yet there is no need\nfor a wise man to make himself known at all times, but at a suitable\ntime; for it is written (Ecclus. 20:6): \"There is one that holdeth\nhis peace because he knoweth not what to say: and there is another\nthat holdeth his peace, knowing the proper time.\" Hence the wisdom\ngiven to Christ was not useless, because at a suitable time He\nmanifested Himself. And the very fact that He was hidden at a\nsuitable time is a sign of wisdom.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The book _De Infantia Salvatoris_ is apocryphal.\nMoreover, Chrysostom (Hom. xxi super Joan.) says that Christ worked\nno miracles before changing the water into wine, according to John\n2:11: \"'This beginning of miracles did Jesus.' For if He had worked\nmiracles at an early age, there would have been no need for anyone\nelse to manifest Him to the Israelites; whereas John the Baptist says\n(John 1:31): 'That He may be made manifest in Israel; therefore am I\ncome baptizing with water.' Moreover, it was fitting that He should\nnot begin to work miracles at an early age. For people would have\nthought the Incarnation to be unreal, and, out of sheer spite, would\nhave crucified Him before the proper time.\"\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Christ's Birth Should Have Been Manifested by Means of the\nAngels and the Star?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth should not have been\nmanifested by means of the angels. For angels are spiritual\nsubstances, according to Ps. 103:4: \"Who maketh His [Vulg.: 'makest\nThy'] angels, spirits.\" But Christ's birth was in the flesh, and not\nin His spiritual substance. Therefore it should not have been\nmanifested by means of angels.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the righteous are more akin to the angels than to\nany other, according to Ps. 33:8: \"The angel of the Lord shall encamp\nround about them that fear Him, and shall deliver them.\" But Christ's\nbirth was not announced to the righteous, viz. Simeon and Anna,\nthrough the angels. Therefore neither should it have been announced\nto the shepherds by means of the angels.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it seems that neither ought it to have been\nannounced to the Magi by means of the star. For this seems to favor\nthe error of those who think that man's birth is influenced by the\nstars. But occasions of sin should be taken away from man. Therefore\nit was not fitting that Christ's birth should be announced by a star.\n\nObj. 4: Further, a sign should be certain, in order that something be\nmade known thereby. But a star does not seem to be a certain sign of\nChrist's birth. Therefore Christ's birth was not suitably announced\nby a star.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 32:4): \"The works of God are\nperfect.\" But this manifestation is the work of God. Therefore it was\naccomplished by means of suitable signs.\n\n_I answer that,_ As knowledge is imparted through a syllogism from\nsomething which we know better, so knowledge given by signs must be\nconveyed through things which are familiar to those to whom the\nknowledge is imparted. Now, it is clear that the righteous have,\nthrough the spirit of prophecy, a certain familiarity with the\ninterior instinct of the Holy Ghost, and are wont to be taught\nthereby, without the guidance of sensible signs. Whereas others,\noccupied with material things, are led through the domain of the\nsenses to that of the intellect. The Jews, however, were accustomed\nto receive Divine answers through the angels; through whom they also\nreceived the Law, according to Acts 7:53: \"You [Vulg.: 'who'] . . .\nhave received the Law by the disposition of angels.\" And the\nGentiles, especially astrologers, were wont to observe the course of\nthe stars. And therefore Christ's birth was made known to the\nrighteous, viz. Simeon and Anna, by the interior instinct of the Holy\nGhost, according to Luke 2:26: \"He had received an answer from the\nHoly Ghost that he should not see death before he had seen the Christ\nof the Lord.\" But to the shepherds and Magi, as being occupied with\nmaterial things, Christ's birth was made known by means of visible\napparitions. And since this birth was not only earthly, but also, in\na way, heavenly, to both (shepherds and Magi) it is revealed through\nheavenly signs: for, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany\n(cciv): \"The angels inhabit, and the stars adorn, the heavens: by\nboth, therefore, do the 'heavens show forth the glory of God.'\"\nMoreover, it was not without reason that Christ's birth was made\nknown, by means of angels, to the shepherds, who, being Jews, were\naccustomed to frequent apparitions of the angels: whereas it was\nrevealed by means of a star to the Magi, who were wont to consider\nthe heavenly bodies. Because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.):\n\"Our Lord deigned to call them through things to which they were\naccustomed.\" There is also another reason. For, as Gregory says (Hom.\nx in Evang.): \"To the Jews, as rational beings, it was fitting that a\nrational animal [*Cf. I, Q. 51, A. 1, ad 2],\" viz. an angel, \"should\npreach. Whereas the Gentiles, who were unable to come to the\nknowledge of God through the reason, were led to God, not by words,\nbut by signs. And as our Lord, when He was able to speak, was\nannounced by heralds who spoke, so before He could speak He was\nmanifested by speechless elements.\" Again, there is yet another\nreason. For, as Augustine [*Pope Leo] says in a sermon on the\nEpiphany: \"To Abraham was promised an innumerable progeny, begotten,\nnot of carnal propagation, but of the fruitfulness of faith. For this\nreason it is compared to the multitude of stars; that a heavenly\nprogeny might be hoped for.\" Wherefore the Gentiles, \"who are thus\ndesignated by the stars, are by the rising of a new star stimulated\"\nto seek Christ, through whom they are made the seed of Abraham.\n\nReply Obj. 1: That which of itself is hidden needs to be manifested,\nbut not that which in itself is manifest. Now, the flesh of Him who\nwas born was manifest, whereas the Godhead was hidden. And therefore\nit was fitting that this birth should be made known by angels, who\nare the ministers of God. Wherefore also a certain \"brightness\" (Luke\n2:9) accompanied the angelic apparition, to indicate that He who was\njust born was the \"Brightness of\" the Father's \"glory.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The righteous did not need the visible apparition of\nthe angel; on account of their perfection the interior instinct of\nthe Holy Ghost was enough for them.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The star which manifested Christ's birth removed all\noccasion of error. For, as Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): \"No\nastrologer has ever so far connected the stars with man's fate at the\ntime of his birth as to assert that one of the stars, at the birth of\nany man, left its orbit and made its way to him who was just born\":\nas happened in the case of the star which made known the birth of\nChrist. Consequently this does not corroborate the error of those who\n\"think there is a connection between man's birth and the course of\nthe stars, for they do not hold that the course of the stars can be\nchanged at a man's birth.\"\n\nIn the same sense Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.): \"It is not an\nastronomer's business to know from the stars those who are born, but\nto tell the future from the hour of a man's birth: whereas the Magi\ndid not know the time of the birth, so as to conclude therefrom some\nknowledge of the future; rather was it the other way about.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Chrysostom relates (Hom. ii in Matth.) that, according\nto some apocryphal books, a certain tribe in the far east near the\nocean was in the possession of a document written by Seth, referring\nto this star and to the presents to be offered: which tribe watched\nattentively for the rising of this star, twelve men being appointed\nto take observations, who at stated times repaired to the summit of a\nmountain with faithful assiduity: whence they subsequently perceived\nthe star containing the figure of a small child, and above it the\nform of a cross.\n\nOr we may say, as may be read in the book _De Qq. Vet. et Nov.\nTest.,_ qu. lxiii, that \"these Magi followed the tradition of\nBalaam,\" who said, \"'A star shall rise out of Jacob.' Wherefore\nobserving this star to be a stranger to the system of this world,\nthey gathered that it was the one foretold by Balaam to indicate the\nKing of the Jews.\"\n\nOr again, it may be said with Augustine, in a sermon on the Epiphany\n(ccclxxiv), that \"the Magi had received a revelation through the\nangels\" that the star was a sign of the birth of Christ: and he\nthinks it probable that these were \"good angels; since in adoring\nChrist they were seeking for salvation.\"\n\nOr with Pope Leo, in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxiv), that \"besides\nthe outward form which aroused the attention of their corporeal eyes,\na more brilliant ray enlightened their minds with the light of faith.\"\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Christ's Birth Was Made Known in a Becoming Order?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's birth was made known in an\nunbecoming order. For Christ's birth should have been made known to\nthem first who were nearest to Christ, and who longed for Him most;\naccording to Wis. 6:14: \"She preventeth them that covet her, so that\nshe first showeth herself unto them.\" But the righteous were nearest\nto Christ by faith, and longed most for His coming; whence it is\nwritten (Luke 2:25) of Simeon that \"he was just and devout, waiting\nfor the consolation of Israel.\" Therefore Christ's birth should have\nbeen made known to Simeon before the shepherds and Magi.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Magi were the \"first-fruits of the Gentiles,\"\nwho were to believe in Christ. But first the \"fulness of the Gentiles\n. . . come in\" unto faith, and afterwards \"all Israel\" shall \"be\nsaved,\" as is written (Rom. 11:25). Therefore Christ's birth should\nhave been made known to the Magi before the shepherds.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 2:16) that \"Herod killed all\nthe male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders\nthereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he\nhad diligently inquired from the wise men\": so that it seems that the\nMagi were two years in coming to Christ after His birth. It was\ntherefore unbecoming that Christ should be made known to the Gentiles\nso long after His birth.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Dan. 2:21): \"He changes time and\nages.\" Consequently the time of the manifestation of Christ's birth\nseems to have been arranged in a suitable order.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ's birth was first made known to the shepherds\non the very day that He was born. For, as it is written (Luke 2:8,\n15, 16): \"There were in the same country shepherds watching, and\nkeeping the night-watches over their flock . . . And it came to pass,\nafter the angels departed from them into heaven they [Vulg.: 'the\nshepherds'] said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem . . .\nand they came with haste.\" Second in order were the Magi, who came to\nChrist on the thirteenth day after His birth, on which day is kept\nthe feast of the Epiphany. For if they had come after a year, or even\ntwo years, they would not have found Him in Bethlehem, since it is\nwritten (Luke 2:39) that \"after they had performed all things\naccording to the law of the Lord\"--that is to say, after they had\noffered up the Child Jesus in the Temple--\"they returned into\nGalilee, to their city\"--namely, \"Nazareth.\" In the third place, it\nwas made known in the Temple to the righteous on the fortieth day\nafter His birth, as related by Luke (2:22).\n\nThe reason of this order is that the shepherds represent the apostles\nand other believers of the Jews, to whom the faith of Christ was made\nknown first; among whom there were \"not many mighty, not many noble,\"\nas we read 1 Cor. 1:26. Secondly, the faith of Christ came to the\n\"fulness of the Gentiles\"; and this is foreshadowed in the Magi.\nThirdly it came to the fulness of the Jews, which is foreshadowed in\nthe righteous. Wherefore also Christ was manifested to them in the\nJewish Temple.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 9:30, 31): \"Israel, by\nfollowing after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of\njustice\": but the Gentiles, \"who followed not after justice,\"\nforestalled the generality of the Jews in the justice which is of\nfaith. As a figure of this, Simeon, \"who was waiting for the\nconsolation of Israel,\" was the last to know Christ born: and he was\npreceded by the Magi and the shepherds, who did not await the coming\nof Christ with such longing.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although the \"fulness of the Gentiles came in\" unto\nfaith before the fulness of the Jews, yet the first-fruits of the\nJews preceded the first-fruits of the Gentiles in faith. For this\nreason the birth of Christ was made known to the shepherds before the\nMagi.\n\nReply Obj. 3: There are two opinions about the apparition of the star\nseen by the Magi. For Chrysostom (Hom. ii in Matth. [*Opus Imperf. in\nMatth., falsely ascribed to Chrysostom]), and Augustine in a sermon\non the Epiphany (cxxxi, cxxxii), say that the star was seen by the\nMagi during the two years that preceded the birth of Christ: and\nthen, having first considered the matter and prepared themselves for\nthe journey, they came from the farthest east to Christ, arriving on\nthe thirteenth day after His birth. Wherefore Herod, immediately\nafter the departure of the Magi, \"perceiving that He was deluded by\nthem,\" commanded the male children to be killed \"from two years old\nand under,\" being doubtful lest Christ were already born when the\nstar appeared, according as he had heard from the Magi.\n\nBut others say that the star first appeared when Christ was born, and\nthat the Magi set off as soon as they saw the star, and accomplished\na journey of very great length in thirteen days, owing partly to the\nDivine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries.\nAnd I say this on the supposition that they came from the far east.\nBut others, again, say that they came from a neighboring country,\nwhence also was Balaam, to whose teaching they were heirs; and they\nare said to have come from the east, because their country was to the\neast of the country of the Jews. In this case Herod killed the babes,\nnot as soon as the Magi departed, but two years after: and that\neither because he is said to have gone to Rome in the meanwhile on\naccount of an accusation brought against him, or because he was\ntroubled at some imminent peril, and for the time being desisted from\nhis anxiety to slay the child, or because he may have thought that\nthe Magi, \"being deceived by the illusory appearance of the star, and\nnot finding the child, as they had expected to, were ashamed to\nreturn to him\": as Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii). And the\nreason why he killed not only those who were two years old, but also\nthe younger children, would be, as Augustine says in a sermon on the\nInnocents, because he feared lest a child whom the stars obey, might\nmake himself appear older or younger.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Star Which Appeared to the Magi Belonged to the Heavenly\nSystem?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the star which appeared to the Magi\nbelonged to the heavenly system. For Augustine says in a sermon on\nthe Epiphany (cxxii): \"While God yet clings to the breast, and\nsuffers Himself to be wrapped in humble swaddling clothes, suddenly a\nnew star shines forth in the heavens.\" Therefore the star which\nappeared to the Magi belonged to the heavenly system.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cci):\n\"Christ was made known to the shepherds by angels, to the Magi by a\nstar. A heavenly tongue speaks to both, because the tongue of the\nprophets spoke no longer.\" But the angels who appeared to the\nshepherds were really angels from heaven. Therefore also the star\nwhich appeared to the Magi was really a star from the heavens.\n\nObj. 3: Further, stars which are not in the heavens but in the air\nare called comets, which do not appear at the birth of kings, but\nrather are signs of their approaching death. But this star was a sign\nof the King's birth: wherefore the Magi said (Matt. 2:2): \"Where is\nHe that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the\neast.\" Therefore it seems that it was a star from the heavens.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. ii): \"It was not one\nof those stars which since the beginning of the creation observe the\ncourse appointed to them by the Creator; but this star was a stranger\nto the heavens, and made its appearance at the strange sight of a\nvirgin in childbirth.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Matth.), it is clear,\nfor many reasons, that the star which appeared to the Magi did not\nbelong to the heavenly system. First, because no other star\napproaches from the same quarter as this star, whose course was from\nnorth to south, these being the relative positions of Persia, whence\nthe Magi came, and Judea. Secondly, from the time [at which it was\nseen]. For it appeared not only at night, but also at midday: and no\nstar can do this, not even the moon. Thirdly, because it was visible\nat one time and hidden at another. For when they entered Jerusalem it\nhid itself: then, when they had left Herod, it showed itself again.\nFourthly, because its movement was not continuous, but when the Magi\nhad to continue their journey the star moved on; when they had to\nstop the star stood still; as happened to the pillar of a cloud in\nthe desert. Fifthly, because it indicated the virginal Birth, not by\nremaining aloft, but by coming down below. For it is written (Matt.\n2:9) that \"the star which they had seen in the east went before them,\nuntil it came and stood over where the child was.\" Whence it is\nevident that the words of the Magi, \"We have seen His star in the\neast,\" are to be taken as meaning, not that when they were in the\neast the star appeared over the country of Judea, but that when they\nsaw the star it was in the east, and that it preceded them into Judea\n(although this is considered doubtful by some). But it could not have\nindicated the house distinctly, unless it were near the earth. And,\nas he [Chrysostom] observes, this does not seem fitting to a star,\nbut \"of some power endowed with reason.\" Consequently \"it seems that\nthis was some invisible force made visible under the form of a star.\"\n\nWherefore some say that, as the Holy Ghost, after our Lord's Baptism,\ncame down on Him under the form of a dove, so did He appear to the\nMagi under the form of a star. While others say that the angel who,\nunder a human form, appeared to the shepherds, under the form of a\nstar, appeared to the Magi. But it seems more probable that it was a\nnewly created star, not in the heavens, but in the air near the\nearth, and that its movement varied according to God's will.\nWherefore Pope Leo says in a sermon on the Epiphany (xxxi): \"A star\nof unusual brightness appeared to the three Magi in the east, which,\nthrough being more brilliant and more beautiful than the other stars,\ndrew men's gaze and attention: so that they understood at once that\nsuch an unwonted event could not be devoid of purpose.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: In Holy Scripture the air is sometimes called the\nheavens--for instance, \"The birds of the heavens [Douay: 'air'] and\nthe fishes of the sea.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The angels of heaven, by reason of their very office,\ncome down to us, being \"sent to minister.\" But the stars of heaven do\nnot change their position. Wherefore there is no comparison.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As the star did not follow the course of the heavenly\nstars, so neither did it follow the course of the comets, which\nneither appear during the daytime nor vary their customary course.\nNevertheless in its signification it has something in common with the\ncomets. Because the heavenly kingdom of Christ \"shall break in\npieces, and shall consume all the kingdoms\" of the earth, \"and itself\nshall stand for ever\" (Dan. 2:44).\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 36, Art. 8]\n\nWhether It Was Becoming That the Magi Should Come to Adore Christ and\nPay Homage to Him?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was unbecoming that the Magi\nshould come to adore Christ and pay homage to Him. For reverence is\ndue to a king from his subjects. But the Magi did not belong to the\nkingdom of the Jews. Therefore, since they knew by seeing the star\nthat He that was born was the \"King of the Jews,\" it seems unbecoming\nthat they should come to adore Him.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it seems absurd during the reign of one king to\nproclaim a stranger. But in Judea Herod was reigning. Therefore it\nwas foolish of the Magi to proclaim the birth of a king.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a heavenly sign is more certain than a human sign.\nBut the Magi had come to Judea from the east, under the guidance of a\nheavenly sign. Therefore it was foolish of them to seek human\nguidance besides that of the star, saying: \"Where is He that is born\nKing of the Jews?\"\n\nObj. 4: Further, the offering of gifts and the homage of adoration\nare not due save to kings already reigning. But the Magi did not find\nChrist resplendent with kingly grandeur. Therefore it was unbecoming\nfor them to offer Him gifts and homage.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 60:3): \"[The Gentiles] shall\nwalk in the light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising.\" But\nthose who walk in the Divine light do not err. Therefore the Magi\nwere right in offering homage to Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3, ad 1), the Magi are the\n\"first-fruits of the Gentiles\" that believed in Christ; because their\nfaith was a presage of the faith and devotion of the nations who were\nto come to Christ from afar. And therefore, as the devotion and faith\nof the nations is without any error through the inspiration of the\nHoly Ghost, so also we must believe that the Magi, inspired by the\nHoly Ghost, did wisely in paying homage to Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cc.):\n\"Though many kings of the Jews had been born and died, none of them\ndid the Magi seek to adore. And so they who came from a distant\nforeign land to a kingdom that was entirely strange to them, had no\nidea of showing such great homage to such a king as the Jews were\nwont to have. But they had learnt that such a King was born that by\nadoring Him they might be sure of obtaining from Him the salvation\nwhich is of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: By proclaiming [Christ King] the Magi foreshadowed the\nconstancy of the Gentiles in confessing Christ even until death.\nWhence Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth.) that, while they thought\nof the King who was to come, the Magi feared not the king who was\nactually present. They had not yet seen Christ, and they were already\nprepared to die for Him.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cc.):\n\"The star which led the Magi to the place where the Divine Infant was\nwith His Virgin-Mother could bring them to the town of Bethlehem, in\nwhich Christ was born. Yet it hid itself until the Jews also bore\ntestimony of the city in which Christ was to be born: so that, being\nencouraged by a twofold witness,\" as Pope Leo says (Serm. xxxiv),\n\"they might seek with more ardent faith Him, whom both the brightness\nof the star and the authority of prophecy revealed.\" Thus they\n\"proclaim\" that Christ is born, and \"inquire where; they believe and\nask, as it were, betokening those who walk by faith and desire to\nsee,\" as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxcix). But the\nJews, by indicating to them the place of Christ's birth, \"are like\nthe carpenters who built the Ark of Noe, who provided others with the\nmeans of escape, and themselves perished in the flood. Those who\nasked, heard and went their way: the teachers spoke and stayed where\nthey were; like the milestones that point out the way but walk not\"\n(Augustine, Serm. cclxxiii). It was also by God's will that, when\nthey no longer saw the star, the Magi, by human instinct, went to\nJerusalem, to seek in the royal city the new-born King, in order that\nChrist's birth might be publicly proclaimed first in Jerusalem,\naccording to Isa. 2:3: \"The Law shall come forth from Sion, and the\nWord of the Lord from Jerusalem\"; and also \"in order that by the zeal\nof the Magi who came from afar, the indolence of the Jews who lived\nnear at hand, might be proved worthy of condemnation\" (Remig., Hom.\nin Matth. ii, 1).\n\nReply Obj. 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. ii in Matth. [*From the\nsupposititious Opus Imperfectum]): \"If the Magi had come in search of\nan earthly King, they would have been disconcerted at finding that\nthey had taken the trouble to come such a long way for nothing.\nConsequently they would have neither adored nor offered gifts. But\nsince they sought a heavenly King, though they found in Him no signs\nof royal pre-eminence, yet, content with the testimony of the star\nalone, they adored: for they saw a man, and they acknowledged a God.\"\nMoreover, they offer gifts in keeping with Christ's greatness: \"gold,\nas to the great King; they offer up incense as to God, because it is\nused in the Divine Sacrifice; and myrrh, which is used in embalming\nthe bodies of the dead, is offered as to Him who is to die for the\nsalvation of all\" (Gregory, Hom. x in Evang.). And hereby, as Gregory\nsays (Hom. x in Evang.), we are taught to offer gold, \"which\nsignifies wisdom, to the new-born King, by the luster of our wisdom\nin His sight.\" We offer God incense, \"which signifies fervor in\nprayer, if our constant prayers mount up to God with an odor of\nsweetness\"; and we offer myrrh, \"which signifies mortification of the\nflesh, if we mortify the ill-deeds of the flesh by refraining from\nthem.\"\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 37\n\nOF CHRIST'S CIRCUMCISION, AND OF THE OTHER LEGAL OBSERVANCES\nACCOMPLISHED IN REGARD TO THE CHILD CHRIST\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider Christ's circumcision. And since the\ncircumcision is a kind of profession of observing the Law, according\nto Gal. 5:3: \"I testify . . . to every man circumcising himself that\nhe is a debtor to do the whole Law,\" we shall have at the same time\nto inquire about the other legal observances accomplished in regard\nto the Child Christ. Therefore there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) His circumcision;\n\n(2) The imposition of His name;\n\n(3) His presentation;\n\n(4) His Mother's purification.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Been Circumcised?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been\ncircumcised. For on the advent of the reality, the figure ceases. But\ncircumcision was prescribed to Abraham as a sign of the covenant\nconcerning his posterity, as may be seen from Gen. 17. Now this\ncovenant was fulfilled in Christ's birth. Therefore circumcision\nshould have ceased at once.\n\nObj. 2: Further, \"every action of Christ is a lesson to us\" [*Innoc.\nIII, Serm. xxii de Temp.]; wherefore it is written (John 3:15): \"I\nhave given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do\nalso.\" But we ought not to be circumcised; according to Gal. 5:2: \"If\nyou be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.\" Therefore it\nseems that neither should Christ have been circumcised.\n\nObj. 3: Further, circumcision was prescribed as a remedy of original\nsin. But Christ did not contract original sin, as stated above (Q.\n14, A. 3; Q. 15, A. 1). Therefore Christ should not have been\ncircumcised.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 2:21): \"After eight days were\naccomplished, that the child should be circumcised.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ For several reasons Christ ought to have been\ncircumcised. First, in order to prove the reality of His human\nnature, in contradiction to the Manicheans, who said that He had an\nimaginary body: and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that\nChrist's body was consubstantial with His Godhead; and in\ncontradiction to Valentine, who said that Christ brought His body\nfrom heaven. Secondly, in order to show His approval of circumcision,\nwhich God had instituted of old. Thirdly, in order to prove that He\nwas descended from Abraham, who had received the commandment of\ncircumcision as a sign of his faith in Him. Fourthly, in order to\ntake away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving Him, if He were\nuncircumcised. Fifthly, \"in order by His example to exhort us to be\nobedient\" [*Bede, Hom. x in Evang.]. Wherefore He was circumcised on\nthe eighth day according to the prescription of the Law (Lev. 12:3).\nSixthly, \"that He who had come in the likeness of sinful flesh might\nnot reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was wont to be healed.\"\nSeventhly, that by taking on Himself the burden of the Law, He might\nset others free therefrom, according to Gal. 4:4, 5: \"God sent His\nSon . . . made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were\nunder the Law.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Circumcision by the removal of the piece of skin in the\nmember of generation, signified \"the passing away of the old\ngeneration\" [*Athanasius, De Sabb. et Circumcis.]: from the\ndecrepitude of which we are freed by Christ's Passion. Consequently\nthis figure was not completely fulfilled in Christ's birth, but in\nHis Passion, until which time the circumcision retained its virtue\nand status. Therefore it behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son\nof Abraham before His Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet of\nobligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in\nfulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time.\nBecause \"there is a time and opportunity for every business\" (Eccl\n8:6).\n\nMoreover, according to Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.), \"as we died when He\ndied, and rose again when Christ rose from the dead, so were we\ncircumcised spiritually through Christ: wherefore we need no carnal\ncircumcision.\" And this is what the Apostle says (Col. 2:11): \"In\nwhom,\" [i.e. Christ] \"you are circumcised with circumcision not made\nby hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the\ncircumcision of\" our Lord Jesus \"Christ.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Christ voluntarily took upon Himself our\ndeath, which is the effect of sin, whereas He had no sin Himself, in\norder to deliver us from death, and to make us to die spiritually unto\nsin, so also He took upon Himself circumcision, which was a remedy\nagainst original sin, whereas He contracted no original sin, in order\nto deliver us from the yoke of the Law, and to accomplish a spiritual\ncircumcision in us--in order, that is to say, that, by taking upon\nHimself the shadow, He might accomplish the reality.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 2]\n\nWhether His Name Was Suitably Given to Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that an unsuitable name was given to\nChrist. For the Gospel reality should correspond to the prophetic\nforetelling. But the prophets foretold another name for Christ: for\nit is written (Isa. 7:14): \"Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a\nson, and His name shall be called Emmanuel\"; and (Isa. 8:3): \"Call\nHis name, Hasten to take away the spoils; Make haste to take away the\nprey\"; and (Isa. 9:6): \"His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor\nGod the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of\nPeace\"; and (Zech. 6:12): \"Behold a Man, the Orient is His name.\"\nThus it was unsuitable that His name should be called Jesus.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Isa. 62:2): \"Thou shalt be called by\na new name, which the mouth of the Lord hath named [Vulg.: 'shall\nname'].\" But the name Jesus is not a new name, but was given to\nseveral in the Old Testament: as may be seen in the genealogy of\nChrist (Luke 3:29), \"Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for His\nname to be called Jesus.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, the name Jesus signifies \"salvation\"; as is clear\nfrom Matt. 1:21: \"She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call\nHis name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins.\" But\nsalvation through Christ was accomplished not only in the\ncircumcision, but also in uncircumcision, as is declared by the\nApostle (Rom. 4:11, 12). Therefore this name was not suitably given\nto Christ at His circumcision.\n\nOn the contrary is the authority of Scripture, in which it is written\n(Luke 2:21): \"After eight days were accomplished, that the child\nshould be circumcised, His name was called Jesus.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A name should answer to the nature of a thing. This\nis clear in the names of genera and species, as stated _Metaph._ iv:\n\"Since a name is but an expression of the definition\" which\ndesignates a thing's proper nature.\n\nNow, the names of individual men are always taken from some property\nof the men to whom they are given. Either in regard to time; thus men\nare named after the Saints on whose feasts they are born: or in\nrespect of some blood relation; thus a son is named after his father\nor some other relation; and thus the kinsfolk of John the Baptist\nwished to call him \"by his father's name Zachary,\" not by the name\nJohn, because \"there\" was \"none of\" his \"kindred that\" was \"called by\nthis name,\" as related Luke 1:59-61. Or, again, from some occurrence;\nthus Joseph \"called the name of\" the \"first-born Manasses, saying:\nGod hath made me to forget all my labors\" (Gen. 41:51). Or, again,\nfrom some quality of the person who receives the name; thus it is\nwritten (Gen. 25:25) that \"he that came forth first was red and hairy\nlike a skin; and his name was called Esau,\" which is interpreted\n\"red.\"\n\nBut names given to men by God always signify some gratuitous gift\nbestowed on them by Him; thus it was said to Abraham (Gen. 17:5):\n\"Thou shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee a father of\nmany nations\": and it was said to Peter (Matt. 16:18): \"Thou art\nPeter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.\" Since, therefore,\nthis prerogative of grace was bestowed on the Man Christ that through\nHim all men might be saved, therefore He was becomingly named Jesus,\ni.e. Saviour: the angel having foretold this name not only to His\nMother, but also to Joseph, who was to be his foster-father.\n\nReply Obj. 1: All these names in some way mean the same as Jesus,\nwhich means \"salvation.\" For the name \"Emmanuel, which being\ninterpreted is 'God with us,'\" designates the cause of salvation,\nwhich is the union of the Divine and human natures in the Person of\nthe Son of God, the result of which union was that \"God is with us.\"\n\nWhen it was said, \"Call his name, Hasten to take away,\" etc., these\nwords indicate from what He saved us, viz. from the devil, whose\nspoils He took away, according to Col. 2:15: \"Despoiling the\nprincipalities and powers, He hath exposed them confidently.\"\n\nWhen it was said, \"His name shall be called Wonderful,\" etc., the way\nand term of our salvation are pointed out: inasmuch as \"by the\nwonderful counsel and might of the Godhead we are brought to the\ninheritance of the life to come,\" in which the children of God will\nenjoy \"perfect peace\" under \"God their Prince.\"\n\nWhen it was said, \"Behold a Man, the Orient is His name,\" reference\nis made to the same, as in the first, viz. to the mystery of the\nIncarnation, by reason of which \"to the righteous a light is risen up\nin darkness\" (Ps. 111:4).\n\nReply Obj. 2: The name Jesus could be suitable for some other reason\nto those who lived before Christ--for instance, because they were\nsaviours in a particular and temporal sense. But in the sense of\nspiritual and universal salvation, this name is proper to Christ, and\nthus it is called a \"new\" name.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As is related Gen. 17, Abraham received from God and at\nthe same time both his name and the commandment of circumcision. For\nthis reason it was customary among the Jews to name children on the\nvery day of circumcision, as though before being circumcised they had\nnot as yet perfect existence: just as now also children receive their\nnames in Baptism. Wherefore on Prov. 4:3, \"I was my father's son,\ntender, and as an only son in the sight of my mother,\" the gloss\nsays: \"Why does Solomon call himself an only son in the sight of his\nmother, when Scripture testifies that he had an elder brother of the\nsame mother, unless it be that the latter died unnamed soon after\nbirth?\" Therefore it was that Christ received His name at the time of\nHis circumcision.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Was Becomingly Presented in the Temple?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was unbecomingly presented in\nthe Temple. For it is written (Ex. 13:2): \"Sanctify unto Me every\nfirst-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel.\" But\nChrist came forth from the closed womb of the Virgin; and thus He did\nnot open His Mother's womb. Therefore Christ was not bound by this\nlaw to be presented in the Temple.\n\nObj. 2: Further, that which is always in one's presence cannot be\npresented to one. But Christ's humanity was always in God's presence\nin the highest degree, as being always united to Him in unity of\nperson. Therefore there was no need for Him to be presented to the\nLord.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ is the principal victim, to whom all the\nvictims of the old Law are referred, as the figure to the reality.\nBut a victim should not be offered up for a victim. Therefore it was\nnot fitting that another victim should be offered up for Christ.\n\nObj. 4: Further, among the legal victims the principal was the lamb,\nwhich was a \"continual sacrifice\" [Vulg.: 'holocaust'], as is stated\nNum. 28:6: for which reason Christ is also called \"the Lamb--Behold\nthe Lamb of God\" (John 1: 29). It was therefore more fitting that a\nlamb should be offered for Christ than \"a pair of turtle doves or two\nyoung pigeons.\"\n\nOn the contrary is the authority of Scripture which relates this as\nhaving taken place (Luke 2:22).\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), Christ wished to be \"made\nunder the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law\"\n(Gal. 4:4, 5), and that the \"justification of the Law might be\"\nspiritually \"fulfilled\" in His members. Now, the Law contained a\ntwofold precept touching the children born. One was a general precept\nwhich affected all--namely, that \"when the days of the mother's\npurification were expired,\" a sacrifice was to be offered either \"for\na son or for a daughter,\" as laid down Lev. 12:6. And this sacrifice\nwas for the expiation of the sin in which the child was conceived and\nborn; and also for a certain consecration of the child, because it\nwas then presented in the Temple for the first time. Wherefore one\noffering was made as a holocaust and another for sin.\n\nThe other was a special precept in the law concerning the first-born\nof \"both man and beast\": for the Lord claimed for Himself all the\nfirst-born in Israel, because, in order to deliver the Israelites, He\n\"slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both men and cattle\"\n(Ex. 12:12, 13, 29), the first-born of Israel being saved; which law\nis set down Ex. 13. Here also was Christ foreshadowed, who is \"the\nFirst-born amongst many brethren\" (Rom. 8:29).\n\nTherefore, since Christ was born of a woman and was her first-born,\nand since He wished to be \"made under the Law,\" the Evangelist Luke\nshows that both these precepts were fulfilled in His regard. First,\nas to that which concerns the first-born, when he says (Luke 2:22,\n23): \"They carried Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord: as it\nis written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male opening the womb shall\nbe called holy to the Lord.'\" Secondly, as to the general precept\nwhich concerned all, when he says (Luke 2:24): \"And to offer a\nsacrifice according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair\nof turtle doves or two young pigeons.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Gregory of Nyssa says (De Occursu Dom.): \"It seems\nthat this precept of the Law was fulfilled in God incarnate alone in\na special manner exclusively proper to Him. For He alone, whose\nconception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible,\nopened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual union, in\nsuch a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate.\"\nConsequently the words \"opening the womb\" imply that nothing hitherto\nhad entered or gone forth therefrom. Again, for a special reason is\nit written \"'a male,' because He contracted nothing of the woman's\nsin\": and in a singular way \"is He called 'holy,' because He felt no\ncontagion of earthly corruption, whose birth was wondrously\nimmaculate\" (Ambrose, on Luke 2:23).\n\nReply Obj. 2: As the Son of God \"became man, and was circumcised in\nthe flesh, not for His own sake, but that He might make us to be\nGod's through grace, and that we might be circumcised in the spirit;\nso, again, for our sake He was presented to the Lord, that we may\nlearn to offer ourselves to God\" [*Athanasius, on Luke 2:23]. And\nthis was done after His circumcision, in order to show that \"no one\nwho is not circumcised from vice is worthy of Divine regard\" [*Bede,\non Luke 2:23].\n\nReply Obj. 3: For this very reason He wished the legal victims to be\noffered for Him who was the true Victim, in order that the figure\nmight be united to and confirmed by the reality, against those who\ndenied that in the Gospel Christ preached the God of the Law. \"For we\nmust not think,\" says Origen (Hom. xiv in Luc.) \"that the good God\nsubjected His Son to the enemy's law, which He Himself had not given.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: The law of Lev. 12:6, 8 \"commanded those who could, to\noffer, for a son or a daughter, a lamb and also a turtle dove or a\npigeon: but those who were unable to offer a lamb were commanded to\noffer two turtle doves or two young pigeons\" [*Bede, Hom. xv in\nPurif.]. \"And so the Lord, who, 'being rich, became poor for our\n[Vulg.: 'your'] sakes, that through His poverty we [you] might be\nrich,\" as is written 2 Cor. 8:9, \"wished the poor man's victim to be\noffered for Him\" just as in His birth He was \"wrapped in swaddling\nclothes and laid in a manger\" [*Bede on Luke 1]. Nevertheless, these\nbirds have a figurative sense. For the turtle dove, being a\nloquacious bird, represents the preaching and confession of faith;\nand because it is a chaste animal, it signifies chastity; and being a\nsolitary animal, it signifies contemplation. The pigeon is a gentle\nand simple animal, and therefore signifies gentleness and simplicity.\nIt is also a gregarious animal; wherefore it signifies the active\nlife. Consequently this sacrifice signified the perfection of Christ\nand His members. Again, \"both these animals, by the plaintiveness of\ntheir song, represented the mourning of the saints in this life: but\nthe turtle dove, being solitary, signifies the tears of prayer;\nwhereas the pigeon, being gregarious, signifies the public prayers of\nthe Church\" [*Bede, Hom. xv in Purif.]. Lastly, two of each of these\nanimals are offered, to show that holiness should be not only in the\nsoul, but also in the body.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 37, Art. 4]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That the Mother of God Should Go to the Temple\nto Be Purified?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting for the Mother of\nGod to go to the Temple to be purified. For purification presupposes\nuncleanness. But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin, as\nstated above (QQ. 27, 28). Therefore she should not have gone to the\nTemple to be purified.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Lev. 12:2-4): \"If a woman, having\nreceived seed, shall bear a man-child, she shall be unclean seven\ndays\"; and consequently she is forbidden \"to enter into the sanctuary\nuntil the days of her purification be fulfilled.\" But the Blessed\nVirgin brought forth a male child without receiving the seed of man.\nTherefore she had no need to come to the Temple to be purified.\n\nObj. 3: Further, purification from uncleanness is accomplished by\ngrace alone. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not confer grace;\nrather, indeed, did she have the very Author of grace with her.\nTherefore it was not fitting that the Blessed Virgin should come to\nthe Temple to be purified.\n\nOn the contrary is the authority of Scripture, where it is stated\n(Luke 2:22) that \"the days of\" Mary's \"purification were accomplished\naccording to the law of Moses.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As the fulness of grace flowed from Christ on to His\nMother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her Son in\nhumility: for \"God giveth grace to the humble,\" as is written James\n4:6. And therefore, just as Christ, though not subject to the Law,\nwished, nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other burdens\nof the Law, in order to give an example of humility and obedience;\nand in order to show His approval of the Law; and, again, in order to\ntake away from the Jews an excuse for calumniating Him: for the same\nreasons He wished His Mother also to fulfil the prescriptions of the\nLaw, to which, nevertheless, she was not subject.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness, yet she\nwished to fulfil the observance of purification, not because she\nneeded it, but on account of the precept of the Law. Thus the\nEvangelist says pointedly that the days of her purification\n\"according to the Law\" were accomplished; for she needed no\npurification in herself.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Moses seems to have chosen his words in order to\nexclude uncleanness from the Mother of God, who was with child\n\"without receiving seed.\" It is therefore clear that she was not\nbound to fulfil that precept, but fulfilled the observance of\npurification of her own accord, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The sacraments of the Law did not cleanse from the\nuncleanness of sin which is accomplished by grace, but they\nforeshadowed this purification: for they cleansed by a kind of carnal\npurification, from the uncleanness of a certain irregularity, as\nstated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 102, A. 5; Q. 103, A. 2). But the\nBlessed Virgin contracted neither uncleanness, and consequently did\nnot need to be purified.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 38\n\nOF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe now proceed to consider the baptism wherewith Christ was baptized.\nAnd since Christ was baptized with the baptism of John, we shall\nconsider (1) the baptism of John in general; (2) the baptizing of\nChrist. In regard to the former there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it was fitting that John should baptize?\n\n(2) Whether that baptism was from God?\n\n(3) Whether it conferred grace?\n\n(4) Whether others besides Christ should have received that baptism?\n\n(5) Whether that baptism should have ceased when Christ was baptized?\n\n(6) Whether those who received John's baptism had afterwards to\nreceive Christ's baptism?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That John Should Baptize?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that John should\nbaptize. For every sacramental rite belongs to some law. But John did\nnot introduce a new law. Therefore it was not fitting that he should\nintroduce the new rite of baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, John \"was sent by God . . . for a witness\" (John\n1:6, 7) as a prophet; according to Luke 1:76: \"Thou, child, shalt be\ncalled the prophet of the Highest.\" But the prophets who lived before\nChrist did not introduce any new rite, but persuaded men to observe\nthe rites of the Law. as is clearly stated Malachi 4:4: \"Remember the\nlaw of Moses My servant.\" Therefore neither should John have\nintroduced a new rite of baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, when there is too much of anything, nothing should\nbe added to it. But the Jews observed a superfluity of baptisms; for\nit is written (Mk. 7:3, 4) that \"the Pharisees and all the Jews eat\nnot without often washing their hands . . . and when they come from\nthe market, unless they be washed, they eat not; and many other\nthings there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the\nwashings of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds.\"\nTherefore it was unfitting that John should baptize.\n\nOn the contrary is the authority of Scripture (Matt. 3:5, 6), which,\nafter stating the holiness of John, adds many went out to him, \"and\nwere baptized in the Jordan.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting for John to baptize, for four\nreasons: first, it was necessary for Christ to be baptized by John,\nin order that He might sanctify baptism; as Augustine observes, super\nJoan. (Tract. xiii in Joan.).\n\nSecondly, that Christ might be manifested. Whence John himself says\n(John 1:31): \"That He,\" i.e. Christ, \"may be made manifest in Israel,\ntherefore am I come baptizing with water.\" For he announced Christ to\nthe crowds that gathered around him; which was thus done much more\neasily than if he had gone in search of each individual, as\nChrysostom observes, commenting on St. John (Hom. x in Matth.).\n\nThirdly, that by his baptism he might accustom men to the baptism of\nChrist; wherefore Gregory says in a homily (Hom. vii in Evang.) that\ntherefore did John baptize, \"that, being consistent with his office\nof precursor, as he had preceded our Lord in birth, so he might also\nby baptizing precede Him who was about to baptize.\"\n\nFourthly, that by persuading men to do penance, he might prepare men\nto receive worthily the baptism of Christ. Wherefore Bede [*Cf. Scot.\nErig. in Joan. iii, 24] says that \"the baptism of John was as\nprofitable before the baptism of Christ, as instruction in the faith\nprofits the catechumens not yet baptized. For just as he preached\npenance, and foretold the baptism of Christ, and drew men to the\nknowledge of the Truth that hath appeared to the world, so do the\nministers of the Church, after instructing men, chide them for their\nsins, and lastly promise them forgiveness in the baptism of Christ.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The baptism of John was not a sacrament properly so\ncalled (_per se_), but a kind of sacramental, preparatory to the\nbaptism of Christ. Consequently, in a way, it belonged to the law of\nChrist, but not to the law of Moses.\n\nReply Obj. 2: John was not only a prophet, but \"more than a prophet,\"\nas stated Matt. 11:9: for he was the term of the Law and the\nbeginning of the Gospel. Therefore it was in his province to lead\nmen, both by word and deed, to the law of Christ rather than to the\nobservance of the Old Law.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Those baptisms of the Pharisees were vain, being\nordered merely unto carnal cleanliness. But the baptism of John was\nordered unto spiritual cleanliness, since it led men to do penance,\nas stated above.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Baptism of John Was from God?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the baptism of John was not from God.\nFor nothing sacramental that is from God is named after a mere man:\nthus the baptism of the New Law is not named after Peter or Paul, but\nafter Christ. But that baptism is named after John, according to\nMatt. 21:25: \"The baptism of John . . . was it from heaven or from\nmen?\" Therefore the baptism of John was not from God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, every doctrine that proceeds from God anew is\nconfirmed by some signs: thus the Lord (Ex. 4) gave Moses the power\nof working signs; and it is written (Heb. 2:3, 4) that our faith\n\"having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by\nthem that heard Him, God also bearing them witness by signs and\nwonders.\" But it is written of John the Baptist (John 10:41) that\n\"John did no sign.\" Therefore it seems that the baptism wherewith he\nbaptized was not from God.\n\nObj. 3: Further, those sacraments which are instituted by God are\ncontained in certain precepts of Holy Scripture. But there is no\nprecept of Holy Writ commanding the baptism of John. Therefore it\nseems that it was not from God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 1:33): \"He who sent me to\nbaptize with water said to me: 'He upon whom thou shalt see the\nSpirit,'\" etc.\n\n_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered in the baptism of\nJohn--namely, the rite of baptism and the effect of baptism. The rite\nof baptism was not from men, but from God, who by an interior\nrevelation of the Holy Ghost sent John to baptize. But the effect of\nthat baptism was from man, because it effected nothing that man could\nnot accomplish. Wherefore it was not from God alone, except in as far\nas God works in man.\n\nReply Obj. 1: By the baptism of the New Law men are baptized inwardly\nby the Holy Ghost, and this is accomplished by God alone. But by the\nbaptism of John the body alone was cleansed by the water. Wherefore\nit is written (Matt. 3:11): \"I baptize you in water; but . . . He\nshall baptize you in the Holy Ghost.\" For this reason the baptism of\nJohn was named after him, because it effected nothing that he did not\naccomplish. But the baptism of the New Law is not named after the\nminister thereof, because he does not accomplish its principal\neffect, which is the inward cleansing.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The whole teaching and work of John was ordered unto\nChrist, who, by many miracles confirmed both His own teaching and\nthat of John. But if John had worked signs, men would have paid equal\nattention to John and to Christ. Wherefore, in order that men might\npay greater attention to Christ, it was not given to John to work a\nsign. Yet when the Jews asked him why he baptized, he confirmed his\noffice by the authority of Scripture, saying: \"I am the voice of one\ncrying in the wilderness,\" etc. as related, John 1:23 (cf. Isa.\n40:3). Moreover, the very austerity of his life was a commendation of\nhis office, because, as Chrysostom says, commenting on Matthew (Hom.\nx in Matth.), \"it was wonderful to witness such endurance in a human\nbody.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The baptism of John was intended by God to last only\nfor a short time, for the reasons given above (A. 1). Therefore it\nwas not the subject of a general commandment set down in Sacred Writ,\nbut of a certain interior revelation of the Holy Ghost, as stated\nabove.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Grace Was Given in the Baptism of John?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that grace was given in the baptism of\nJohn. For it is written (Mk. 1:4): \"John was in the desert baptizing\nand preaching the baptism of penance unto remission of sins.\" But\npenance and remission of sins are the effect of grace. Therefore the\nbaptism of John conferred grace.\n\nObj. 2: Further, those who were about to be baptized by John\n\"confessed their sins,\" as related Matt. 3:6 and Mk. 1:5. But the\nconfession of sins is ordered to their remission, which is effected\nby grace. Therefore grace was conferred in the baptism of John.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the baptism of John was more akin than circumcision\nto the baptism of Christ. But original sin was remitted through\ncircumcision: because, as Bede says (Hom. x in Circumcis.), \"under\nthe Law, circumcision brought the same saving aid to heal the wound\nof original sin as baptism is wont to bring now that grace is\nrevealed.\" Much more, therefore, did the baptism of John effect the\nremission of sins, which cannot be accomplished without grace.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 3:11): \"I indeed baptize you\nin water unto penance.\" Which words Gregory thus expounds in a\ncertain homily (Hom. vii in Evang.): \"John baptized, not in the\nSpirit, but in water: because he could not forgive sins.\" But grace\nis given by the Holy Ghost, and by means thereof sins are taken away.\nTherefore the baptism of John did not confer grace.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2, ad 2), the whole teaching and\nwork of John was in preparation for Christ: just as it is the duty of\nthe servant and of the under-craftsman to prepare the matter for the\nform which is accomplished by the head-craftsman. Now grace was to be\nconferred on men through Christ, according to John 1:17: \"Grace and\ntruth came through Jesus Christ.\" Therefore the baptism of John did\nnot confer grace, but only prepared the way for grace; and this in\nthree ways: first, by John's teaching, which led men to faith in\nChrist; secondly, by accustoming men to the rite of Christ's baptism;\nthirdly, by penance, preparing men to receive the effect of Christ's\nbaptism.\n\nReply Obj. 1: In these words, as Bede says (on Mk. 1:4), a twofold\nbaptism of penance may be understood. One is that which John\nconferred by baptizing, which is called \"a baptism of penance,\" etc.,\nby reason of its inducing men to do penance, and of its being a kind\nof protestation by which men avowed their purpose of doing penance.\nThe other is the baptism of Christ, by which sins are remitted, and\nwhich John could not give, but only preach, saying: \"He will baptize\nyou in the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nOr it may be said that he preached the \"baptism of penance,\" i.e.\nwhich induced men to do penance, which penance leads men on to \"the\nremission of sins.\"\n\nOr again, it may be said with Jerome [*Another author on Mk. 1 (inter\nop. Hier.)] that \"by the baptism of Christ grace is given, by which\nsins are remitted gratis; and that what is accomplished by the\nbridegroom is begun by the bridesman,\" i.e. by John. Consequently it\nis said that \"he baptized and preached the baptism of penance unto\nremission of sins,\" not as though he accomplished this himself, but\nbecause he began it by preparing the way for it.\n\nReply Obj. 2: That confession of sins was not made unto the remission\nof sins, to be realized immediately through the baptism of John, but\nto be obtained through subsequent penance and through the baptism of\nChrist, for which that penance was a preparation.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Circumcision was instituted as a remedy for original\nsin. Whereas the baptism of John was not instituted for this purpose,\nbut was merely in preparation for the baptism of Christ, as stated\nabove; whereas the sacraments attain their effect through the force\nof their institution.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Alone Should Have Been Baptized with the Baptism of\nJohn?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ alone should have been\nbaptized with the baptism of John. For, as stated above (A. 1), \"the\nreason why John baptized was that Christ might receive baptism,\" as\nAugustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii). But what is proper to\nChrist should not be applicable to others. Therefore no others should\nhave received that baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whoever is baptized either receives something from\nthe baptism or confers something on the baptism. But no one could\nreceive anything from the baptism of John, because thereby grace was\nnot conferred, as stated above (A. 3). On the other hand, no one\ncould confer anything on baptism save Christ, who \"sanctified the\nwaters by the touch of His most pure flesh\" [*Mag. Sent. iv, 3].\nTherefore it seems that Christ alone should have been baptized with\nthe baptism of John.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if others were baptized with that baptism, this was\nonly in order that they might be prepared for the baptism of Christ:\nand thus it would seem fitting that the baptism of John should be\nconferred on all, old and young, Gentile and Jew, just as the baptism\nof Christ. But we do not read that either children or Gentiles were\nbaptized by the latter; for it is written (Mk. 1:5) that \"there went\nout to him . . . all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him.\"\nTherefore it seems that Christ alone should have been baptized by\nJohn.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 3:21): \"It came to pass, when\nall the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and\npraying, heaven was opened.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ For two reasons it behooved others besides Christ to\nbe baptized with the baptism of John. First, as Augustine says (Super\nJoan., Tract. iv, v), \"if Christ alone had been baptized with the\nbaptism of John, some would have said that John's baptism, with which\nChrist was baptized, was more excellent than that of Christ, with\nwhich others are baptized.\"\n\nSecondly, because, as above stated, it behooved others to be prepared\nby John's baptism for the baptism of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The baptism of John was instituted not only that Christ\nmight be baptized, but also for other reasons, as stated above (A.\n1). And yet, even if it were instituted merely in order that Christ\nmight be baptized therewith, it was still necessary for others to\nreceive this baptism, in order to avoid the objection mentioned above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Others who approached to be baptized by John could not,\nindeed, confer anything on his baptism: yet neither did they receive\nanything therefrom, save only the sign of penance.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This was the baptism of \"penance,\" for which children\nwere not suited; wherefore they were not baptized therewith. But to\nbring the nations into the way of salvation was reserved to Christ\nalone, who is the \"expectation of the nations,\" as we read Gen.\n49:10. Indeed, Christ forbade the apostles to preach the Gospel to\nthe Gentiles before His Passion and Resurrection. Much less fitting,\ntherefore, was it for the Gentiles to be baptized by John.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 5]\n\nWhether John's Baptism Should Have Ceased After Christ Was Baptized?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that John's baptism should have ceased\nafter Christ was baptized. For it is written (John 1:31): \"That He\nmay be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in\nwater.\" But when Christ had been baptized, He was made sufficiently\nmanifest, both by the testimony of John and by the dove coming down\nupon Him, and again by the voice of the Father bearing witness to\nHim. Therefore it seems that John's baptism should not have endured\nthereafter.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. iv): \"Christ was\nbaptized, and John's baptism ceased to avail.\" Therefore it seems\nthat, after Christ's baptism, John should not have continued to\nbaptize.\n\nObj. 3: Further, John's baptism prepared the way for Christ's. But\nChrist's baptism began as soon as He had been baptized; because \"by\nthe touch of His most pure flesh He endowed the waters with a\nregenerating virtue,\" as Bede asserts (Mag. Sent. iv, 3). Therefore\nit seems that John's baptism ceased when Christ had been baptized.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 3:22, 23): \"Jesus . . . came\ninto the land of Judea . . . and baptized: and John also was\nbaptizing.\" But Christ did not baptize before being baptized.\nTherefore it seems that John continued to baptize after Christ had\nbeen baptized.\n\n_I answer that,_ It was not fitting for the baptism of John to cease\nwhen Christ had been baptized. First, because, as Chrysostom says\n(Hom. xxix in Joan.), \"if John had ceased to baptize\" when Christ had\nbeen baptized, \"men would think that he was moved by jealousy or\nanger.\" Secondly, if he had ceased to baptize when Christ baptized,\n\"he would have given His disciples a motive for yet greater envy.\"\nThirdly, because, by continuing to baptize, \"he sent his hearers to\nChrist\" (Hom. xxix in Joan.). Fourthly, because, as Bede [*Scot.\nErig. Comment. in Joan.] says, \"there still remained a shadow of the\nOld Law: nor should the forerunner withdraw until the truth be made\nmanifest.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: When Christ was baptized, He was not as yet fully\nmanifested: consequently there was still need for John to continue\nbaptizing.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The baptism of John ceased after Christ had been\nbaptized, not immediately, but when the former was cast into prison.\nThus Chrysostom says (Hom. xxix in Joan.): \"I consider that John's\ndeath was allowed to take place, and that Christ's preaching began in\na great measure after John had died, so that the undivided allegiance\nof the multitude was transferred to Christ, and there was no further\nmotive for the divergence of opinions concerning both of them.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: John's baptism prepared the way not only for Christ to\nbe baptized, but also for others to approach to Christ's baptism: and\nthis did not take place as soon as Christ was baptized.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 38, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Those Who Had Been Baptized with John's Baptism Had to Be\nBaptized with the Baptism of Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that those who had been baptized with\nJohn's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism of Christ. For\nJohn was not less than the apostles, since of him is it written\n(Matt. 11:11): \"There hath not risen among them that are born of\nwomen a greater than John the Baptist.\" But those who were baptized\nby the apostles were not baptized again, but only received the\nimposition of hands; for it is written (Acts 8:16, 17) that some were\n\"only baptized\" by Philip \"in the name of the Lord Jesus\": then the\napostles--namely, Peter and John--\"laid their hands upon them, and\nthey received the Holy Ghost.\" Therefore it seems that those who had\nbeen baptized by John had not to be baptized with the baptism of\nChrist.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the apostles were baptized with John's baptism,\nsince some of them were his disciples, as is clear from John 1:37.\nBut the apostles do not seem to have been baptized with the baptism\nof Christ: for it is written (John 4:2) that \"Jesus did not baptize,\nbut His disciples.\" Therefore it seems that those who had been\nbaptized with John's baptism had not to be baptized with the baptism\nof Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, he who is baptized is less than he who baptizes. But\nwe are not told that John himself was baptized with the baptism of\nChrist. Therefore much less did those who had been baptized by John\nneed to receive the baptism of Christ.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it is written (Acts 19:1-5) that \"Paul . . . found\ncertain disciples; and he said to them: Have you received the Holy\nGhost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as\nheard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were\nyou baptized? Who said: In John's baptism.\" Wherefore \"they were\"\nagain \"baptized in the name of our [Vulg.: 'the'] Lord Jesus Christ.\"\nHence it seems that they needed to be baptized again, because they\ndid not know of the Holy Ghost: as Jerome says on Joel 2:28 and in an\nepistle (lxix De Viro unius uxoris), and likewise Ambrose (De Spiritu\nSancto). But some were baptized with John's baptism who had full\nknowledge of the Trinity. Therefore these had no need to be baptized\nagain with Christ's baptism.\n\nObj. 5: Further, on Rom. 10:8, \"This is the word of faith, which we\npreach,\" the gloss of Augustine says: \"Whence this virtue in the\nwater, that it touches the body and cleanses the heart, save by the\nefficacy of the word, not because it is uttered, but because it is\nbelieved?\" Whence it is clear that the virtue of baptism depends on\nfaith. But the form of John's baptism signified the faith in which we\nare baptized; for Paul says (Acts 19:4): \"John baptized the people\nwith the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in Him\nwho was to come after him--that is to say, in Jesus.\" Therefore it\nseems that those who had been baptized with John's baptism had no\nneed to be baptized again with the baptism of Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): \"Those who\nwere baptized with John's baptism needed to be baptized with the\nbaptism of our Lord.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ According to the opinion of the Master (Sent. iv, D,\n2), \"those who had been baptized by John without knowing of the\nexistence of the Holy Ghost, and who based their hopes on his\nbaptism, were afterwards baptized with the baptism of Christ: but\nthose who did not base their hope on John's baptism, and who believed\nin the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were not baptized afterwards, but\nreceived the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands made over them by\nthe apostles.\"\n\nAnd this, indeed, is true as to the first part, and is confirmed by\nmany authorities. But as to the second part, the assertion is\naltogether unreasonable. First, because John's baptism neither\nconferred grace nor imprinted a character, but was merely \"in water,\"\nas he says himself (Matt. 3:11). Wherefore the faith or hope which\nthe person baptized had in Christ could not supply this defect.\nSecondly, because, when in a sacrament, that is omitted which belongs\nof necessity to the sacrament, not only must the omission be\nsupplied, but the whole must be entirely renewed. Now, it belongs of\nnecessity to Christ's baptism that it be given not only in water, but\nalso in the Holy Ghost, according to John 3:5: \"Unless a man be born\nof water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of\nGod.\" Wherefore in the case of those who had been baptized with\nJohn's baptism in water only, not merely had the omission to be\nsupplied by giving them the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands,\nbut they had to be baptized wholly anew \"in water and the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. v): \"After John,\nbaptism was administered, and the reason why was because he gave not\nChrist's baptism, but his own . . . That which Peter gave . . . and\nif any were given by Judas, that was Christ's. And therefore if Judas\nbaptized anyone, yet were they not rebaptized . . . For the baptism\ncorresponds with him by whose authority it is given, not with him by\nwhose ministry it is given.\" For the same reason those who were\nbaptized by the deacon Philip, who gave the baptism of Christ, were\nnot baptized again, but received the imposition of hands by the\napostles, just as those who are baptized by priests are confirmed by\nbishops.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says to Seleucianus (Ep. cclxv), \"we deem\nthat Christ's disciples were baptized either with John's baptism, as\nsome maintain, or with Christ's baptism, which is more probable. For\nHe would not fail to administer baptism so as to have baptized\nservants through whom He baptized others, since He did not fail in\nHis humble service to wash their feet.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the\nsupposititious Opus Imperfectum]): \"Since, when John said, 'I ought to\nbe baptized by Thee,' Christ answered, 'Suffer it to be so now': it\nfollows that afterwards Christ did baptize John.\" Moreover, he\nasserts that \"this is distinctly set down in some of the apocryphal\nbooks.\" At any rate, it is certain, as Jerome says on Matt. 3:13,\nthat, \"as Christ was baptized in water by John, so had John to be\nbaptized in the Spirit by Christ.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: The reason why these persons were baptized after being\nbaptized by John was not only because they knew not of the Holy\nGhost, but also because they had not received the baptism of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 5: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), our sacraments\nare signs of present grace, whereas the sacraments of the Old Law\nwere signs of future grace. Wherefore the very fact that John\nbaptized in the name of one who was to come, shows that he did not\ngive the baptism of Christ, which is a sacrament of the New Law.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 39\n\nOF THE BAPTIZING OF CHRIST\n(In Eight Articles)\n\n   We have now to consider the baptizing of Christ, concerning which\n   there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n   (1) Whether Christ should have been baptized?\n\n   (2) Whether He should have been baptized with the baptism of John?\n\n   (3) Of the time when He was baptized;\n\n   (4) Of the place;\n\n   (5) Of the heavens being opened unto Him;\n\n   (6) Of the apparition of the Holy Ghost under the form of a dove;\n\n   (7) Whether that dove was a real animal?\n\n   (8) Of the voice of the Father witnessing unto Him.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Be Baptized?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to be\nbaptized. For to be baptized is to be washed. But it was not fitting\nfor Christ to be washed, since there was no uncleanness in Him.\nTherefore it seems unfitting for Christ to be baptized.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ was circumcised in order to fulfil the law.\nBut baptism was not prescribed by the law. Therefore He should not\nhave been baptized.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the first mover in every genus is unmoved in regard\nto that movement; thus the heaven, which is the first cause of\nalteration, is unalterable. But Christ is the first principle of\nbaptism, according to John 1:33: \"He upon whom thou shalt see the\nSpirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth.\"\nTherefore it was unfitting for Christ to be baptized.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 3:13) that \"Jesus cometh from\nGalilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting for Christ to be baptized. First,\nbecause, as Ambrose says on Luke 3:21: \"Our Lord was baptized because\nHe wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being\npurified by the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the\nvirtue of baptism\"; and, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.),\n\"that He might bequeath the sanctified waters to those who were to be\nbaptized afterwards.\" Secondly, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in\nMatth.), \"although Christ was not a sinner, yet did He take a sinful\nnature and 'the likeness of sinful flesh.' Wherefore, though He\nneeded not baptism for His own sake, yet carnal nature in others had\nneed thereof.\" And, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix) \"Christ\nwas baptized that He might plunge the old Adam entirely in the\nwater.\" Thirdly, He wished to be baptized, as Augustine says in a\nsermon on the Epiphany (cxxxvi), \"because He wished to do what He had\ncommanded all to do.\" And this is what He means by saying: \"So it\nbecometh us to fulfil all justice\" (Matt. 3:15). For, as Ambrose says\n(on Luke 3:21), \"this is justice, to do first thyself that which thou\nwishest another to do, and so encourage others by thy example.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ was baptized, not that He might be cleansed, but\nthat He might cleanse, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It was fitting that Christ should not only fulfil what\nwas prescribed by the Old Law, but also begin what appertained to the\nNew Law. Therefore He wished not only to be circumcised, but also to\nbe baptized.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ is the first principle of baptism's spiritual\neffect. Unto this He was not baptized, but only in water.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting for Christ to Be Baptized with John's Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting for Christ to be\nbaptized with John's baptism. For John's baptism was the \"baptism of\npenance.\" But penance is unbecoming to Christ, since He had no sin.\nTherefore it seems that He should not have been baptized with John's\nbaptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, John's baptism, as Chrysostom says (Hom. de Bapt.\nChristi), \"was a mean between the baptism of the Jews and that of\nChrist.\" But \"the mean savors of the nature of the extremes\"\n(Aristotle, De Partib. Animal.). Since, therefore, Christ was not\nbaptized with the Jewish baptism, nor yet with His own, on the same\ngrounds He should not have been baptized with the baptism of John.\n\nObj. 3: Further, whatever is best in human things should be ascribed\nto Christ. But John's baptism does not hold the first place among\nbaptisms. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be baptized with\nJohn's baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 3:13) that \"Jesus cometh to\nthe Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As Augustine says (Super Joan., Tract. xiii): \"After\nbeing baptized, the Lord baptized, not with that baptism wherewith He\nwas baptized.\" Wherefore, since He Himself baptized with His own\nbaptism, it follows that He was not baptized with His own, but with\nJohn's baptism. And this was befitting: first, because John's baptism\nwas peculiar in this, that he baptized, not in the Spirit, but only\n\"in water\"; while Christ did not need spiritual baptism, since He was\nfilled with the grace of the Holy Ghost from the beginning of His\nconception, as we have made clear above (Q. 34, A. 1). And this is\nthe reason given by Chrysostom (Hom. de Bapt. Christi). Secondly, as\nBede says on Mk. 1:9, He was baptized with the baptism of John, that,\n\"by being thus baptized, He might show His approval of John's\nbaptism.\" Thirdly, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xxxix), \"by going\nto John to be baptized by him, He sanctified baptism.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 1), Christ wished to be baptized in\norder by His example to lead us to baptism. And so, in order that He\nmight lead us thereto more efficaciously, He wished to be baptized\nwith a baptism which He clearly needed not, that men who needed it\nmight approach unto it. Wherefore Ambrose says on Luke 3:21: \"Let\nnone decline the laver of grace, since Christ did not refuse the\nlaver of penance.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Jewish baptism prescribed by the law was merely\nfigurative, whereas John's baptism, in a measure, was real, inasmuch\nas it induced men to refrain from sin; but Christ's baptism is\nefficacious unto the remission of sin and the conferring of grace.\nNow Christ needed neither the remission of sin, which was not in Him,\nnor the bestowal of grace, with which He was filled. Moreover, since\nHe is \"the Truth,\" it was not fitting that He should receive that\nwhich was no more than a figure. Consequently it was more fitting\nthat He should receive the intermediate baptism than one of the\nextremes.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Baptism is a spiritual remedy. Now, the more perfect a\nthing is, the less remedy does it need. Consequently, from the very\nfact that Christ is most perfect, it follows that it was fitting that\nHe should not receive the most perfect baptism: just as one who is\nhealthy does not need a strong medicine.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Was Baptized at a Fitting Time?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was baptized at an unfitting\ntime. For Christ was baptized in order that He might lead others to\nbaptism by His example. But it is commendable that the faithful of\nChrist should be baptized, not merely before their thirtieth year,\nbut even in infancy. Therefore it seems that Christ should not have\nbeen baptized at the age of thirty.\n\nObj. 2: Further, we do not read that Christ taught or worked miracles\nbefore being baptized. But it would have been more profitable to the\nworld if He had taught for a longer time, beginning at the age of\ntwenty, or even before. Therefore it seems that Christ, who came for\nman's profit, should have been baptized before His thirtieth year.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the sign of wisdom infused by God should have been\nespecially manifest in Christ. But in the case of Daniel this was\nmanifested at the time of his boyhood; according to Dan. 13:45: \"The\nLord raised up the holy spirit of a young boy, whose name was\nDaniel.\" Much more, therefore, should Christ have been baptized or\nhave taught in His boyhood.\n\nObj. 4: Further, John's baptism was ordered to that of Christ as to\nits end. But \"the end is first in intention and last in execution.\"\nTherefore He should have been baptized by John either before all the\nothers, or after them.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 3:21): \"It came to pass, when\nall the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized, and\npraying;\" and further on (Luke 3:23): \"And Jesus Himself was\nbeginning about the age of thirty years.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ was fittingly baptized in His thirtieth year.\nFirst, because Christ was baptized as though for the reason that He\nwas about forthwith to begin to teach and preach: for which purpose\nperfect age is required, such as is the age of thirty. Thus we read\n(Gen. 41:46) that \"Joseph was thirty\" years old when he undertook the\ngovernment of Egypt. In like manner we read (2 Kings 5:4) that \"David\nwas thirty years old when he began to reign.\" Again, Ezechiel began\nto prophesy in \"his thirtieth year,\" as we read Ezech. 1:1.\n\nSecondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Hom. x in Matth.), \"the law\nwas about to pass away after Christ's baptism: wherefore Christ came\nto be baptized at this age which admits of all sins; in order that by\nHis observing the law, no one might say that because He Himself could\nnot fulfil it, He did away with it.\"\n\nThirdly, because by Christ's being baptized at the perfect age, we\nare given to understand that baptism brings forth perfect men,\naccording to Eph. 4:13: \"Until we all meet into the unity of faith,\nand of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the\nmeasure of the age of the fulness of Christ.\" Hence the very property\nof the number seems to point to this. For thirty is product of three\nand ten: and by the number three is implied faith in the Trinity,\nwhile ten signifies the fulfilment of the commandments of the Law: in\nwhich two things the perfection of Christian life consists.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat. xl), Christ was\nbaptized, not \"as though He needed to be cleansed, or as though some\nperil threatened Him if He delayed to be baptized. But no small\ndanger besets any other man who departs from this life without being\nclothed with the garment of incorruptibility\"--namely, grace. And\nthough it be a good thing to remain clean after baptism, \"yet is it\nstill better,\" as he says, \"to be slightly sullied now and then than\nto be altogether deprived of grace.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The profit which accrues to men from Christ is\nchiefly through faith and humility: to both of which He conduced by\nbeginning to teach not in His boyhood or youth, but at the perfect\nage. To faith, because in this manner His human nature is shown to be\nreal, by its making bodily progress with the advance of time; and lest\nthis progress should be deemed imaginary, He did not wish to show His\nwisdom and power before His body had reached the perfect age: to\nhumility, lest anyone should presume to govern or teach others before\nattaining to perfect age.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ was set before men as an example to all.\nWherefore it behooved that to be shown forth in Him, which is becoming\nto all according to the common law--namely, that He should teach\nafter reaching the perfect age. But, as Gregory Nazianzen says (Orat.\nxxxix), that which seldom occurs is not the law of the Church; as\n\"neither does one swallow make the spring.\" For by special\ndispensation, in accordance with the ruling of Divine wisdom, it has\nbeen granted to some, contrary to the common law, to exercise the\nfunctions of governing or teaching, such as Solomon, Daniel, and\nJeremias.\n\nReply Obj. 4: It was not fitting that Christ should be baptized by\nJohn either before or after all others. Because, as Chrysostom says\n(Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]), for\nthis was Christ baptized, \"that He might confirm the preaching and\nthe baptism of John, and that John might bear witness to Him.\" Now,\nmen would not have had faith in John's testimony except after many\nhad been baptized by him. Consequently it was not fitting that John\nshould baptize Him before baptizing anyone else. In like manner,\nneither was it fitting that he should baptize Him last. For as he\n(Chrysostom) says in the same passage: \"As the light of the sun does\nnot wait for the setting of the morning star, but comes forth while\nthe latter is still above the horizon, and by its brilliance dims its\nshining: so Christ did not wait till John had run his course, but\nappeared while he was yet teaching and baptizing.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Been Baptized in the Jordan?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been baptized\nin the Jordan. For the reality should correspond to the figure. But\nbaptism was prefigured in the crossing of the Red Sea, where the\nEgyptians were drowned, just as our sins are blotted out in baptism.\nTherefore it seems that Christ should rather have been baptized in\nthe sea than in the river Jordan.\n\nObj. 2: Further, \"Jordan\" is interpreted a \"going down.\" But by\nbaptism a man goes up rather than down: wherefore it is written\n(Matt. 3:16) that \"Jesus being baptized, forthwith came up [Douay:\n'out'] from the water.\" Therefore it seems unfitting that Christ\nshould be baptized in the Jordan.\n\nObj. 3: Further, while the children of Israel were crossing, the\nwaters of the Jordan \"were turned back,\" as it is related Jos. 4, and\nas it is written Ps. 113:3, 5. But those who are baptized go forward,\nnot back. Therefore it was not fitting that Christ should be baptized\nin the Jordan.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 1:9) that \"Jesus was baptized\nby John in the Jordan.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was through the river Jordan that the children of\nIsrael entered into the land of promise. Now, this is the prerogative\nof Christ's baptism over all other baptisms: that it is the entrance\nto the kingdom of God, which is signified by the land of promise;\nwherefore it is said (John 3:5): \"Unless a man be born again of water\nand the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.\" To this\nalso is to be referred the dividing of the water of the Jordan by\nElias, who was to be snatched up into heaven in a fiery chariot, as\nit is related 4 Kings 2: because, to wit, the approach to heaven is\nlaid open by the fire of the Holy Ghost, to those who pass through\nthe waters of baptism. Therefore it was fitting that Christ should be\nbaptized in the Jordan.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The crossing of the Red Sea foreshadowed baptism in\nthis--that baptism washes away sin: whereas the crossing of the\nJordan foreshadows it in this--that it opens the gate to the heavenly\nkingdom: and this is the principal effect of baptism, and\naccomplished through Christ alone. And therefore it was fitting that\nChrist should be baptized in the Jordan rather than in the sea.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In baptism we \"go up\" by advancing in grace: for which\nwe need to \"go down\" by humility, according to James 4:6: \"He giveth\ngrace to the humble.\" And to this \"going down\" must the name of the\nJordan be referred.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says in a sermon for the Epiphany (x): \"As\nof yore the waters of the Jordan were held back, so now, when Christ\nwas baptized, the torrent of sin was held back.\" Or else this may\nsignify that against the downward flow of the waters the river of\nblessings flowed upwards.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Heavens Should Have Been Opened Unto Christ at His\nBaptism?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the heavens should not have been\nopened unto Christ at His baptism. For the heavens should be opened\nunto one who needs to enter heaven, by reason of his being out of\nheaven. But Christ was always in heaven, according to John 3:13: \"The\nSon of Man who is in heaven.\" Therefore it seems that the heavens\nshould not have been opened unto Him.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the opening of the heavens is understood either in a\ncorporal or in a spiritual sense. But it cannot be understood in a\ncorporal sense: because the heavenly bodies are impassible and\nindissoluble, according to Job 37:18: \"Thou perhaps hast made the\nheavens with Him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten\nbrass.\" In like manner neither can it be understood in a spiritual\nsense, because the heavens were not previously closed to the eyes of\nthe Son of God. Therefore it seems unbecoming to say that when Christ\nwas baptized \"the heavens were opened.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, heaven was opened to the faithful through Christ's\nPassion, according to Heb. 10:19: \"We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] a\nconfidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ.\"\nWherefore not even those who were baptized with Christ's baptism, and\ndied before His Passion, could enter heaven. Therefore the heavens\nshould have been opened when Christ was suffering rather than when He\nwas baptized.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 3:21): \"Jesus being baptized\nand praying, heaven was opened.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1; Q. 38, A. 1), Christ wished\nto be baptized in order to consecrate the baptism wherewith we were\nto be baptized. And therefore it behooved those things to be shown\nforth which belong to the efficacy of our baptism: concerning which\nefficacy three points are to be considered. First, the principal\npower from which it is derived; and this, indeed, is a heavenly\npower. For which reason, when Christ was baptized, heaven was opened,\nto show that in future the heavenly power would sanctify baptism.\n\nSecondly, the faith of the Church and of the person baptized conduces\nto the efficacy of baptism: wherefore those who are baptized make a\nprofession of faith, and baptism is called the \"sacrament of faith.\"\nNow by faith we gaze on heavenly things, which surpass the senses and\nhuman reason. And in order to signify this, the heavens were opened\nwhen Christ was baptized.\n\nThirdly, because the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was opened to\nus by the baptism of Christ in a special manner, which entrance had\nbeen closed to the first man through sin. Hence, when Christ was\nbaptized, the heavens were opened, to show that the way to heaven is\nopen to the baptized.\n\nNow after baptism man needs to pray continually, in order to enter\nheaven: for though sins are remitted through baptism, there still\nremain the fomes of sin assailing us from within, and the world and\nthe devils assailing us from without. And therefore it is said\npointedly (Luke 3:21) that \"Jesus being baptized and praying, heaven\nwas opened\": because, to wit, the faithful after baptism stand in\nneed of prayer. Or else, that we may be led to understand that the\nvery fact that through baptism heaven is opened to believers is in\nvirtue of the prayer of Christ. Hence it is said pointedly (Matt.\n3:16) that \"heaven was opened to Him\"--that is, \"to all for His\nsake.\" Thus, for example, the Emperor might say to one asking a favor\nfor another: \"Behold, I grant this favor, not to him, but to\nthee\"--that is, \"to him for thy sake,\" as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in\nMatth. [*From the supposititious Opus Imperfectum]).\n\nReply Obj. 1: According to Chrysostom (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the\nsupposititious Opus Imperfectum), as Christ was baptized for man's\nsake, though He needed no baptism for His own sake, so the heavens\nwere opened unto Him as man, whereas in respect of His Divine Nature\nHe was ever in heaven.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Jerome says on Matt. 3:16, 17, the heavens were\nopened to Christ when He was baptized, not by an unfolding of the\nelements, but by a spiritual vision: thus does Ezechiel relate the\nopening of the heavens at the beginning of his book. And Chrysostom\nproves this (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious Opus\nImperfectum) by saying that \"if the creature\"--namely, heaven--\"had\nbeen sundered he would not have said, 'were opened to Him,' since\nwhat is opened in a corporeal sense is open to all.\" Hence it is said\nexpressly (Mk. 1:10) that Jesus \"forthwith coming up out of the\nwater, saw the heavens opened\"; as though the opening of the heavens\nwere to be considered as seen by Christ. Some, indeed, refer this to\nthe corporeal vision, and say that such a brilliant light shone round\nabout Christ when He was baptized, that the heavens seemed to be\nopened. It can also be referred to the imaginary vision, in which\nmanner Ezechiel saw the heavens opened: since such a vision was\nformed in Christ's imagination by the Divine power and by His\nrational will, so as to signify that the entrance to heaven is opened\nto men through baptism. Lastly, it can be referred to intellectual\nvision: forasmuch as Christ, when He had sanctified baptism, saw that\nheaven was opened to men: nevertheless He had seen before that this\nwould be accomplished.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's Passion is the common cause of the opening of\nheaven to men. But it behooves this cause to be applied to each one,\nin order that he enter heaven. And this is effected by baptism,\naccording to Rom. 6:3: \"All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are\nbaptized in His death.\" Wherefore mention is made of the opening of\nthe heavens at His baptism rather than at His Passion.\n\nOr, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.; from the supposititious\nOpus Imperfectum): \"When Christ was baptized, the heavens were merely\nopened: but after He had vanquished the tyrant by the cross; since\ngates were no longer needed for a heaven which thenceforth would be\nnever closed, the angels said, not 'open the gates,' but 'Take them\naway.'\" Thus Chrysostom gives us to understand that the obstacles\nwhich had hitherto hindered the souls of the departed from entering\ninto heaven were entirely removed by the Passion: but at Christ's\nbaptism they were opened, as though the way had been shown by which\nmen were to enter into heaven.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 6]\n\nWhether It Is Fitting to Say That When Christ Was Baptized the Holy\nGhost Came Down on Him in the Form of a Dove?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it is not fitting to say that when\nChrist was baptized the Holy Ghost came down on Him in the form of a\ndove. For the Holy Ghost dwells in man by grace. But the fulness of\ngrace was in the Man-Christ from the beginning of His conception,\nbecause He was the \"Only-begotten of the Father,\" as is clear from\nwhat has been said above (Q. 7, A. 12; Q. 34, A. 1). Therefore the\nHoly Ghost should not have been sent to Him at His baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ is said to have \"descended\" into the world in\nthe mystery of the Incarnation, when \"He emptied Himself, taking the\nform of a servant\" (Phil. 2:7). But the Holy Ghost did not become\nincarnate. Therefore it is unbecoming to say that the Holy Ghost\n\"descended upon Him.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, that which is accomplished in our baptism should\nhave been shown in Christ's baptism, as in an exemplar. But in our\nbaptism no visible mission of the Holy Ghost takes place. Therefore\nneither should a visible mission of the Holy Ghost have taken place\nin Christ's baptism.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the Holy Ghost is poured forth on others through\nChrist, according to John 1:16: \"Of His fulness we all have\nreceived.\" But the Holy Ghost came down on the apostles in the form,\nnot of a dove, but of fire. Therefore neither should He have come\ndown on Christ in the form of a dove, but in the form of fire.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 3:22): \"The Holy Ghost\ndescended in a bodily shape as a dove upon Him.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ What took place with respect to Christ in His\nbaptism, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. [*From the\nsupposititious Opus Imperfectum]), \"is connected with the mystery\naccomplished in all who were to be baptized afterwards.\" Now, all\nthose who are baptized with the baptism of Christ receive the Holy\nGhost, unless they approach unworthily; according to Matt. 3:11: \"He\nshall baptize you in the Holy Ghost.\" Therefore it was fitting that\nwhen our Lord was baptized the Holy Ghost should descend upon Him.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (De Trin. xv): \"It is most absurd to\nsay that Christ received the Holy Ghost, when He was already thirty\nyears old: for when He came to be baptized, since He was without sin,\ntherefore was He not without the Holy Ghost. For if it is written of\nJohn that 'he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's\nwomb,' what must we say of the Man-Christ, whose conception in the\nflesh was not carnal, but spiritual? Therefore now,\" i.e. at His\nbaptism, \"He deigned to foreshadow His body,\" i.e. the Church, \"in\nwhich those who are baptized receive the Holy Ghost in a special\nmanner.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. ii), the Holy Ghost is said\nto have descended on Christ in a bodily shape, as a dove, not because\nthe very substance of the Holy Ghost was seen, for He is invisible:\nnor as though that visible creature were assumed into the unity of\nthe Divine Person; since it is not said that the Holy Ghost was the\ndove, as it is said that the Son of God is man by reason of the\nunion. Nor, again, was the Holy Ghost seen under the form of a dove,\nafter the manner in which John saw the slain Lamb in the Apocalypse\n(5:6): \"For the latter vision took place in the spirit through\nspiritual images of bodies; whereas no one ever doubted that this\ndove was seen by the eyes of the body.\" Nor, again, did the Holy\nGhost appear under the form of a dove in the sense in which it is\nsaid (1 Cor. 10:4): \"'Now, the rock was Christ': for the latter had\nalready a created existence, and through the manner of its action was\ncalled by the name of Christ, whom it signified: whereas this dove\ncame suddenly into existence, to fulfil the purpose of its\nsignification, and afterwards ceased to exist, like the flame which\nappeared in the bush to Moses.\"\n\nHence the Holy Ghost is said to have descended upon Christ, not by\nreason of His being united to the dove: but either because the dove\nitself signified the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it \"descended\" when it\ncame upon Him; or, again, by reason of the spiritual grace, which is\npoured out by God, so as to descend, as it were, on the creature,\naccording to James 1:17: \"Every best gift and every perfect gift is\nfrom above, coming down from the Father of lights.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth.): \"At the\nbeginning of all spiritual transactions sensible visions appear,\nfor the sake of them who cannot conceive at all an incorporeal\nnature . . . so that, though afterwards no such thing occur, they may\nshape their faith according to that which has occurred once for all.\"\nAnd therefore the Holy Ghost descended visibly, under a bodily shape,\non Christ at His baptism, in order that we may believe Him to descend\ninvisibly on all those who are baptized.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The Holy Ghost appeared over Christ at His baptism,\nunder the form of a dove, for four reasons. First, on account of the\ndisposition required in the one baptized--namely, that he approach in\ngood faith: since, as it is written (Wis. 1:5): \"The holy spirit of\ndiscipline will flee from the deceitful.\" For the dove is an animal\nof a simple character, void of cunning and deceit: whence it is said\n(Matt. 10:16): \"Be ye simple as doves.\"\n\nSecondly, in order to designate the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost,\nwhich are signified by the properties of the dove. For the dove\ndwells beside the running stream, in order that, on perceiving the\nhawk, it may plunge in and escape. This refers to the gift of wisdom,\nwhereby the saints dwell beside the running waters of Holy Scripture,\nin order to escape the assaults of the devil. Again, the dove prefers\nthe more choice seeds. This refers to the gift of knowledge, whereby\nthe saints make choice of sound doctrines, with which they nourish\nthemselves. Further, the dove feeds the brood of other birds. This\nrefers to the gift of counsel, with which the saints, by teaching and\nexample, feed men who have been the brood, i.e. imitators, of the\ndevil. Again, the dove tears not with its beak. This refers to the\ngift of understanding, wherewith the saints do not rend sound\ndoctrines, as heretics do. Again, the dove has no gall. This refers\nto the gift of piety, by reason of which the saints are free from\nunreasonable anger. Again, the dove builds its nest in the cleft of a\nrock. This refers to the gift of fortitude, wherewith the saints\nbuild their nest, i.e. take refuge and hope, in the death wounds of\nChrist, who is the Rock of strength. Lastly, the dove has a plaintive\nsong. This refers to the gift of fear, wherewith the saints delight\nin bewailing sins.\n\nThirdly, the Holy Ghost appeared under the form of a dove on account\nof the proper effect of baptism, which is the remission of sins and\nreconciliation with God: for the dove is a gentle creature.\nWherefore, as Chrysostom says, (Hom. xii in Matth.), \"at the Deluge\nthis creature appeared bearing an olive branch, and publishing the\ntidings of the universal peace of the whole world: and now again the\ndove appears at the baptism, pointing to our Deliverer.\"\n\nFourthly, the Holy Ghost appeared over our Lord at His baptism in the\nform of a dove, in order to designate the common effect of\nbaptism--namely, the building up of the unity of the Church. Hence it\nis written (Eph. 5:25-27): \"Christ delivered Himself up . . . that He\nmight present . . . to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or\nwrinkle, or any such thing . . . cleansing it by the laver of water\nin the word of life.\" Therefore it was fitting that the Holy Ghost\nshould appear at the baptism under the form of a dove, which is a\ncreature both loving and gregarious. Wherefore also it is said of the\nChurch (Cant 6:8): \"One is my dove.\"\n\nBut on the apostles the Holy Ghost descended under the form of fire,\nfor two reasons. First, to show with what fervor their hearts were to\nbe moved, so as to preach Christ everywhere, though surrounded by\nopposition. And therefore He appeared as a fiery tongue. Hence\nAugustine says (Super Joan., Tract. vi): Our Lord \"manifests\" the\nHoly Ghost \"visibly in two ways\"--namely, \"by the dove coming upon\nthe Lord when He was baptized; by fire, coming upon the disciples\nwhen they were met together . . . In the former case simplicity is\nshown, in the latter fervor . . . We learn, then, from the dove, that\nthose who are sanctified by the Spirit should be without guile: and\nfrom the fire, that their simplicity should not be left to wax cold.\nNor let it disturb anyone that the tongues were cloven . . . in the\ndove recognize unity.\"\n\nSecondly, because, as Chrysostom says (Gregory, Hom. xxx in Ev.):\n\"Since sins had to be forgiven,\" which is effected in baptism,\n\"meekness was required\"; this is shown by the dove: \"but when we have\nobtained grace we must look forward to be judged\"; and this is\nsignified by the fire.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Dove in Which the Holy Ghost Appeared Was Real?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the dove in which the Holy Ghost\nappeared was not real. For that seems to be a mere apparition which\nappears in its semblance. But it is stated (Luke 3:22) that the \"Holy\nGhost descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon Him.\" Therefore it\nwas not a real dove, but a semblance of a dove.\n\nObj. 2: Further, just as \"Nature does nothing useless, so neither\ndoes God\" (De Coelo i). Now since this dove came merely \"in order to\nsignify something and pass away,\" as Augustine says (De Trin. ii), a\nreal dove would have been useless: because the semblance of a dove\nwas sufficient for that purpose. Therefore it was not a real dove.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the properties of a thing lead us to a knowledge of\nthat thing. If, therefore, this were a real dove, its properties\nwould have signified the nature of the real animal, and not the\neffect of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that it was not a real\ndove.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxii): \"Nor do we\nsay this as though we asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ alone had a\nreal body, and that the Holy Ghost appeared to men's eyes in a\nfallacious manner: but we say that both those bodies were real.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 5, A. 1), it was unbecoming that\nthe Son of God, who is the Truth of the Father, should make use of\nanything unreal; wherefore He took, not an imaginary, but a real\nbody. And since the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Truth, as\nappears from John 16:13, therefore He too made a real dove in which\nto appear, though He did not assume it into unity of person.\nWherefore, after the words quoted above, Augustine adds: \"Just as it\nbehooved the Son of God not to deceive men, so it behooved the Holy\nGhost not to deceive. But it was easy for Almighty God, who created\nall creatures out of nothing, to frame the body of a real dove\nwithout the help of other doves, just as it was easy for Him to form\na true body in Mary's womb without the seed of a man: since the\ncorporeal creature obeys its Lord's command and will, both in the\nmother's womb in forming a man, and in the world itself in forming a\ndove.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Holy Ghost is said to have descended in the shape\nor semblance of a dove, not in the sense that the dove was not real,\nbut in order to show that He did not appear in the form of His\nsubstance.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It was not superfluous to form a real dove, in which\nthe Holy Ghost might appear, because by the very reality of the dove\nthe reality of the Holy Ghost and of His effects is signified.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The properties of the dove lead us to understand the\ndove's nature and the effects of the Holy Ghost in the same way.\nBecause from the very fact that the dove has such properties, it\nresults that it signifies the Holy Ghost.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 39, Art. 8]\n\nWhether It Was Becoming, When Christ Was Baptized That the Father's\nVoice Should Be Heard, Bearing Witness to the Son?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was unbecoming when Christ was\nbaptized for the Father's voice to be heard bearing witness to the\nSon. For the Son and the Holy Ghost, according as they have appeared\nvisibly, are said to have been visibly sent. But it does not become\nthe Father to be sent, as Augustine makes it clear (De Trin. ii).\nNeither, therefore, (does it become Him) to appear.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the voice gives expression to the word conceived in\nthe heart. But the Father is not the Word. Therefore He is\nunfittingly manifested by a voice.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Man-Christ did not begin to be Son of God at His\nbaptism, as some heretics have stated: but He was the Son of God from\nthe beginning of His conception. Therefore the Father's voice should\nhave proclaimed Christ's Godhead at His nativity rather than at His\nbaptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 3:17): \"Behold a voice from\nheaven, saying: This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), that which is accomplished\nin our baptism should be manifested in Christ's baptism, which was\nthe exemplar of ours. Now the baptism which the faithful receive is\nhallowed by the invocation and the power of the Trinity; according to\nMatt. 28:19: \"Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name\nof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\" Wherefore, as\nJerome says on Matt. 3:16, 17: \"The mystery of the Trinity is shown\nforth in Christ's baptism. Our Lord Himself is baptized in His human\nnature; the Holy Ghost descended in the shape of a dove: the Father's\nvoice is heard bearing witness to the Son.\" Therefore it was becoming\nthat in that baptism the Father should be manifested by a voice.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The visible mission adds something to the apparition,\nto wit, the authority of the sender. Therefore the Son and the Holy\nGhost who are from another, are said not only to appear, but also to\nbe sent visibly. But the Father, who is not from another, can appear\nindeed, but cannot be sent visibly.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Father is manifested by the voice, only as\nproducing the voice or speaking by it. And since it is proper to the\nFather to produce the Word--that is, to utter or to speak--therefore\nwas it most becoming that the Father should be manifested by a voice,\nbecause the voice designates the word. Wherefore the very voice to\nwhich the Father gave utterance bore witness to the Sonship of the\nWord. And just as the form of the dove, in which the Holy Ghost was\nmade manifest, is not the Nature of the Holy Ghost, nor is the form\nof man in which the Son Himself was manifested, the very Nature of\nthe Son of God, so neither does the voice belong to the Nature of the\nWord or of the Father who spoke. Hence (John 5:37) our Lord says:\n\"Neither have you heard His,\" i.e. the Father's, \"voice at any time,\nnor seen His shape.\" By which words, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xl in\nJoan.), \"He gradually leads them to the knowledge of the\nphilosophical truth, and shows them that God has neither voice nor\nshape, but is above all such forms and utterances.\" And just as the\nwhole Trinity made both the dove and the human nature assumed by\nChrist, so also they formed the voice: yet the Father alone as\nspeaking is manifested by the voice, just as the Son alone assumed\nhuman nature, and the Holy Ghost alone is manifested in the dove, as\nAugustine [*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum] makes evident.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It was becoming that Christ's Godhead should not be\nproclaimed to all in His nativity, but rather that It should be\nhidden while He was subject to the defects of infancy. But when He\nattained to the perfect age, when the time came for Him to teach, to\nwork miracles, and to draw men to Himself then did it behoove His\nGodhead to be attested from on high by the Father's testimony, so\nthat His teaching might become the more credible. Hence He says (John\n5:37): \"The Father Himself who sent Me, hath given testimony of Me.\"\nAnd specially at the time of baptism, by which men are born again\ninto adopted sons of God; since God's sons by adoption are made to be\nlike unto His natural Son, according to Rom. 8:29: \"Whom He foreknew,\nHe also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His\nSon.\" Hence Hilary says (Super Matth. ii) that when Jesus was\nbaptized, the Holy Ghost descended on Him, and the Father's voice was\nheard saying: \"'This is My beloved Son,' that we might know, from\nwhat was accomplished in Christ, that after being washed in the\nwaters of baptism the Holy Ghost comes down upon us from on high, and\nthat the Father's voice declares us to have become the adopted sons\nof God.\"\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 40\n\nOF CHRIST'S MANNER OF LIFE\n(In Four Articles)\n\nHaving considered those things which relate to Christ's entrance into\nthe world, or to His beginning, it remains for us to consider those\nthat relate to the process of His life. And we must consider (1) His\nmanner of life; (2) His temptation; (3) His doctrine; (4) His\nmiracles.\n\nConcerning the first there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ should have led a solitary life, or have\nassociated with men?\n\n(2) Whether He should have led an austere life as regards food,\ndrink, and clothing? Or should He have conformed Himself to others in\nthese respects?\n\n(3) Whether He should have adopted a lowly state of life, or one of\nwealth and honor?\n\n(4) Whether He should have lived in conformity with the Law?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 40, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Associated with Men, or Led a Solitary\nLife?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have associated\nwith men, but should have led a solitary life. For it behooved Christ\nto show by His manner of life not only that He was man, but also that\nHe was God. But it is not becoming that God should associate with\nmen, for it is written (Dan. 2:11): \"Except the gods, whose\nconversation is not with men\"; and the Philosopher says (Polit. i)\nthat he who lives alone is \"either a beast\"--that is, if he do this\nfrom being wild--\"or a god,\" if his motive be the contemplation of\ntruth. Therefore it seems that it was not becoming for Christ to\nassociate with men.\n\nObj. 2: Further, while He lived in mortal flesh, it behooved Christ\nto lead a most perfect life. But the most perfect is the\ncontemplative life, as we have stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q.\n182, AA. 1, 2). Now, solitude is most suitable to the contemplative\nlife; according to Osee 2:14: \"I will lead her into the wilderness,\nand I will speak to her heart.\" Therefore it seems that Christ should\nhave led a solitary life.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's manner of life should have been uniform:\nbecause it should always have given evidence of that which is best.\nBut at times Christ avoided the crowd and sought lonely places: hence\nRemigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea, Matth. 5:1], commenting on Matthew, says:\n\"We read that our Lord had three places of refuge: the ship, the\nmountain, the desert; to one or other of which He betook Himself\nwhenever he was harassed by the crowd.\" Therefore He ought always to\nhave led a solitary life.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Baruch 3:38): \"Afterwards He was\nseen upon earth and conversed with men.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ's manner of life had to be in keeping with\nthe end of His Incarnation, by reason of which He came into the\nworld. Now He came into the world, first, that He might publish the\ntruth. Thus He says Himself (John 18:37): \"For this was I born, and\nfor this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the\ntruth.\" Hence it was fitting not that He should hide Himself by\nleading a solitary life, but that He should appear openly and preach\nin public. Wherefore (Luke 4:42, 43) He says to those who wished to\nstay Him: \"To other cities also I must preach the kingdom of God: for\ntherefore am I sent.\"\n\nSecondly, He came in order to free men from sin; according to 1 Tim.\n1:15: \"Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners.\" And hence,\nas Chrysostom says, \"although Christ might, while staying in the same\nplace, have drawn all men to Himself, to hear His preaching, yet He\ndid not do so; thus giving us the example to go about and seek those\nwho perish, like the shepherd in his search of the lost sheep, and\nthe physician in his attendance on the sick.\"\n\nThirdly, He came that by Him \"we might have access to God,\" as it is\nwritten (Rom. 5:2). And thus it was fitting that He should give men\nconfidence in approaching Him by associating familiarly with them.\nWherefore it is written (Matt. 9:10): \"It came to pass as He was\nsitting . . . in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came,\nand sat down with Jesus and His disciples.\" On which Jerome comments\nas follows: \"They had seen the publican who had been converted from a\nsinful to a better life: and consequently they did not despair of\ntheir own salvation.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ wished to make His Godhead known through His\nhuman nature. And therefore, since it is proper to man to do so, He\nassociated with men, at the same time manifesting His Godhead to all,\nby preaching and working miracles, and by leading among men a\nblameless and righteous life.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 182, A. 1; Q.\n188, A. 6), the contemplative life is, absolutely speaking, more\nperfect than the active life, because the latter is taken up with\nbodily actions: yet that form of active life in which a man, by\npreaching and teaching, delivers to others the fruits of his\ncontemplation, is more perfect than the life that stops at\ncontemplation, because such a life is built on an abundance of\ncontemplation, and consequently such was the life chosen by Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's action is our instruction. And therefore, in\norder to teach preachers that they ought not to be for ever before\nthe public, our Lord withdrew Himself sometimes from the crowd. We\nare told of three reasons for His doing this. First, for the rest of\nthe body: hence (Mk. 6:31) it is stated that our Lord said to His\ndisciples: \"Come apart into a desert place, and rest a little. For\nthere were many coming and going: and they had not so much as time to\neat.\" But sometimes it was for the sake of prayer; thus it is written\n(Luke 6:12): \"It came to pass in those days, that He went out into a\nmountain to pray; and He passed the whole night in the prayer of\nGod.\" On this Ambrose remarks that \"by His example He instructs us in\nthe precepts of virtue.\" And sometimes He did so in order to teach us\nto avoid the favor of men. Wherefore Chrysostom, commenting on Matt.\n5:1, Jesus, \"seeing the multitude, went up into a mountain,\" says:\n\"By sitting not in the city and in the market-place, but on a\nmountain and in a place of solitude, He taught us to do nothing for\nshow, and to withdraw from the crowd, especially when we have to\ndiscourse of needful things.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 40, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Was Becoming That Christ Should Lead an Austere Life in\nThis World?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was becoming that Christ should\nlead an austere life in this world. For Christ preached the\nperfection of life much more than John did. But John led an austere\nlife in order that he might persuade men by his example to embrace a\nperfect life; for it is written (Matt. 3:4) that \"the same John had\nhis garment of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins:\nand his meat was locusts and wild honey\"; on which Chrysostom\ncomments as follows (Hom. x): \"It was a marvelous and strange thing\nto behold such austerity in a human frame: which thing also\nparticularly attracted the Jews.\" Therefore it seems that an austere\nlife was much more becoming to Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, abstinence is ordained to continency; for it is\nwritten (Osee 4:10): \"They shall eat and shall not be filled; they\nhave committed fornication, and have not ceased.\" But Christ both\nobserved continency in Himself and proposed it to be observed by\nothers when He said (Matt. 19:12): \"There are eunuchs who have made\nthemselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven: he that can take it let\nhim take it.\" Therefore it seems that Christ should have observed an\naustere life both in Himself and in His disciples.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it seems absurd for a man to begin a stricter form\nof life and to return to an easier life: for one might quote to his\ndiscredit that which is written, Luke 14:30: \"This man began to\nbuild, and was not able to finish.\" Now Christ began a very strict\nlife after His baptism, remaining in the desert and fasting for\n\"forty days and forty nights.\" Therefore it seems unbecoming that,\nafter leading such a strict life, He should return to the common\nmanner of living.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 11:19): \"The Son of Man came\neating and drinking.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), it was in keeping with the\nend of the Incarnation that Christ should not lead a solitary life,\nbut should associate with men. Now it is most fitting that he who\nassociates with others should conform to their manner of living;\naccording to the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 9:22): \"I became all\nthings to all men.\" And therefore it was most fitting that Christ\nshould conform to others in the matter of eating and drinking. Hence\nAugustine says (Contra Faust. xvi) that \"John is described as\n'neither eating nor drinking,' because he did not take the same food\nas the Jews. Therefore, unless our Lord had taken it, it would not be\nsaid of Him, in contrast, 'eating and drinking.'\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: In His manner of living our Lord gave an example of\nperfection as to all those things which of themselves relate to\nsalvation. Now abstinence in eating and drinking does not of itself\nrelate to salvation, according to Rom. 14:17: \"The kingdom of God is\nnot meat and drink.\" And Augustine (De Qq. Evang. ii, qu. 11)\nexplains Matt. 11:19, \"Wisdom is justified by her children,\" saying\nthat this is because the holy apostles \"understood that the kingdom\nof God does not consist in eating and drinking, but in suffering\nindigence with equanimity,\" for they are neither uplifted by\naffluence, nor distressed by want. Again (De Doctr. Christ. iii), he\nsays that in all such things \"it is not making use of them, but the\nwantonness of the user, that is sinful.\" Now both these lives are\nlawful and praiseworthy--namely, that a man withdraw from the society\nof other men and observe abstinence; and that he associate with other\nmen and live like them. And therefore our Lord wished to give men an\nexample of either kind of life.\n\nAs to John, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxxvii super Matth.), \"he\nexhibited no more than his life and righteous conduct . . . but\nChrist had the testimony also of miracles. Leaving, therefore, John\nto be illustrious by his fasting, He Himself came the opposite way,\nboth coming unto publicans' tables and eating and drinking.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Just as by abstinence other men acquire the power of\nself-restraint, so also Christ, in Himself and in those that are His,\nsubdued the flesh by the power of His Godhead. Wherefore, as we read\nMatt. 9:14, the Pharisees and the disciples of John fasted, but not\nthe disciples of Christ. On which Bede comments, saying that \"John\ndrank neither wine nor strong drink: because abstinence is\nmeritorious where the nature is weak. But why should our Lord, whose\nright by nature it is to forgive sins, avoid those whom He could make\nholier than such as abstain?\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.), \"that thou\nmightest learn how great a good is fasting, and how it is a shield\nagainst the devil, and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself\nup, not to luxury, but to fasting--for this cause did He fast, not as\nneeding it Himself, but as teaching us . . . And for this did He\nproceed no further than Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our\nflesh might seem incredible.\" The mystical meaning, as Gregory says\n(Hom. xvi in Evang.), is that by Christ's example the number \"forty\"\nis observed in His fast, because the power of the \"decalogue is\nfulfilled throughout the four books of the Holy Gospel: since ten\nmultiplied by four amounts to forty.\" Or, because \"we live in this\nmortal body composed of the four elements, and by its lusts we\ntransgress the commandments of the Lord, which are expressed in the\ndecalogue.\" Or, according to Augustine (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 81): \"To\nknow the Creator and the creature is the entire teaching of wisdom.\nThe Creator is the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.\nNow the creature is partly invisible, as the soul, to which the\nnumber three may be ascribed, for we are commanded to love God in\nthree ways, 'with our whole heart, our whole soul, and our whole\nmind'; and partly visible, as the body, to which the number four is\napplicable on account of its being subject to heat, moisture, cold,\nand dryness. Hence if we multiply ten, which may be referred to the\nentire moral code, by four, which number may be applied to the body,\nbecause it is the body that executes the law, the product is the\nnumber forty: in which,\" consequently, \"the time during which we sigh\nand grieve is shown forth.\" And yet there was no inconsistency in\nChrist's returning to the common manner of living, after fasting and\n(retiring into the) desert. For it is becoming to that kind of life,\nwhich we hold Christ to have embraced, wherein a man delivers to\nothers the fruits of his contemplation, that he devote himself first\nof all to contemplation, and that he afterwards come down to the\npublicity of active life by associating with other men. Hence Bede\nsays on Mk. 2:18: \"Christ fasted, that thou mightest not disobey the\ncommandment; He ate with sinners, that thou mightest discern His\nsanctity and acknowledge His power.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 40, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Led a Life of Poverty in This World?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have led a life of\npoverty in this world. Because Christ should have embraced the most\neligible form of life. But the most eligible form of life is that\nwhich is a mean between riches and poverty; for it is written (Prov.\n30:8): \"Give me neither beggary nor riches; give me only the\nnecessaries of life.\" Therefore Christ should have led a life, not of\npoverty, but of moderation.\n\nObj. 2: Further, external wealth is ordained to bodily use as to food\nand raiment. But Christ conformed His manner of life to those among\nwhom He lived, in the matter of food and raiment. Therefore it seems\nthat He should have observed the ordinary manner of life as to riches\nand poverty, and have avoided extreme poverty.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ specially invited men to imitate His example\nof humility, according to Matt. 11:29: \"Learn of Me, because I am\nmeek and humble of heart.\" But humility is most commendable in the\nrich; thus it is written (1 Tim. 6:11): \"Charge the rich of this\nworld not to be high-minded.\" Therefore it seems that Christ should\nnot have chosen a life of poverty.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 8:20): \"The Son of Man hath\nnot where to lay His head\": as though He were to say as Jerome\nobserves: \"Why desirest thou to follow Me for the sake of riches and\nworldly gain, since I am so poor that I have not even the smallest\ndwelling-place, and I am sheltered by a roof that is not Mine?\" And\non Matt. 17:26: \"That we may not scandalize them, go to the sea,\"\nJerome says: \"This incident, taken literally, affords edification to\nthose who hear it when they are told that our Lord was so poor that\nHe had not the wherewithal to pay the tax for Himself and His\napostles.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting for Christ to lead a life of poverty\nin this world. First, because this was in keeping with the duty of\npreaching, for which purpose He says that He came (Mk. 1:38): \"Let us\ngo into the neighboring towns and cities, that I may preach there\nalso: for to this purpose am I come.\" Now in order that the preachers\nof God's word may be able to give all their time to preaching, they\nmust be wholly free from care of worldly matters: which is impossible\nfor those who are possessed of wealth. Wherefore the Lord Himself,\nwhen sending the apostles to preach, said to them (Matt. 10:9): \"Do\nnot possess gold nor silver.\" And the apostles (Acts 6:2) say: \"It is\nnot reasonable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.\"\n\nSecondly, because just as He took upon Himself the death of the body\nin order to bestow spiritual life on us, so did He bear bodily\npoverty, in order to enrich us spiritually, according to 2 Cor. 8:9:\n\"You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: that . . . He became\npoor for our [Vulg.: 'your'] sakes that through His poverty we\n[Vulg.: 'you'] might be rich.\"\n\nThirdly, lest if He were rich His preaching might be ascribed to\ncupidity. Wherefore Jerome says on Matt. 10:9, that if the disciples\nhad been possessed of wealth, \"they had seemed to preach for gain,\nnot for the salvation of mankind.\" And the same reason applies to\nChrist.\n\nFourthly, that the more lowly He seemed by reason of His poverty, the\ngreater might the power of His Godhead be shown to be. Hence in a\nsermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. iii, c. ix) we read: \"He chose\nall that was poor and despicable, all that was of small account and\nhidden from the majority, that we might recognize His Godhead to have\ntransformed the terrestrial sphere. For this reason did He choose a\npoor maid for His Mother, a poorer birthplace; for this reason did He\nlive in want. Learn this from the manger.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Those who wish to live virtuously need to avoid\nabundance of riches and beggary, in as far as these are occasions of\nsin: since abundance of riches is an occasion for being proud; and\nbeggary is an occasion of thieving and lying, or even of perjury. But\nforasmuch as Christ was incapable of sin, He had not the same motive\nas Solomon for avoiding these things. Yet neither is every kind of\nbeggary an occasion of theft and perjury, as Solomon seems to add\n(Prov. 30:8); but only that which is involuntary, in order to avoid\nwhich, a man is guilty of theft and perjury. But voluntary poverty is\nnot open to this danger: and such was the poverty chosen by Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 2: A man may feed and clothe himself in conformity with\nothers, not only by possessing riches, but also by receiving the\nnecessaries of life from those who are rich. This is what happened in\nregard to Christ: for it is written (Luke 8:2, 3) that certain women\nfollowed Christ and \"ministered unto Him of their substance.\" For, as\nJerome says on Matt. 27:55, \"It was a Jewish custom, nor was it\nthought wrong for women, following the ancient tradition of their\nnation, out of their private means to provide their instructors with\nfood and clothing. But as this might give scandal to the heathens,\nPaul says that he gave it up\": thus it was possible for them to be\nfed out of a common fund, but not to possess wealth, without their\nduty of preaching being hindered by anxiety.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Humility is not much to be praised in one who is poor\nof necessity. But in one who, like Christ, is poor willingly, poverty\nitself is a sign of very great humility.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 40, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Conformed His Conduct to the Law?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not conform His conduct to\nthe Law. For the Law forbade any work whatsoever to be done on the\nSabbath, since God \"rested on the seventh day from all His work which\nHe had done.\" But He healed a man on the Sabbath, and commanded him\nto take up his bed. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His\nconduct to the Law.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what Christ taught, that He also did, according to\nActs 1:1: \"Jesus began to do and to teach.\" But He taught (Matt.\n15:11) that \"not\" all \"that which goeth into the mouth defileth a\nman\": and this is contrary to the precept of the Law, which declared\nthat a man was made unclean by eating and touching certain animals,\nas stated Lev. 11. Therefore it seems that He did not conform His\nconduct to the Law.\n\nObj. 3: Further, he who consents to anything is of the same mind as\nhe who does it, according to Rom. 1:32: \"Not only they that do them,\nbut they also that consent to them that do them.\" But Christ, by\nexcusing His disciples, consented to their breaking the Law by\nplucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath; as is related Matt. 12:1-8.\nTherefore it seems that Christ did not conform His conduct to the Law.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 5:17): \"Do not think that I\nam come to destroy the Law or the Prophets.\" Commenting on these\nwords, Chrysostom says: \"He fulfilled the Law . . . in one way, by\ntransgressing none of the precepts of the Law; secondly, by\njustifying us through faith, which the Law, in the letter, was unable\nto do.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ conformed His conduct in all things to the\nprecepts of the Law. In token of this He wished even to be\ncircumcised; for the circumcision is a kind of protestation of a\nman's purpose of keeping the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: \"I testify\nto every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the\nwhole Law.\"\n\nAnd Christ, indeed, wished to conform His conduct to the Law, first,\nto show His approval of the Old Law. Secondly, that by obeying the\nLaw He might perfect it and bring it to an end in His own self, so\nas to show that it was ordained to Him. Thirdly, to deprive the Jews\nof an excuse for slandering Him. Fourthly, in order to deliver men\nfrom subjection to the Law, according to Gal. 4:4, 5: \"God sent His\nSon . . . made under the Law that He might redeem them who were\nunder the Law.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Our Lord excuses Himself from any transgression of the\nLaw in this matter, for three reasons. First, the precept of the\nhallowing of the Sabbath forbids not Divine work, but human work: for\nthough God ceased on the seventh day from the creation of new\ncreatures, yet He ever works by keeping and governing His creatures.\nNow that Christ wrought miracles was a Divine work: hence He says\n(John 5:17): \"My Father worketh until now; and I work.\"\n\nSecondly, He excuses Himself on the ground that this precept does not\nforbid works which are needful for bodily health. Wherefore He says\n(Luke 13:15): \"Doth not every one of you on the Sabbath-day loose his\nox or his ass from the manger, and lead them to water?\" And farther\non (Luke 14:5): \"Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a\npit, and will not immediately draw him out on the Sabbath-day?\" Now\nit is manifest that the miraculous works done by Christ related to\nhealth of body and soul.\n\nThirdly, because this precept does not forbid works pertaining to the\nworship of God. Wherefore He says (Matt. 12:5): \"Have ye not read in\nthe Law that on the Sabbath-days the priests in the Temple break the\nSabbath, and are without blame?\" And (John 7:23) it is written that a\nman receives circumcision on the Sabbath-day. Now when Christ\ncommanded the paralytic to carry his bed on the Sabbath-day, this\npertained to the worship of God, i.e. to the praise of God's power.\nAnd thus it is clear that He did not break the Sabbath: although the\nJews threw this false accusation in His face, saying (John 9:16):\n\"This man is not of God, who keepeth not the Sabbath.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: By those words Christ wished to show that man is made\nunclean as to his soul, by the use of any sort of foods considered\nnot in their nature, but only in some signification. And that certain\nfoods are in the Law called \"unclean\" is due to some signification;\nwhence Augustine says (Contra Faust. vi): \"If a question be raised\nabout swine and lambs, both are clean by nature, since 'all God's\ncreatures are good'; but by a certain signification lambs are clean\nand swine unclean.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The disciples also, when, being hungry, they plucked\nthe ears of corn on the Sabbath, are to be excused from transgressing\nthe Law, since they were pressed by hunger: just as David did not\ntransgress the Law when, through being compelled by hunger, he ate\nthe loaves which it was not lawful for him to eat.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 41\n\nOF CHRIST'S TEMPTATION\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider Christ's temptation, concerning which there\nare four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it was becoming that Christ should be tempted?\n\n(2) Of the place;\n\n(3) Of the time;\n\n(4) Of the mode and order of the temptation.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 41, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Becoming That Christ Should Be Tempted?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not becoming for Christ to be\ntempted. For to tempt is to make an experiment, which is not done\nsave in regard to something unknown. But the power of Christ was\nknown even to the demons; for it is written (Luke 4:41) that \"He\nsuffered them not to speak, for they knew that He was Christ.\"\nTherefore it seems that it was unbecoming for Christ to be tempted.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ was come in order to destroy the works of the\ndevil, according to 1 John 3:8: \"For this purpose the Son of God\nappeared, that He might destroy the works of the devil.\" But it is\nnot for the same to destroy the works of a certain one and to suffer\nthem. Therefore it seems unbecoming that Christ should suffer Himself\nto be tempted by the devil.\n\nObj. 3: Further, temptation is from a threefold source--the flesh,\nthe world, and the devil. But Christ was not tempted either by the\nflesh or by the world. Therefore neither should He have been tempted\nby the devil.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 4:1): \"Jesus was led by the\nSpirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ wished to be tempted; first that He might\nstrengthen us against temptations. Hence Gregory says in a homily\n(xvi in Evang.): \"It was not unworthy of our Redeemer to wish to be\ntempted, who came also to be slain; in order that by His temptations\nHe might conquer our temptations, just as by His death He overcame\nour death.\"\n\nSecondly, that we might be warned, so that none, however holy, may\nthink himself safe or free from temptation. Wherefore also He wished\nto be tempted after His baptism, because, as Hilary says (Super\nMatth., cap. iii.): \"The temptations of the devil assail those\nprincipally who are sanctified, for he desires, above all, to\novercome the holy. Hence also it is written (Ecclus. 2): Son, when\nthou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and\nprepare thy soul for temptation.\"\n\nThirdly, in order to give us an example: to teach us, to wit, how to\novercome the temptations of the devil. Hence Augustine says (De Trin.\niv) that Christ \"allowed Himself to be tempted\" by the devil, \"that\nHe might be our Mediator in overcoming temptations, not only by\nhelping us, but also by giving us an example.\"\n\nFourthly, in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it\nis written (Heb. 4:15): \"We have not a high-priest, who cannot have\ncompassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as\nwe are, without sin.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): \"Christ was known\nto the demons only so far as He willed; not as the Author of eternal\nlife, but as the cause of certain temporal effects,\" from which they\nformed a certain conjecture that Christ was the Son of God. But since\nthey also observed in Him certain signs of human frailty, they did\nnot know for certain that He was the Son of God: wherefore (the\ndevil) wished to tempt Him. This is implied by the words of Matt.\n4:2, 3, saying that, after \"He was hungry, the tempter\" came \"to\nHim,\"    because, as Hilary says (Super Matth., cap. iii), \"Had not\nChrist's weakness in hungering betrayed His human nature, the devil\nwould not have dared to tempt Him.\" Moreover, this appears from the\nvery manner of the temptation, when he said: \"If Thou be the Son of\nGod.\" Which words Ambrose explains as follows (In Luc. iv): \"What\nmeans this way of addressing Him, save that, though he knew that the\nSon of God was to come, yet he did not think that He had come in the\nweakness of the flesh?\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, not by\npowerful deeds, but rather by suffering from him and his members, so\nas to conquer the devil by righteousness, not by power; thus\nAugustine says (De Trin. xiii) that \"the devil was to be overcome,\nnot by the power of God, but by righteousness.\" And therefore in\nregard to Christ's temptation we must consider what He did of His own\nwill and what He suffered from the devil. For that He allowed Himself\nto be tempted was due to His own will. Wherefore it is written (Matt.\n4:1): \"Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by\nthe devil\"; and Gregory (Hom. xvi in Evang.) says this is to be\nunderstood of the Holy Ghost, to wit, that \"thither did His Spirit\nlead Him, where the wicked spirit would find Him and tempt Him.\" But\nHe suffered from the devil in being \"taken up\" on to \"the pinnacle of\nthe Temple\" and again \"into a very high mountain.\" Nor is it strange,\nas Gregory observes, \"that He allowed Himself to be taken by him on\nto a mountain, who allowed Himself to be crucified by His members.\"\nAnd we understand Him to have been taken up by the devil, not, as it\nwere, by force, but because, as Origen says (Hom. xxi super Luc.),\n\"He followed Him in the course of His temptation like a wrestler\nadvancing of his own accord.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As the Apostle says (Heb. 4:15), Christ wished to be\n\"tempted in all things, without sin.\" Now temptation which comes from\nan enemy can be without sin: because it comes about by merely outward\nsuggestion. But temptation which comes from the flesh cannot be\nwithout sin, because such a temptation is caused by pleasure and\nconcupiscence; and, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix), \"it is not\nwithout sin that 'the flesh desireth against the spirit.'\" And hence\nChrist wished to be tempted by an enemy, but not by the flesh.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 41, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Been Tempted in the Desert?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been tempted\nin the desert. Because Christ wished to be tempted in order to give\nus an example, as stated above (A. 1). But an example should be set\nopenly before those who are to follow it. Therefore He should not\nhave been tempted in the desert.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Chrysostom says (Hom. xii in Matth.): \"Then most\nespecially does the devil assail by tempting us, when he sees us\nalone. Thus did he tempt the woman in the beginning when he found her\napart from her husband.\" Hence it seems that, by going into the\ndesert to be tempted, He exposed Himself to temptation. Since,\ntherefore, His temptation is an example to us, it seems that others\ntoo should take such steps as will lead them into temptation. And yet\nthis seems a dangerous thing to do, since rather should we avoid the\noccasion of being tempted.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Matt. 4:5, Christ's second temptation is set down,\nin which \"the devil took\" Christ up \"into the Holy City, and set Him\nupon the pinnacle of the Temple\": which is certainly not in the\ndesert. Therefore He was not tempted in the desert only.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 1:13) that Jesus \"was in the\ndesert forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 2), Christ of His own\nfree-will exposed Himself to be tempted by the devil, just as by His\nown free-will He submitted to be killed by his members; else the\ndevil would not have dared to approach Him. Now the devil prefers to\nassail a man who is alone, for, as it is written (Eccles. 4:12), \"if\na man prevail against one, two shall withstand him.\" And so it was\nthat Christ went out into the desert, as to a field of battle, to be\ntempted there by the devil. Hence Ambrose says on Luke 4:1, that\n\"Christ was led into the desert for the purpose of provoking the\ndevil. For had he,\" i.e. the devil, \"not fought, He,\" i.e. Christ,\n\"would not have conquered.\" He adds other reasons, saying that\n\"Christ in doing this set forth the mystery of Adam's delivery from\nexile,\" who had been expelled from paradise into the desert, and \"set\nan example to us, by showing that the devil envies those who strive\nfor better things.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ is set as an example to all through faith,\naccording to Heb. 12:2: \"Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of\nfaith.\" Now faith, as it is written (Rom. 10:17), \"cometh by\nhearing,\" but not by seeing: nay, it is even said (John 20:29):\n\"Blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.\" And\ntherefore, in order that Christ's temptation might be an example to\nus, it behooved that men should not see it, and it was enough that\nthey should hear it related.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The occasions of temptation are twofold. One is on the\npart of man--for instance, when a man causes himself to be near to\nsin by not avoiding the occasion of sinning. And such occasions of\ntemptation should be avoided, as it is written of Lot (Gen. 19:17):\n\"Neither stay thou in all the country about\" Sodom.\n\nAnother occasion of temptation is on the part of the devil, who\nalways \"envies those who strive for better things,\" as Ambrose says\n(In Luc. iv, 1). And such occasions of temptation are not to be\navoided. Hence Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth. [*From the\nsupposititious Opus Imperfectum]): \"Not only Christ was led into the\ndesert by the Spirit, but all God's children that have the Holy\nGhost. For it is not enough for them to sit idle; the Holy Ghost\nurges them to endeavor to do something great: which is for them to be\nin the desert from the devil's standpoint, for no unrighteousness, in\nwhich the devil delights, is there. Again, every good work, compared\nto the flesh and the world, is the desert; because it is not\naccording to the will of the flesh and of the world.\" Now, there is\nno danger in giving the devil such an occasion of temptation; since\nthe help of the Holy Ghost, who is the Author of the perfect deed, is\nmore powerful* than the assault of the envious devil. [*All the\ncodices read 'majus.' One of the earliest printed editions has\n'magis,' which has much to commend it, since St. Thomas is commenting\nthe text quoted from St. Chrysostom. The translation would run thus:\n'since rather is it (the temptation) a help from the Holy Ghost,\nwho,' etc.].\n\nReply Obj. 3: Some say that all the temptations took place in the\ndesert. Of these some say that Christ was led into the Holy City, not\nreally, but in an imaginary vision; while others say that the Holy\nCity itself, i.e. Jerusalem, is called \"a desert,\" because it was\ndeserted by God. But there is no need for this explanation. For Mark\nsays that He was tempted in the desert by the devil, but not that He\nwas tempted in the desert only.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 41, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ's Temptation Should Have Taken Place After His Fast?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's temptation should not have\ntaken place after His fast. For it has been said above (Q. 40, A. 2)\nthat an austere mode of life was not becoming to Christ. But it\nsavors of extreme austerity that He should have eaten nothing for\nforty days and forty nights, for Gregory (Hom. xvi in Evang.)\nexplains the fact that \"He fasted forty days and forty nights,\"\nsaying that \"during that time He partook of no food whatever.\" It\nseems, therefore, that He should not thus have fasted before His\ntemptation.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Mk. 1:13) that \"He was in the desert\nforty days and forty nights; and was tempted by Satan.\" Now, He\nfasted forty days and forty nights. Therefore it seems that He was\ntempted by the devil, not after, but during, His fast.\n\nObj. 3: Further, we read that Christ fasted but once. But He was\ntempted by the devil, not only once, for it is written (Luke 4:13)\n\"that all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him for\na time.\" As, therefore, He did not fast before the second temptation,\nso neither should He have fasted before the first.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 4:2, 3): \"When He had fasted\nforty days and forty nights, afterwards He was hungry\": and then \"the\ntempter came to Him.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was becoming that Christ should wish to fast\nbefore His temptation. First, in order to give us an example. For\nsince we are all in urgent need of strengthening ourselves against\ntemptation, as stated above (A. 1), by fasting before being tempted,\nHe teaches us the need of fasting in order to equip ourselves against\ntemptation. Hence the Apostle (2 Cor. 6:5, 7) reckons \"fastings\"\ntogether with the \"armor of justice.\"\n\nSecondly, in order to show that the devil assails with temptations\neven those who fast, as likewise those who are given to other good\nworks. And so Christ's temptation took place after His fast, as also\nafter His baptism. Hence since rather Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super\nMatth.): \"To instruct thee how great a good is fasting, and how it is\na most powerful shield against the devil; and that after baptism thou\nshouldst give thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting; for this\ncause Christ fasted, not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us.\"\n\nThirdly, because after the fast, hunger followed, which made the devil\ndare to approach Him, as already stated (A. 1, ad 1). Now, when \"our\nLord was hungry,\" says Hilary (Super Matth. iii), \"it was not because\nHe was overcome by want of food, but because He abandoned His manhood\nto its nature. For the devil was to be conquered, not by God, but by\nthe flesh.\" Wherefore Chrysostom too says: \"He proceeded no farther\nthan Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might seem\nincredible.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: It was becoming for Christ not to adopt an extreme form\nof austere life in order to show Himself outwardly in conformity with\nthose to whom He preached. Now, no one should take up the office of\npreacher unless he be already cleansed and perfect in virtue,\naccording to what is said of Christ, that \"Jesus began to do and to\nteach\" (Acts 1:1). Consequently, immediately after His baptism Christ\nadopted an austere form of life, in order to teach us the need of\ntaming the flesh before passing on to the office of preaching,\naccording to the Apostle (1 Cor. 9:27): \"I chastise my body, and\nbring it into subjection, lest perhaps when I have preached to\nothers, I myself should become a castaway.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: These words of Mark may be understood as meaning that\n\"He was in the desert forty days and forty nights,\" and that He\nfasted during that time: and the words, \"and He was tempted by\nSatan,\" may be taken as referring, not to the time during which He\nfasted, but to the time that followed: since Matthew says that \"after\nHe had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards He was hungry,\"\nthus affording the devil a pretext for approaching Him. And so the\nwords that follow, and the angels ministered to Him, are to be taken\nin sequence, which is clear from the words of Matthew (4:11): \"Then\nthe devil left Him,\" i.e. after the temptation, \"and behold angels\ncame and ministered to Him.\" And as to the words inserted by Mark,\n\"and He was with the beasts,\" according to Chrysostom (Hom. xiii in\nMatth.), they are set down in order to describe the desert as being\nimpassable to man and full of beasts.\n\nOn the other hand, according to Bede's exposition of Mk. 1:12, 13,\nour Lord was tempted forty days and forty nights. But this is not to\nbe understood of the visible temptations which are related by Matthew\nand Luke, and occurred after the fast, but of certain other assaults\nwhich perhaps Christ suffered from the devil during that time of His\nfast.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Ambrose says on Luke 4:13, the devil departed from\nChrist \"for a time, because, later on, he returned, not to tempt Him,\nbut to assail Him openly\"--namely, at the time of His Passion.\nNevertheless, He seemed in this later assault to tempt Christ to\ndejection and hatred of His neighbor; just as in the desert he had\ntempted Him to gluttonous pleasure and idolatrous contempt of God.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 41, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Mode and Order of the Temptation Were Becoming?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the mode and order of the temptation\nwere unbecoming. For the devil tempts in order to induce us to sin.\nBut if Christ had assuaged His bodily hunger by changing the stones\ninto bread, He would not have sinned; just as neither did He sin when\nHe multiplied the loaves, which was no less a miracle, in order to\nsuccor the hungry crowd. Therefore it seems that this was nowise a\ntemptation.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a counselor is inconsistent if he persuades the\ncontrary to what he intends. But when the devil set Christ on a\npinnacle of the Temple, he purposed to tempt Him to pride or\nvainglory. Therefore it was inconsistent to urge Him to cast Himself\nthence: for this would be contrary to pride or vainglory, which\nalways seeks to rise.\n\nObj. 3: Further, one temptation should lead to one sin. But in the\ntemptation on the mountain he counseled two sins--namely,\ncovetousness and idolatry. Therefore the mode of the temptation was\nunfitting.\n\nObj. 4: Further, temptations are ordained to sin. But there are seven\ndeadly sins, as we have stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 84, A.\n4). But the tempter only deals with three, viz. gluttony, vainglory,\nand covetousness. Therefore the temptation seems to have been\nincomplete.\n\nObj. 5: Further, after overcoming all the vices, man is still tempted\nto pride or vainglory: since pride \"worms itself in stealthily, and\ndestroys even good works,\" as Augustine says (Ep. ccxi). Therefore\nMatthew unfittingly gives the last place to the temptation to\ncovetousness on the mountain, and the second place to the temptation\nto vainglory in the Temple, especially since Luke puts them in the\nreverse order.\n\nObj. 6: Further, Jerome says on Matt. 4:4 that \"Christ purposed to\novercome the devil by humility, not by might.\" Therefore He should\nnot have repulsed him with a haughty rebuke, saying: \"Begone, Satan.\"\n\nObj. 7: Further, the gospel narrative seems to be false. For it seems\nimpossible that Christ could have been set on a pinnacle of the\nTemple without being seen by others. Nor is there to be found a\nmountain so high that all the world can be seen from it, so that all\nthe kingdoms of the earth could be shown to Christ from its summit.\nIt seems, therefore, that Christ's temptation is unfittingly\ndescribed.\n\nOn the contrary is the authority of Scripture.\n\n_I answer that,_ The temptation which comes from the enemy takes the\nform of a suggestion, as Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Evang.). Now a\nsuggestion cannot be made to everybody in the same way; it must arise\nfrom those things towards which each one has an inclination.\nConsequently the devil does not straight away tempt the spiritual man\nto grave sins, but he begins with lighter sins, so as gradually to\nlead him to those of greater magnitude. Wherefore Gregory (Moral.\nxxxi), expounding Job 39:25, \"He smelleth the battle afar off, the\nencouraging of the captains and the shouting of the army,\" says: \"The\ncaptains are fittingly described as encouraging, and the army as\nshouting. Because vices begin by insinuating themselves into the mind\nunder some specious pretext: then they come on the mind in such\nnumbers as to drag it into all sorts of folly, deafening it with\ntheir bestial clamor.\"\n\nThus, too, did the devil set about the temptation of the first man.\nFor at first he enticed his mind to consent to the eating of the\nforbidden fruit, saying (Gen. 3:1): \"Why hath God commanded you that\nyou should not eat of every tree of paradise?\" Secondly [he tempted\nhim] to vainglory by saying: \"Your eyes shall be opened.\" Thirdly, he\nled the temptation to the extreme height of pride, saying: \"You shall\nbe as gods, knowing good and evil.\" This same order did he observe in\ntempting Christ. For at first he tempted Him to that which men\ndesire, however spiritual they may be--namely, the support of the\ncorporeal nature by food. Secondly, he advanced to that matter in\nwhich spiritual men are sometimes found wanting, inasmuch as they do\ncertain things for show, which pertains to vainglory. Thirdly, he led\nthe temptation on to that in which no spiritual men, but only carnal\nmen, have a part--namely, to desire worldly riches and fame, to the\nextent of holding God in contempt. And so in the first two\ntemptations he said: \"If Thou be the Son of God\"; but not in the\nthird, which is inapplicable to spiritual men, who are sons of God by\nadoption, whereas it does apply to the two preceding temptations.\n\nAnd Christ resisted these temptations by quoting the authority of the\nLaw, not by enforcing His power, \"so as to give more honor to His\nhuman nature and a greater punishment to His adversary, since the foe\nof the human race was vanquished, not as by God, but as by man\"; as\nPope Leo says (Serm. 1, De Quadrag. 3).\n\nReply Obj. 1: To make use of what is needful for self-support is not\nthe sin of gluttony; but if a man do anything inordinate out of the\ndesire for such support, it can pertain to the sin of gluttony. Now\nit is inordinate for a man who has human assistance at his command to\nseek to obtain food miraculously for mere bodily support. Hence the\nLord miraculously provided the children of Israel with manna in the\ndesert, where there was no means of obtaining food otherwise. And in\nlike fashion Christ miraculously provided the crowds with food in the\ndesert, when there was no other means of getting food. But in order\nto assuage His hunger, He could have done otherwise than work a\nmiracle, as did John the Baptist, according to Matthew (3:4); or He\ncould have hastened to the neighboring country. Consequently the\ndevil esteemed that if Christ was a mere man, He would fall into sin\nby attempting to assuage His hunger by a miracle.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It often happens that a man seeks to derive glory from\nexternal humiliation, whereby he is exalted by reason of spiritual\ngood. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 12): \"It must\nbe noted that it is possible to boast not only of the beauty and\nsplendor of material things, but even of filthy squalor.\" And this is\nsignified by the devil urging Christ to seek spiritual glory by\ncasting His body down.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It is a sin to desire worldly riches and honors in an\ninordinate fashion. And the principal sign of this is when a man does\nsomething wrong in order to acquire such things. And so the devil was\nnot satisfied with instigating to a desire for riches and honors, but\nhe went so far as to tempt Christ, for the sake of gaining possession\nof these things, to fall down and adore him, which is a very great\ncrime, and against God. Nor does he say merely, \"if Thou wilt adore\nme,\" but he adds, \"if, falling down\"; because, as Ambrose says on\nLuke 4:5: \"Ambition harbors yet another danger within itself: for,\nwhile seeking to rule, it will serve; it will bow in submission that\nit may be crowned with honor; and the higher it aims, the lower it\nabases itself.\"\n\nIn like manner [the devil] in the preceding temptations tried to lead\n[Christ] from the desire of one sin to the commission of another;\nthus from the desire of food he tried to lead Him to the vanity of\nthe needless working of a miracle; and from the desire of glory to\ntempt God by casting Himself headlong.\n\nReply Obj. 4: As Ambrose says on Luke 4:13, Scripture would not have\nsaid that \"'all the temptation being ended, the devil departed from\nHim,' unless the matter of all sins were included in the three\ntemptations already related. For the causes of temptations are the\ncauses of desires\"--namely, \"lust of the flesh, hope of glory,\neagerness for power.\"\n\nReply Obj. 5: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): \"It is not\ncertain which happened first; whether the kingdoms of the earth were\nfirst shown to Him, and afterwards He was set on the pinnacle of the\nTemple; or the latter first, and the former afterwards. However, it\nmatters not, provided it be made clear that all these things did take\nplace.\" It may be that the Evangelists set these things in different\norders, because sometimes cupidity arises from vainglory, sometimes\nthe reverse happens.\n\nReply Obj. 6: When Christ had suffered the wrong of being tempted by\nthe devil saying, \"If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself down,\" He\nwas not troubled, nor did He upbraid the devil. But when the devil\nusurped to himself the honor due to God, saying, \"All these things\nwill I give Thee, if, falling down, Thou wilt adore me,\" He was\nexasperated, and repulsed him, saying, \"Begone, Satan\": that we might\nlearn from His example to bear bravely insults leveled at ourselves,\nbut not to allow ourselves so much as to listen to those which are\naimed at God.\n\nReply Obj. 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. v in Matth.): \"The devil set\nHim\" (on a pinnacle of the Temple) \"that He might be seen by all,\nwhereas, unawares to the devil, He acted in such sort that He was\nseen by none.\"\n\nIn regard to the words, \"'He showed Him all the kingdoms of the\nworld, and the glory of them,' we are not to understand that He saw\nthe very kingdoms, with the cities and inhabitants, their gold and\nsilver: but that the devil pointed out the quarters in which each\nkingdom or city lay, and set forth to Him in words their glory and\nestate.\" Or, again, as Origen says (Hom. xxx in Luc.), \"he showed Him\nhow, by means of the various vices, he was the lord of the world.\"\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 42\n\nOF CHRIST'S DOCTRINE\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider Christ's doctrine, about which there are four\npoints of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ should have preached to the Jews only, or to the\nGentiles also?\n\n(2) Whether in preaching He should have avoided the opposition of the\nJews?\n\n(3) Whether He should have preached in an open or in a hidden manner?\n\n(4) Whether He should have preached by word only, or also by writing?\n\nConcerning the time when He began to teach, we have spoken above when\ntreating of His baptism (Q. 29, A. 3).\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 42, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Preached Not Only to the Jews, but Also to\nthe Gentiles?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached not only\nto the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. For it is written (Isa. 49:6):\n\"It is a small thing that thou shouldst be My servant to raise up the\ntribes of Israel [Vulg.: 'Jacob'] and to convert the dregs of Jacob\n[Vulg.: 'Israel']: behold, I have given thee to be the light of the\nGentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation even to the farthest part\nof the earth.\" But Christ gave light and salvation through His\ndoctrine. Therefore it seems that it was \"a small thing\" that He\npreached to Jews alone, and not to the Gentiles.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as it is written (Matt. 7:29): \"He was teaching them\nas one having power.\" Now the power of doctrine is made more manifest\nin the instruction of those who, like the Gentiles, have received no\ntidings whatever; hence the Apostle says (Rom. 15:20): \"I have so\npreached the [Vulg.: 'this'] gospel, not where Christ was named, lest\nI should build upon another man's foundation.\" Therefore much rather\nshould Christ have preached to the Gentiles than to the Jews.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is more useful to instruct many than one. But\nChrist instructed some individual Gentiles, such as the Samaritan\nwoman (John 4) and the Chananaean woman (Matt. 15). Much more reason,\ntherefore, was there for Christ to preach to the Gentiles in general.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Matt. 15:24): \"I was not sent but\nto the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.\" And (Rom. 10:15)\nit is written: \"How shall they preach unless they be sent?\" Therefore\nChrist should not have preached to the Gentiles.\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting that Christ's preaching, whether\nthrough Himself or through His apostles, should be directed at first\nto the Jews alone. First, in order to show that by His coming the\npromises were fulfilled which had been made to the Jews of old, and\nnot to the Gentiles. Thus the Apostle says (Rom. 15:8): \"I say that\nChrist . . . was minister of the circumcision,\" i.e. the apostle and\npreacher of the Jews, \"for the truth of God, to confirm the promises\nmade unto the fathers.\"\n\nSecondly, in order to show that His coming was of God; because, as is\nwritten Rom. 13:1: \"Those things which are of God are well ordered\n[Vulg.: 'those that are, are ordained of God'].\" Now the right order\ndemanded that the doctrine of Christ should be made known first to\nthe Jews, who, by believing in and worshiping one God, were nearer to\nGod, and that it should be transmitted through them to the Gentiles:\njust as in the heavenly hierarchy the Divine enlightenment comes to\nthe lower angels through the higher. Hence on Matt. 15:24, \"I was not\nsent but to the sheep that are lost in the house of Israel,\" Jerome\nsays: \"He does not mean by this that He was not sent to the Gentiles,\nbut that He was sent to the Jews first.\" And so we read (Isa. 66:19):\n\"I will send of them that shall be saved,\" i.e. of the Jews, \"to the\nGentiles . . . and they shall declare My glory unto the Gentiles.\"\n\nThirdly, in order to deprive the Jews of ground for quibbling. Hence\non Matt. 10:5, \"Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles.\" Jerome says:\n\"It behooved Christ's coming to be announced to the Jews first, lest\nthey should have a valid excuse, and say that they had rejected our\nLord because He had sent His apostles to the Gentiles and Samaritans.\"\n\nFourthly, because it was through the triumph of the cross that Christ\nmerited power and lordship over the Gentiles. Hence it is written\n(Apoc. 2:26, 28): \"He that shall overcome . . . I will give him power\nover the nations . . . as I also have received of My Father\"; and\nthat because He became \"obedient unto the death of the cross, God\nhath exalted Him . . . that in the name of Jesus every knee should\nbow . . .\" and that \"every tongue should confess Him\" (Phil. 2:8-11).\nConsequently He did not wish His doctrine to be preached to the\nGentiles before His Passion: it was after His Passion that He said to\nHis disciples (Matt. 28:19): \"Going, teach ye all nations.\" For this\nreason it was that when, shortly before His Passion, certain Gentiles\nwished to see Jesus, He said: \"Unless the grain of wheat falling into\nthe ground dieth, itself remaineth alone: but if it die it bringeth\nforth much fruit\" (John 12:20-25); and as Augustine says, commenting\non this passage: \"He called Himself the grain of wheat that must be\nmortified by the unbelief of the Jews, multiplied by the faith of the\nnations.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ was given to be the light and salvation of the\nGentiles through His disciples, whom He sent to preach to them.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It is a sign, not of lesser, but of greater power to do\nsomething by means of others rather than by oneself. And thus the\nDivine power of Christ was specially shown in this, that He bestowed\non the teaching of His disciples such a power that they converted the\nGentiles to Christ, although these had heard nothing of Him.\n\nNow the power of Christ's teaching is to be considered in the\nmiracles by which He confirmed His doctrine, in the efficacy of His\npersuasion, and in the authority of His words, for He spoke as being\nHimself above the Law when He said: \"But I say to you\" (Matt. 5:22,\n28, 32, 34, 39, 44); and, again, in the force of His righteousness\nshown in His sinless manner of life.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Just as it was unfitting that Christ should at the\noutset make His doctrine known to the Gentiles equally with the Jews,\nin order that He might appear as being sent to the Jews, as to the\nfirst-born people; so neither was it fitting for Him to neglect the\nGentiles altogether, lest they should be deprived of the hope of\nsalvation. For this reason certain individual Gentiles were admitted,\non account of the excellence of their faith and devotedness.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 42, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Preached to the Jews Without Offending\nThem?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should have preached to the\nJews without offending them. For, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ.\nxi): \"In the Man Jesus Christ, a model of life is given us by the Son\nof God.\" But we should avoid offending not only the faithful, but\neven unbelievers, according to 1 Cor. 10:32: \"Be without offense to\nthe Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God.\" Therefore\nit seems that, in His teaching, Christ should also have avoided\ngiving offense to the Jews.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no wise man should do anything that will hinder the\nresult of his labor. Now through the disturbance which His teaching\noccasioned among the Jews, it was deprived of its results; for it is\nwritten (Luke 11:53, 54) that when our Lord reproved the Pharisees\nand Scribes, they \"began vehemently to urge Him, end to oppress His\nmouth about many things; lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch\nsomething from His mouth, that they might accuse Him.\" It seems\ntherefore unfitting that He should have given them offense by His\nteaching.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:1): \"An ancient man\nrebuke not; but entreat him as a father.\" But the priests and princes\nof the Jews were the elders of that people. Therefore it seems that\nthey should not have been rebuked with severity.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It was foretold (Isa. 8:14) that Christ would be\n\"for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to the two houses\nof Israel.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The salvation of the multitude is to be preferred to\nthe peace of any individuals whatsoever. Consequently, when certain\nones, by their perverseness, hinder the salvation of the multitude,\nthe preacher and the teacher should not fear to offend those men, in\norder that he may insure the salvation of the multitude. Now the\nScribes and Pharisees and the princes of the Jews were by their\nmalice a considerable hindrance to the salvation of the people, both\nbecause they opposed themselves to Christ's doctrine, which was the\nonly way to salvation, and because their evil ways corrupted the\nmorals of the people. For which reason our Lord, undeterred by their\ntaking offense, publicly taught the truth which they hated, and\ncondemned their vices. Hence we read (Matt. 15:12, 14) that when the\ndisciples of our Lord said: \"Dost Thou know that the Pharisees, when\nthey heard this word, were scandalized?\" He answered: \"Let them\nalone: they are blind and leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead\nthe blind, both fall into the pit.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: A man ought so to avoid giving offense, as neither by\nwrong deed or word to be the occasion of anyone's downfall. \"But if\nscandal arise from truth, the scandal should be borne rather than the\ntruth be set aside,\" as Gregory says (Hom. vii in Ezech.).\n\nReply Obj. 2: By publicly reproving the Scribes and Pharisees, Christ\npromoted rather than hindered the effect of His teaching. Because\nwhen the people came to know the vices of those men, they were less\ninclined to be prejudiced against Christ by hearing what was said of\nHim by the Scribes and Pharisees, who were ever withstanding His\ndoctrine.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This saying of the Apostle is to be understood of those\nelders whose years are reckoned not only in age and authority, but\nalso in probity; according to Num. 11:16: \"Gather unto Me seventy men\nof the ancients of Israel, whom thou knowest to be ancients . . . of\nthe people.\" But if by sinning openly they turn the authority of\ntheir years into an instrument of wickedness, they should be rebuked\nopenly and severely, as also Daniel says (Dan. 13:52): \"O thou that\nart grown old in evil days,\" etc.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 42, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Taught All Things Openly?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have taught all\nthings openly. For we read that He taught many things to His\ndisciples apart: as is seen clearly in the sermon at the Supper.\nWherefore He said: \"That which you heard in the ear in the chambers\nshall be preached on the housetops\" [*St. Thomas, probably quoting\nfrom memory, combines Matt. 10:27 with Luke 12:3]. Therefore He did\nnot teach all things openly.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the depths of wisdom should not be expounded save to\nthe perfect, according to 1 Cor. 2:6: \"We speak wisdom among the\nperfect.\" Now Christ's doctrine contained the most profound wisdom.\nTherefore it should not have been made known to the imperfect crowd.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it comes to the same, to hide the truth, whether by\nsaying nothing or by making use of a language that is difficult to\nunderstand. Now Christ, by speaking to the multitudes a language they\nwould not understand, hid from them the truth that He preached; since\n\"without parables He did not speak to them\" (Matt. 13:34). In the\nsame way, therefore, He could have hidden it from them by saying\nnothing at all.\n\n_On the contrary,_ He says Himself (John 18:20): \"In secret I have\nspoken nothing.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Anyone's doctrine may be hidden in three ways.\nFirst, on the part of the intention of the teacher, who does not wish\nto make his doctrine known to many, but rather to hide it. And this\nmay happen in two ways--sometimes through envy on the part of the\nteacher, who desires to excel in his knowledge, wherefore he is\nunwilling to communicate it to others. But this was not the case with\nChrist, in whose person the following words are spoken (Wis. 7:13):\n\"Which I have learned without guile, and communicate without envy,\nand her riches I hide not.\" But sometimes this happens through the\nvileness of the things taught; thus Augustine says on John 16:12:\n\"There are some things so bad that no sort of human modesty can bear\nthem.\" Wherefore of heretical doctrine it is written (Prov. 9:17):\n\"Stolen waters are sweeter.\" Now, Christ's doctrine is \"not of error\nnor of uncleanness\" (1 Thess. 2:3). Wherefore our Lord says (Mk.\n4:21): \"Doth a candle,\" i.e. true and pure doctrine, \"come in to be\nput under a bushel?\"\n\nSecondly, doctrine is hidden because it is put before few. And thus,\nagain, did Christ teach nothing in secret: for He propounded His\nentire doctrine either to the whole crowd or to His disciples\ngathered together. Hence Augustine says on John 18:20: \"How can it\nbe said that He speaks in secret when He speaks before so many\nmen? . . . especially if what He says to few He wishes through them\nto be made known to many?\"\n\nThirdly, doctrine is hidden, as to the manner in which it is\npropounded. And thus Christ spoke certain things in secret to the\ncrowds, by employing parables in teaching them spiritual mysteries\nwhich they were either unable or unworthy to grasp: and yet it was\nbetter for them to be instructed in the knowledge of spiritual\nthings, albeit hidden under the garb of parables, than to be deprived\nof it altogether. Nevertheless our Lord expounded the open and\nunveiled truth of these parables to His disciples, so that they might\nhand it down to others worthy of it; according to 2 Tim. 2:2: \"The\nthings which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same\ncommand to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others.\" This is\nforeshadowed, Num. 4, where the sons of Aaron are commanded to wrap\nup the sacred vessels that were to be carried by the Levites.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Hilary says, commenting on the passage quoted, \"we\ndo not read that our Lord was wont to preach at night, and expound\nHis doctrine in the dark: but He says this because His speech is\ndarkness to the carnal-minded, and His words are night to the\nunbeliever. His meaning, therefore, is that whatever He said we also\nshould say in the midst of unbelievers, by openly believing and\nprofessing it.\"\n\nOr, according to Jerome, He speaks comparatively--that is to say,\nbecause He was instructing them in Judea, which was a small place\ncompared with the whole world, where Christ's doctrine was to be\npublished by the preaching of the apostles.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By His doctrine our Lord did not make known all the\ndepths of His wisdom, neither to the multitudes, nor, indeed, to His\ndisciples, to whom He said (John 16:12): \"I have yet many things to\nsay to you, but you cannot bear them now.\" Yet whatever things out of\nHis wisdom He judged it right to make known to others, He expounded,\nnot in secret, but openly; although He was not understood by all.\nHence Augustine says on John 18:20: \"We must understand this, 'I have\nspoken openly to the world,' as though our Lord had said, 'Many have\nheard Me' . . . and, again, it was not 'openly,' because they did not\nunderstand.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above, our Lord spoke to the multitudes in\nparables, because they were neither able nor worthy to receive the\nnaked truth, which He revealed to His disciples.\n\nAnd when it is said that \"without parables He did not speak to them,\"\naccording to Chrysostom (Hom. xlvii in Matth.), we are to understand\nthis of that particular sermon, since on other occasions He said many\nthings to the multitude without parables. Or, as Augustine says (De\nQq. Evang., qu. xvii), this means, \"not that He spoke nothing\nliterally, but that He scarcely ever spoke without introducing a\nparable, although He also spoke some things in the literal sense.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 42, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Committed His Doctrine to Writing?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should have committed His\ndoctrine to writing. For the purpose of writing is to hand down\ndoctrine to posterity. Now Christ's doctrine was destined to endure\nfor ever, according to Luke 21:33: \"Heaven and earth shall pass away,\nbut My words shall not pass away.\" Therefore it seems that Christ\nshould have committed His doctrine to writing.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Old Law was a foreshadowing of Christ, according\nto Heb. 10:1: \"The Law has [Vulg.: 'having'] a shadow of the good\nthings to come.\" Now the Old Law was put into writing by God,\naccording to Ex. 24:12: \"I will give thee\" two \"tables of stone and\nthe law, and the commandments which I have written.\" Therefore it\nseems that Christ also should have put His doctrine into writing.\n\nObj. 3: Further, to Christ, who came to enlighten them that sit in\ndarkness (Luke 1:79), it belonged to remove occasions of error, and\nto open out the road to faith. Now He would have done this by putting\nHis teaching into writing: for Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. i)\nthat \"some there are who wonder why our Lord wrote nothing, so that\nwe have to believe what others have written about Him. Especially do\nthose pagans ask this question who dare not blame or blaspheme\nChrist, and who ascribe to Him most excellent, but merely human,\nwisdom. These say that the disciples made out the Master to be more\nthan He really was when they said that He was the Son of God and the\nWord of God, by whom all things were made.\" And farther on he adds:\n\"It seems as though they were prepared to believe whatever He might\nhave written of Himself, but not what others at their discretion\npublished about Him.\" Therefore it seems that Christ should have\nHimself committed His doctrine to writing.\n\n_On the contrary,_ No books written by Him were to be found in the\ncanon of Scripture.\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting that Christ should not commit His\ndoctrine to writing. First, on account of His dignity: for the more\nexcellent the teacher, the more excellent should be his manner of\nteaching. Consequently it was fitting that Christ, as the most\nexcellent of teachers, should adopt that manner of teaching whereby\nHis doctrine is imprinted on the hearts of His hearers; wherefore it\nis written (Matt. 7:29) that \"He was teaching them as one having\npower.\" And so it was that among the Gentiles, Pythagoras and\nSocrates, who were teachers of great excellence, were unwilling to\nwrite anything. For writings are ordained, as to an end, unto the\nimprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the hearers.\n\nSecondly, on account of the excellence of Christ's doctrine, which\ncannot be expressed in writing; according to John 21:25: \"There are\nalso many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written\neveryone, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the\nbooks that should be written.\" Which Augustine explains by saying:\n\"We are not to believe that in respect of space the world could not\ncontain them . . . but that by the capacity of the readers they could\nnot be comprehended.\" And if Christ had committed His doctrine to\nwriting, men would have had no deeper thought of His doctrine than\nthat which appears on the surface of the writing.\n\nThirdly, that His doctrine might reach all in an orderly manner:\nHimself teaching His disciples immediately, and they subsequently\nteaching others, by preaching and writing: whereas if He Himself had\nwritten, His doctrine would have reached all immediately.\n\nHence it is said of Wisdom (Prov. 9:3) that \"she hath sent her maids\nto invite to the tower.\" It is to be observed, however, that, as\nAugustine says (De Consensu Evang. i), some of the Gentiles thought\nthat Christ wrote certain books treating of the magic art whereby He\nworked miracles: which art is condemned by the Christian learning.\n\"And yet they who claim to have read those books of Christ do none of\nthose things which they marvel at His doing according to those same\nbooks. Moreover, it is by a Divine judgment that they err so far as\nto assert that these books were, as it were, entitled as letters to\nPeter and Paul, for that they found them in several places depicted\nin company with Christ. No wonder that the inventors were deceived by\nthe painters: for as long as Christ lived in the mortal flesh with\nHis disciples, Paul was no disciple of His.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says in the same book: \"Christ is the head\nof all His disciples who are members of His body. Consequently, when\nthey put into writing what He showed forth and said to them, by no\nmeans must we say that He wrote nothing: since His members put forth\nthat which they knew under His dictation. For at His command they,\nbeing His hands, as it were, wrote whatever He wished us to read\nconcerning His deeds and words.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Since the old Law was given under the form of sensible\nsigns, therefore also was it fittingly written with sensible signs.\nBut Christ's doctrine, which is \"the law of the spirit of life\" (Rom.\n8:2), had to be \"written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the\nliving God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the\nheart,\" as the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:3).\n\nReply Obj. 3: Those who were unwilling to believe what the apostles\nwrote of Christ would have refused to believe the writings of Christ,\nwhom they deemed to work miracles by the magic art.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 43\n\nOF THE MIRACLES WORKED BY CHRIST, IN GENERAL\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the miracles worked by Christ: (1) In general;\n(2) Specifically, of each kind of miracle; (3) In particular, of His\ntransfiguration.\n\nConcerning the first, there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ should have worked miracles?\n\n(2) Whether He worked them by Divine power?\n\n(3) When did He begin to work miracles?\n\n(4) Whether His miracles are a sufficient proof of His Godhead?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 43, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Worked Miracles?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have worked\nmiracles. For Christ's deeds should have been consistent with His\nwords. But He Himself said (Matt. 16:4): \"A wicked and adulterous\ngeneration seeketh after a sign; and a sign shall not be given it,\nbut the sign of Jonas the prophet.\" Therefore He should not have\nworked miracles.\n\nObj. 2: Further, just as Christ, at His second coming, is to come\nwith great power and majesty, as is written Matt. 24:30, so at His\nfirst coming He came in infirmity, according to Isa. 53:3: \"A man of\nsorrows and acquainted with infirmity.\" But the working of miracles\nbelongs to power rather than to infirmity. Therefore it was not\nfitting that He should work miracles in His first coming.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ came that He might save men by faith;\naccording to Heb. 12:2: \"Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of\nfaith.\" But miracles lessen the merit of faith; hence our Lord says\n(John 4:48): \"Unless you see signs and wonders you believe not.\"\nTherefore it seems that Christ should not have worked miracles.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It was said in the person of His adversaries (John\n11:47): \"What do we; for this man doth many miracles?\"\n\n_I answer that,_ God enables man to work miracles for two reasons.\nFirst and principally, in confirmation of the doctrine that a man\nteaches. For since those things which are of faith surpass human\nreason, they cannot be proved by human arguments, but need to be\nproved by the argument of Divine power: so that when a man does works\nthat God alone can do, we may believe that what he says is from God:\njust as when a man is the bearer of letters sealed with the king's\nring, it is to be believed that what they contain expresses the\nking's will.\n\nSecondly, in order to make known God's presence in a man by the grace\nof the Holy Ghost: so that when a man does the works of God we may\nbelieve that God dwells in him by His grace. Wherefore it is written\n(Gal. 3:5): \"He who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles\namong you.\"\n\nNow both these things were to be made known to men concerning\nChrist--namely, that God dwelt in Him by grace, not of adoption, but\nof union: and that His supernatural doctrine was from God. And\ntherefore it was most fitting that He should work miracles. Wherefore\nHe Himself says (John 10:38): \"Though you will not believe Me,\nbelieve the works\"; and (John 5:36): \"The works which the Father hath\ngiven Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . give testimony to Me.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: These words, \"a sign shall not be given it, but the\nsign of Jonas,\" mean, as Chrysostom says (Hom. xliii in Matth.), that\n\"they did not receive a sign such as they sought, viz. from heaven\":\nbut not that He gave them no sign at all. Or that \"He worked signs\nnot for the sake of those whom He knew to be hardened, but to amend\nothers.\" Therefore those signs were given, not to them, but to others.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although Christ came \"in the infirmity\" of the flesh,\nwhich is manifested in the passions, yet He came \"in the power of\nGod\" [*Cf. 2 Cor. 13:4], and this had to be made manifest by miracles.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Miracles lessen the merit of faith in so far as those\nare shown to be hard of heart who are unwilling to believe what is\nproved from the Scriptures unless (they are convinced) by miracles.\nYet it is better for them to be converted to the faith even by\nmiracles than that they should remain altogether in their unbelief.\nFor it is written (1 Cor. 14:22) that signs are given \"to\nunbelievers,\" viz. that they may be converted to the faith.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 43, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Worked Miracles by Divine Power?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not work miracles by\nDivine power. For the Divine power is omnipotent. But it seems that\nChrist was not omnipotent in working miracles; for it is written (Mk.\n6:5) that \"He could not do any miracles there,\" i.e. in His own\ncountry. Therefore it seems that He did not work miracles by Divine\npower.\n\nObj. 2: Further, God does not pray. But Christ sometimes prayed when\nworking miracles; as may be seen in the raising of Lazarus (John\n11:41, 42), and in the multiplication of the loaves, as related Matt.\n14:19. Therefore it seems that He did not work miracles by Divine\npower.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what is done by Divine power cannot be done by the\npower of any creature. But the things which Christ did could be done\nalso by the power of a creature: wherefore the Pharisees said (Luke\n11:15) that He cast out devils \"by Beelzebub the prince of devils.\"\nTherefore it seems that Christ did not work miracles by Divine power.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 14:10): \"The Father who\nabideth in Me, He doth the works.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ as stated in the First Part (Q. 110, A. 4), true\nmiracles cannot be wrought save by Divine power: because God alone\ncan change the order of nature; and this is what is meant by a\nmiracle. Wherefore Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Flav. xxviii) that, while\nthere are two natures in Christ, there is \"one,\" viz. the Divine,\nwhich shines forth in miracles; and \"another,\" viz. the human, \"which\nsubmits to insults\"; yet \"each communicates its actions to the\nother\": in as far as the human nature is the instrument of the Divine\naction, and the human action receives power from the Divine Nature,\nas stated above (Q. 19, A. 1).\n\nReply Obj. 1: When it is said that \"He could not do any miracles\nthere,\" it is not to be understood that He could not do them\nabsolutely, but that it was not fitting for Him to do them: for it\nwas unfitting for Him to work miracles among unbelievers. Wherefore\nit is said farther on: \"And He wondered because of their unbelief.\"\nIn like manner it is said (Gen. 18:17): \"Can I hide from Abraham what\nI am about to do?\" and Gen. 19:22: \"I cannot do anything till thou go\nin thither.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Chrysostom says on Matt. 14:19, \"He took the five\nloaves and the two fishes, and, looking up to heaven, He blessed and\nbrake: It was to be believed of Him, both that He is of the Father\nand that He is equal to Him . . . Therefore that He might prove both,\nHe works miracles now with authority, now with prayer . . . in the\nlesser things, indeed, He looks up to heaven\"--for instance, in\nmultiplying the loaves--\"but in the greater, which belong to God\nalone, He acts with authority; for example, when He forgave sins and\nraised the dead.\"\n\nWhen it is said that in raising Lazarus He lifted up His eyes (John\n11:41), this was not because He needed to pray, but because He wished\nto teach us how to pray. Wherefore He said: \"Because of the people\nwho stand about have I said it: that they may believe that Thou hast\nsent Me.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ cast out demons otherwise than they are cast out\nby the power of demons. For demons are cast out from bodies by the\npower of higher demons in such a way that they retain their power\nover the soul: since the devil does not work against his own kingdom.\nOn the other hand, Christ cast out demons, not only from the body,\nbut still more from the soul. For this reason our Lord rebuked the\nblasphemy of the Jews, who said that He cast out demons by the power\nof the demons: first, by saying that Satan is not divided against\nhimself; secondly, by quoting the instance of others who cast out\ndemons by the Spirit of God; thirdly, because He could not have cast\nout a demon unless He had overcome Him by Divine power; fourthly,\nbecause there was nothing in common between His works and their\neffects and those of Satan; since Satan's purpose was to \"scatter\"\nthose whom Christ \"gathered\" together [*Cf. Matt. 12:24-30; Mk. 3:22;\nLuke 11:15-32].\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 43, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Began to Work Miracles When He Changed Water into Wine\nat the Marriage Feast?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not begin to work miracles\nwhen He changed water into wine at the marriage feast. For we read in\nthe book _De Infantia Salvatoris_ that Christ worked many miracles in\nHis childhood. But the miracle of changing water into wine at the\nmarriage feast took place in the thirtieth or thirty-first year of\nHis age. Therefore it seems that it was not then that He began to\nwork miracles.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ worked miracles by Divine power. Now He was\npossessed of Divine power from the first moment of His conception;\nfor from that instant He was both God and man. Therefore it seems\nthat He worked miracles from the very first.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ began to gather His disciples after His\nbaptism and temptation, as related Matt. 4:18 and John 1:35. But the\ndisciples gathered around Him, principally on account of His\nmiracles: thus it is written (Luke 5:4) that He called Peter when \"he\nwas astonished at\" the miracle which He had worked in \"the draught of\nfishes.\" Therefore it seems that He worked other miracles before that\nof the marriage feast.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 2:11): \"This beginning of\nmiracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ worked miracles in order to confirm His\ndoctrine, and in order to show forth His Divine power. Therefore, as\nto the first, it was unbecoming for Him to work miracles before He\nbegan to teach. And it was unfitting that He should begin to teach\nuntil He reached the perfect age, as we stated above, in speaking of\nHis baptism (Q. 39, A. 3). But as to the second, it was right that He\nshould so manifest His Godhead by working miracles that men should\nbelieve in the reality of His manhood. And, consequently, as\nChrysostom says (Hom. xxi in Joan.), \"it was fitting that He should\nnot begin to work wonders from His early years: for men would have\ndeemed the Incarnation to be imaginary and would have crucified Him\nbefore the proper time.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xvii in Joan.), in regard to\nthe saying of John the Baptist, \"'That He may be made manifest in\nIsrael, therefore am I come baptizing with water,' it is clear that\nthe wonders which some pretend to have been worked by Christ in His\nchildhood are untrue and fictitious. For had Christ worked miracles\nfrom His early years, John would by no means have been unacquainted\nwith Him, nor would the rest of the people have stood in need of a\nteacher to point Him out to them.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: What the Divine power achieved in Christ was in\nproportion to the needs of the salvation of mankind, the achievement\nof which was the purpose of His taking flesh. Consequently He so\nworked miracles by the Divine power as not to prejudice our belief in\nthe reality of His flesh.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The disciples were to be commended precisely because\nthey followed Christ \"without having seen Him work any miracles,\" as\nGregory says in a homily (Hom. v in Evang.). And, as Chrysostom says\n(Hom. xxiii in Joan.), \"the need for working miracles arose then,\nespecially when the disciples were already gathered around and\nattached to Him, and attentive to what was going on around them.\nHence it is added: 'And His disciples believed in Him,'\" not because\nthey then believed in Him for the first time, but because then \"they\nbelieved with greater discernment and perfection.\" Or they are called\n\"disciples\" because \"they were to be disciples later on,\" as\nAugustine observes (De Consensu Evang. ii).\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 43, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Miracles Which Christ Worked Were a Sufficient Proof of\nHis Godhead?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the miracles which Christ worked were\nnot a sufficient proof of His Godhead. For it is proper to Christ to\nbe both God and man. But the miracles which Christ worked have been\ndone by others also. Therefore they were not a sufficient proof of\nHis Godhead.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no power surpasses that of the Godhead. But some\nhave worked greater miracles than Christ, for it is written (John\n14:12): \"He that believeth in Me, the works that I do, he also shall\ndo, and greater than these shall he do.\" Therefore it seems that the\nmiracles which Christ worked are not sufficient proof of His Godhead.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the particular is not a sufficient proof of the\nuniversal. But any one of Christ's miracles was one particular work.\nTherefore none of them was a sufficient proof of His Godhead, by\nreason of which He had universal power over all things.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 5:36): \"The works which the\nFather hath given Me to perfect . . . themselves . . . give testimony\nof Me.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The miracles which Christ worked were a sufficient\nproof of His Godhead in three respects. First, as to the very nature\nof the works, which surpassed the entire capability of created power,\nand therefore could not be done save by Divine power. For this reason\nthe blind man, after his sight had been restored, said (John 9:32,\n33): \"From the beginning of the world it has not been heard, that any\nman hath opened the eyes of one born blind. Unless this man were of\nGod, he could not do anything.\"\n\nSecondly, as to the way in which He worked miracles--namely, because\nHe worked miracles as though of His own power, and not by praying, as\nothers do. Wherefore it is written (Luke 6:19) that \"virtue went out\nfrom Him and healed all.\" Whereby it is proved, as Cyril says\n(Comment. in Lucam) that \"He did not receive power from another, but,\nbeing God by nature, He showed His own power over the sick. And this\nis how He worked countless miracles.\" Hence on Matt. 8:16: \"He cast\nout spirits with His word, and all that were sick He healed,\"\nChrysostom says: \"Mark how great a multitude of persons healed, the\nEvangelists pass quickly over, not mentioning one by one . . . but in\none word traversing an unspeakable sea of miracles.\" And thus it was\nshown that His power was co-equal with that of God the Father,\naccording to John 5:19: \"What things soever\" the Father \"doth, these\nthe Son doth also in like manner\"; and, again (John 5:21): \"As the\nFather raiseth up the dead and giveth life, so the Son also giveth\nlife to whom He will.\"\n\nThirdly, from the very fact that He taught that He was God; for\nunless this were true it would not be confirmed by miracles worked by\nDivine power. Hence it was said (Mk. 1:27): \"What is this new\ndoctrine? For with power He commandeth the unclean spirits, and they\nobey Him.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: This was the argument of the Gentiles. Wherefore\nAugustine says (Ep. ad Volusian. cxxxvii): \"No suitable wonders, say\nthey, show forth the presence of so great majesty, for the ghostly\ncleansing\" whereby He cast out demons, \"the cure of the sick, the\nraising of the dead to life, if other miracles be taken into account,\nare small things before God.\" To this Augustine answers thus: \"We own\nthat the prophets did as much . . . But even Moses himself and the\nother prophets made Christ the Lord the object of their prophecy, and\ngave Him great glory . . . He, therefore, chose to do similar things\nto avoid the inconsistency of failing to do what He had done through\nothers. Yet still He was bound to do something which no other had\ndone: to be born of a virgin, to rise from the dead, and to ascend\ninto heaven. If anyone deem this a slight thing for God to do, I know\nnot what more he can expect. Having become man, ought He to have made\nanother world, that we might believe Him to be Him by whom the world\nwas made? But in this world neither a greater world could be made nor\none equal to it: and if He had made a lesser world in comparison with\nthis, that too would have been deemed a small thing.\"\n\nAs to the miracles worked by others, Christ did greater still. Hence\non John 15:24: \"If I had not done in [Douay: 'among'] them the works\nthat no other men hath done,\" etc., Augustine says: \"None of the\nworks of Christ seem to be greater than the raising of the dead:\nwhich thing we know the ancient prophets also did . . . Yet Christ\ndid some works 'which no other man hath done.' But we are told in\nanswer that others did works which He did not, and which none other\ndid . . . But to heal with so great a power so many defects and\nailments and grievances of mortal men, this we read concerning none\nsoever of the men of old. To say nothing of those, each of whom by\nHis bidding, as they came in His way, He made whole . . . Mark saith\n(6:56): 'Whithersoever He entered, into towns or into villages or\ninto cities, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought Him that\nthey might touch but the hem of His garment: and as many as touched\nHim were made whole.' These things none other did in them; for when\nHe saith 'In them,' it is not to be understood to mean 'Among them,'\nor 'In their presence,' but wholly 'In them,' because He healed them\n. . . Therefore whatever works He did in them are works that none\never did; since if ever any other man did any one of them, by His\ndoing he did it; whereas these works He did, not by their doing, but\nby Himself.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Augustine explains this passage of John as follows\n(Tract. lxxi): \"What are these 'greater works' which believers in Him\nwould do? That, as they passed by, their very shadow healed the sick?\nFor it is greater that a shadow should heal than the hem of a garment\n. . . When, however, He said these words, it was the deeds and works\nof His words that He spoke of: for when He said . . . 'The Father who\nabideth in Me, He doth the works,' what works did He mean, then, but\nthe words He was speaking? . . . and the fruits of those same words\nwas the faith of those (who believed): but when the disciples\npreached the Gospel, not some few like those, but the very nations\nbelieved . . . (Tract. lxxii). Did not that rich man go away from His\npresence sorrowful? . . . and yet afterwards, what one individual,\nhaving heard from Him, did not, that many did when He spake by the\nmouth of His disciples . . . Behold, He did greater works when spoken\nof by men believing than when speaking to men hearing. But there is\nyet this difficulty: that He did these 'greater works' by the\napostles: whereas He saith as meaning not only them: . . . 'He that\nbelieveth in Me' . . . Listen! . . . 'He that believeth in Me, the\nworks that I do, he also shall do': first, 'I do,' then 'he also\nshall do,' because I do that he may do. What works--but that from\nungodly he should be made righteous? . . . Which thing Christ worketh\nin him, truly, but not without him. Yes, I may affirm this to be\naltogether greater than to create\" [*The words 'to create' are not in\nthe text of St. Augustine] \"heaven and earth . . . for 'heaven and\nearth shall pass away'; but the salvation and justification of the\npredestinate shall remain . . . But also in the heavens . . . the\nangels are the works of Christ: and does that man do greater works\nthan these, who co-operates with Christ in the work of his\njustification? . . . let him, who can, judge whether it be greater to\ncreate a righteous being than to justify an ungodly one. Certainly if\nboth are works of equal power, the latter is a work of greater mercy.\"\n\n\"But there is no need for us to understand all the works of Christ,\nwhere He saith 'Greater than these shall he do.' For by 'these' He\nmeant, perhaps, those which He was doing at that hour: now at that\ntime He was speaking words of faith: . . . and certainly it is less\nto preach words of righteousness, which thing He did without us, than\nto justify the ungodly, which thing He so doth in us that we also do\nit ourselves.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: When some particular work is proper to some agent, then\nthat particular work is a sufficient proof of the whole power of that\nagent: thus, since the act of reasoning is proper to man, the mere\nfact that someone reasons about any particular proposition proves him\nto be a man. In like manner, since it is proper to God to work\nmiracles by His own power, any single miracle worked by Christ by His\nown power is a sufficient proof that He is God.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 44\n\nOF (CHRIST'S) MIRACLES CONSIDERED SPECIFICALLY\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider each kind of miracle:\n\n(1) The miracles which He worked in spiritual substances;\n\n(2) The miracles which He worked in heavenly bodies;\n\n(3) The miracles which He worked in man;\n\n(4) The miracles which He worked in irrational creatures.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 44, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Those Miracles Were Fitting Which Christ Worked in Spiritual\nSubstances?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that those miracles were unfitting which\nChrist worked in spiritual substances. For among spiritual substances\nthe holy angels are above the demons; for, as Augustine says (De\nTrin. iii): \"The treacherous and sinful rational spirit of life is\nruled by the rational, pious, and just spirit of life.\" But we read\nof no miracles worked by Christ in the good angels. Therefore neither\nshould He have worked miracles in the demons.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to make known His\nGodhead. But Christ's Godhead was not to be made known to the demons:\nsince this would have hindered the mystery of His Passion, according\nto 1 Cor. 2:8: \"If they had known it, they would never have crucified\nthe Lord of glory.\" Therefore He should not have worked miracles in\nthe demons.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's miracles were ordained to the glory of God:\nhence it is written (Matt. 9:8) that \"the multitudes seeing\" that the\nman sick of the palsy had been healed by Christ, \"feared, and\nglorified God that gave such power to men.\" But the demons have no\npart in glorifying God; since \"praise is not seemly in the mouth of a\nsinner\" (Ecclus. 15:9). For which reason also \"He suffered them not\nto speak\" (Mk. 1:34; Luke 4:41) those things which reflected glory on\nHim. Therefore it seems that it was unfitting for Him to work\nmiracles in the demons.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Christ's miracles are ordained to the salvation of\nmankind. But sometimes the casting out of demons from men was\ndetrimental to man, in some cases to the body: thus it is related\n(Mk. 9:24, 25) that a demon at Christ's command, \"crying out and\ngreatly tearing\" the man, \"went out of him; and he became as dead, so\nthat many said: He is dead\"; sometimes also to things: as when He\nsent the demons, at their own request, into the swine, which they\ncast headlong into the sea; wherefore the inhabitants of those parts\n\"besought Him that He would depart from their coasts\" (Matt.\n8:31-34). Therefore it seems unfitting that He should have worked\nsuch like miracles.\n\n_On the contrary,_ this was foretold (Zech. 13:2), where it is\nwritten: \"I will take away . . . the unclean spirit out of the earth.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The miracles worked by Christ were arguments for the\nfaith which He taught. Now, by the power of His Godhead He was to\nrescue those who would believe in Him, from the power of the demons;\naccording to John 12:31: \"Now shall the prince of this world be cast\nout.\" Consequently it was fitting that, among other miracles, He\nshould also deliver those who were obsessed by demons.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Just as men were to be delivered by Christ from the\npower of the demons, so by Him were they to be brought to the\ncompanionship of the angels, according to Col. 1:20: \"Making peace\nthrough the blood of His cross, both as to the things on earth and\nthe things that are in heaven.\" Therefore it was not fitting to show\nforth to men other miracles as regards the angels, except by angels\nappearing to men: as happened in His Nativity, His Resurrection, and\nHis Ascension.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix): \"Christ was known\nto the demons just as much as He willed; and He willed just as far as\nthere was need. But He was known to them, not as to the holy angels,\nby that which is eternal life, but by certain temporal effects of His\npower.\" First, when they saw that Christ was hungry after fasting\nthey deemed Him not to be the Son of God. Hence, on Luke 4:3, \"If\nThou be the Son of God,\" etc., Ambrose says: \"What means this way of\naddressing Him? save that, though He knew that the Son of God was to\ncome, yet he did not think that He had come in the weakness of the\nflesh?\" But afterwards, when he saw Him work miracles, he had a sort\nof conjectural suspicion that He was the Son of God. Hence on Mk.\n1:24, \"I know who Thou art, the Holy one of God,\" Chrysostom [*Victor\nof Antioch. Cf. Catena Aurea] says that \"he had no certain or firm\nknowledge of God's coming.\" Yet he knew that He was \"the Christ\npromised in the Law,\" wherefore it is said (Luke 4:41) that \"they\nknew that He was Christ.\" But it was rather from suspicion than from\ncertainty that they confessed Him to be the Son of God. Hence Bede\nsays on Luke 4:41: \"The demons confess the Son of God, and, as stated\nfarther on, 'they knew that He was Christ.' For when the devil saw\nHim weakened by His fast, He knew Him to be a real man: but when He\nfailed to overcome Him by temptation, He doubted lest He should be\nthe Son of God. And now from the power of His miracles He either\nknew, or rather suspected that He was the Son of God. His reason\ntherefore for persuading the Jews to crucify Him was not that he\ndeemed Him not to be Christ or the Son of God, but because he did not\nforesee that he would be the loser by His death. For the Apostle says\nof this mystery\" (1 Cor. 2:7, 8), \"which is hidden from the\nbeginning, that 'none of the princes of this world knew it,' for if\nthey had known it they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The miracles which Christ worked in expelling demons\nwere for the benefit, not of the demons, but of men, that they might\nglorify Him. Wherefore He forbade them to speak in His praise. First,\nto give us an example. For, as Athanasius says, \"He restrained his\nspeech, although he was confessing the truth; to teach us not to care\nabout such things, although it may seem that what is said is true.\nFor it is wrong to seek to learn from the devil when we have the\nDivine Scripture\": Besides, it is dangerous, since the demons\nfrequently mix falsehood with truth. Or, as Chrysostom [*Cyril of\nAlexandria, Comment. in Luc.] says: \"It was not meet for them to\nusurp the prerogative of the apostolic office. Nor was it fitting\nthat the mystery of Christ should be proclaimed by a corrupt tongue\"\nbecause \"praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner\" [*Cf.\nTheophylact, Enarr. in Luc.]. Thirdly, because, as Bede says, \"He did\nnot wish the envy of the Jews to be aroused thereby\" [*Bede, Expos.\nin Luc. iv, 41]. Hence \"even the apostles are commanded to be silent\nabout Him, lest, if His Divine majesty were proclaimed, the gift of\nHis Passion should be deferred.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Christ came specially to teach and to work miracles for\nthe good of man, and principally as to the salvation of his soul.\nConsequently, He allowed the demons, that He cast out, to do man some\nharm, either in his body or in his goods, for the salvation of man's\nsoul--namely, for man's instruction. Hence Chrysostom says on Matt.\n8:32 that Christ let the demons depart into the swine, \"not as\nyielding to the demons, but first, to show . . . how harmful are the\ndemons who attack men; secondly, that all might learn that the demons\nwould not dare to hurt even the swine, except He allow them; thirdly,\nthat they would have treated those men more grievously than they\ntreated the swine, unless they had been protected by God's\nprovidence.\"\n\nAnd for the same motives He allowed the man, who was being delivered\nfrom the demons, to suffer grievously for the moment; yet did He\nrelease him at once from that distress. By this, moreover, we are\ntaught, as Bede says on Mk. 9:25, that \"often, when after falling\ninto sin we strive to return to God, we experience further and more\ngrievous attacks from the old enemy. This he does, either that he may\ninspire us with a distaste for virtue, or that he may avenge the\nshame of having been cast out.\" For the man who was healed \"became as\ndead,\" says Jerome, \"because to those who are healed it is said, 'You\nare dead; and your life is hid with Christ in God'\" (Col. 3:3)\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 44, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Work Miracles in the\nHeavenly Bodies?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting that Christ should\nwork miracles in the heavenly bodies. For, as Dionysius says (Div.\nNom. iv), \"it beseems Divine providence not to destroy, but to\npreserve, nature.\" Now, the heavenly bodies are by nature\nincorruptible and unchangeable, as is proved _De Coelo_ i. Therefore\nit was unfitting that Christ should cause any change in the order of\nthe heavenly bodies.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the course of time is marked out by the movement of\nthe heavenly bodies, according to Gen. 1:14: \"Let there be lights\nmade in the firmament of heaven . . . and let them be for signs, and\nfor seasons, and for days and years.\" Consequently if the movement of\nthe heavenly bodies be changed, the distinction and order of the\nseasons is changed. But there is no report of this having been\nperceived by astronomers, \"who gaze at the stars and observe the\nmonths,\" as it is written (Isa. 47:13). Therefore it seems that\nChrist did not work any change in the movements of the heavenly\nbodies.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it was more fitting that Christ should work miracles\nin life and when teaching, than in death: both because, as it is\nwritten (2 Cor. 13:4), \"He was crucified through weakness, yet He\nliveth by the power of God,\" by which He worked miracles; and because\nHis miracles were in confirmation of His doctrine. But there is no\nrecord of Christ having worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies\nduring His lifetime: nay, more; when the Pharisees asked Him to give\n\"a sign from heaven,\" He refused, as Matthew relates (12, 16).\nTherefore it seems that neither in His death should He have worked\nany miracles in the heavenly bodies.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 23:44, 45): \"There was\ndarkness over all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was\ndarkened.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 43, A. 4) it behooved Christ's\nmiracles to be a sufficient proof of His Godhead. Now this is not so\nsufficiently proved by changes wrought in the lower bodies, which\nchanges can be brought about by other causes, as it is by changes\nwrought in the course of the heavenly bodies, which have been\nestablished by God alone in an unchangeable order. This is what\nDionysius says in his epistle to Polycarp: \"We must recognize that no\nalteration can take place in the order end movement of the heavens\nthat is not caused by Him who made all and changes all by His word.\"\nTherefore it was fitting that Christ should work miracles even in the\nheavenly bodies.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Just as it is natural to the lower bodies to be moved\nby the heavenly bodies, which are higher in the order of nature, so\nis it natural to any creature whatsoever to be changed by God,\naccording to His will. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi;\nquoted by the gloss on Rom. 11:24: \"Contrary to nature thou wert\ngrafted,\" etc.): \"God, the Creator and Author of all natures, does\nnothing contrary to nature: for whatsoever He does in each thing,\nthat is its nature.\" Consequently the nature of a heavenly body is\nnot destroyed when God changes its course: but it would be if the\nchange were due to any other cause.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The order of the seasons was not disturbed by the\nmiracle worked by Christ. For, according to some, this gloom or\ndarkening of the sun, which occurred at the time of Christ's passion,\nwas caused by the sun withdrawing its rays, without any change in the\nmovement of the heavenly bodies, which measures the duration of the\nseasons. Hence Jerome says on Matt. 27:45: \"It seems as though the\n'greater light' withdrew its rays, lest it should look on its Lord\nhanging on the Cross, or bestow its radiancy on the impious\nblasphemers.\" And this withdrawal of the rays is not to be understood\nas though it were in the sun's power to send forth or withdraw its\nrays: for it sheds its light, not from choice, but by nature, as\nDionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But the sun is said to withdraw its\nrays in so far as the Divine power caused the sun's rays not to reach\nthe earth. On the other hand, Origen says this was caused by clouds\ncoming between (the earth and the sun). Hence on Matt. 27:45 he says:\n\"We must therefore suppose that many large and very dense clouds were\nmassed together over Jerusalem and the land of Judea; so that it was\nexceedingly dark from the sixth to the ninth hour. Hence I am of\nopinion that, just as the other signs which occurred at the time of\nthe Passion\"--namely, \"the rending of the veil, the quaking of the\nearth,\" etc.--\"took place in Jerusalem only, so this also: . . . or\nif anyone prefer, it may be extended to the whole of Judea,\" since it\nis said that \"'there was darkness over the whole earth,' which\nexpression refers to the land of Judea, as may be gathered from 3\nKings 18:10, where Abdias says to Elias: 'As the Lord thy God liveth,\nthere is no nation or kingdom whither my lord hath not sent to seek\nthee': which shows that they sought him among the nations in the\nneighborhood of Judea.\"\n\nOn this point, however, credence is to be given rather to Dionysius,\nwho is an eyewitness as to this having occurred by the moon eclipsing\nthe sun. For he says (Ep. ad Polycarp): \"Without any doubt we saw the\nmoon encroach on the sun,\" he being in Egypt at the time, as he says\nin the same letter. And in this he points out four miracles. The\nfirst is that the natural eclipse of the sun by interposition of the\nmoon never takes place except when the sun and moon are in\nconjunction. But then the sun and moon were in opposition, it being\nthe fifteenth day, since it was the Jewish Passover. Wherefore he\nsays: \"For it was not the time of conjunction.\"--The second miracle\nis that whereas at the sixth hour the moon was seen, together with\nthe sun, in the middle of the heavens, in the evening it was seen to\nbe in its place, i.e. in the east, opposite the sun. Wherefore he\nsays: \"Again we saw it,\" i.e. the moon, \"return supernaturally into\nopposition with the sun,\" so as to be diametrically opposite, having\nwithdrawn from the sun \"at the ninth hour,\" when the darkness ceased,\n\"until evening.\" From this it is clear that the wonted course of the\nseasons was not disturbed, because the Divine power caused the moon\nboth to approach the sun supernaturally at an unwonted season, and to\nwithdraw from the sun and return to its proper place according to the\nseason. The third miracle was that the eclipse of the sun naturally\nalways begins in that part of the sun which is to the west and\nspreads towards the east: and this is because the moon's proper\nmovement from west to east is more rapid than that of the sun, and\nconsequently the moon, coming up from the west, overtakes the sun and\npasses it on its eastward course. But in this case the moon had\nalready passed the sun, and was distant from it by the length of half\nthe heavenly circle, being opposite to it: consequently it had to\nreturn eastwards towards the sun, so as to come into apparent contact\nwith it from the east, and continue in a westerly direction. This is\nwhat he refers to when he says: \"Moreover, we saw the eclipse begin\nto the east and spread towards the western edge of the sun,\" for it\nwas a total eclipse, \"and afterwards pass away.\" The fourth miracle\nconsisted in this, that in a natural eclipse that part of the sun\nwhich is first eclipsed is the first to reappear (because the moon,\ncoming in front of the sun, by its natural movement passes on to the\neast, so as to come away first from the western portion of the sun,\nwhich was the first part to be eclipsed), whereas in this case the\nmoon, while returning miraculously from the east to the west, did not\npass the sun so as to be to the west of it: but having reached the\nwestern edge of the sun returned towards the east: so that the last\nportion of the sun to be eclipsed was the first to reappear.\nConsequently the eclipse began towards the east, whereas the sun\nbegan to reappear towards the west. And to this he refers by saying:\n\"Again we observed that the occultation and emersion did not begin\nfrom the same point,\" i.e. on the same side of the sun, \"but on\nopposite sides.\"\n\nChrysostom adds a fifth miracle (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.), saying\nthat \"the darkness in this case lasted for three hours, whereas an\neclipse of the sun lasts but a short time, for it is soon over, as\nthose know who have seen one.\" Hence we are given to understand that\nthe moon was stationary below the sun, except we prefer to say that\nthe duration of the darkness was measured from the first moment of\noccultation of the sun to the moment when the sun had completely\nemerged from the eclipse.\n\nBut, as Origen says (on Matt. 27:45), \"against this the children of\nthis world object: How is it such a phenomenal occurrence is not\nrelated by any writer, whether Greek or barbarian?\" And he says that\nsomeone of the name of Phlegon \"relates in his chronicles that this\ntook place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but he does not say\nthat it occurred at the full moon.\" It may be, therefore, that\nbecause it was not the time for an eclipse, the various astronomers\nliving then throughout the world were not on the look-out for one,\nand that they ascribed this darkness to some disturbance of the\natmosphere. But in Egypt, where clouds are few on account of the\ntranquillity of the air, Dionysius and his companions were\nconsiderably astonished so as to make the aforesaid observations\nabout this darkness.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Then, above all, was there need for miraculous proof of\nChrist's Godhead, when the weakness of human nature was most apparent\nin Him. Hence it was that at His birth a new star appeared in the\nheavens. Wherefore Maximus says (Serm. de Nativ. viii): \"If thou\ndisdain the manger, raise thine eyes a little and gaze on the new\nstar in the heavens, proclaiming to the world the birth of our Lord.\"\nBut in His Passion yet greater weakness appeared in His manhood.\nTherefore there was need for yet greater miracles in the greater\nlights of the world. And, as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxviii in\nMatth.): \"This is the sign which He promised to them who sought for\none saying: 'An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign; and a\nsign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet,'\nreferring to His Cross . . . and Resurrection . . . For it was much\nmore wonderful that this should happen when He was crucified than\nwhen He was walking on earth.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 44, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Worked Miracles Fittingly on Men?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on\nmen. For in man the soul is of more import than the body. Now Christ\nworked many miracles on bodies, but we do not read of His working any\nmiracles on souls: for neither did He convert any unbelievers to the\nfaith mightily, but by persuading and convincing them with outward\nmiracles, nor is it related of Him that He made wise men out of\nfools. Therefore it seems that He worked miracles on men in an\nunfitting manner.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as stated above (Q. 43, A. 2), Christ worked\nmiracles by Divine power: to which it is proper to work suddenly,\nperfectly, and without any assistance. Now Christ did not always heal\nmen suddenly as to their bodies: for it is written (Mk. 8:22-25)\nthat, \"taking the blind man by the hand, He led him out of the town;\nand, spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him, He asked him if\nhe saw anything. And, looking up, he said: I see men as it were trees\nwalking. After that again He laid His hands upon his eyes, and he\nbegan to see, and was restored, so that he saw all things clearly.\"\nIt is clear from this that He did not heal him suddenly, but at first\nimperfectly, and by means of His spittle. Therefore it seems that He\nworked miracles on men unfittingly.\n\nObj. 3: Further, there is no need to remove at the same time things\nwhich do not follow from one another. Now bodily ailments are not\nalways the result of sin, as appears from our Lord's words (John\n9:3): \"Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, that he should\nbe born blind.\" It was unseemly, therefore, for Him to forgive the\nsins of those who sought the healing of the body, as He is related to\nhave done in the case of the man sick of the palsy (Matt. 9:2): the\nmore that the healing of the body, being of less account than the\nforgiveness of sins, does not seem a sufficient argument for the\npower of forgiving sins.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Christ's miracles were worked in order to confirm\nHis doctrine, and witness to His Godhead, as stated above (Q. 43, A.\n4). Now no man should hinder the purpose of his own work. Therefore\nit seems unfitting that Christ commanded those who had been healed\nmiraculously to tell no one, as appears from Matt. 9:30 and Mk. 8:26:\nthe more so, since He commanded others to proclaim the miracles\nworked on them; thus it is related (Mk. 5:19) that, after delivering\na man from the demons, He said to him: \"Go into thy house to thy\nfriends, and tell them, how great things the Lord hath done for thee.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 7:37): \"He hath done all things\nwell: He hath made both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The means should be proportionate to the end. Now\nChrist came into the world and taught in order to save man, according\nto John 3:17: \"For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the\nworld, but that the world may be saved by Him.\" Therefore it was\nfitting that Christ, by miraculously healing men in particular,\nshould prove Himself to be the universal and spiritual Saviour of all.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The means are distinct from the end. Now the end for\nwhich Christ's miracles were worked was the health of the rational\npart, which is healed by the light of wisdom, and the gift of\nrighteousness: the former of which presupposes the latter, since, as\nit is written (Wis. 1:4): \"Wisdom will not enter into a malicious\nsoul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.\" Now it was unfitting that\nman should be made righteous unless he willed: for this would be both\nagainst the nature of righteousness, which implies rectitude of the\nwill, and contrary to the very nature of man, which requires to be\nled to good by the free-will, not by force. Christ, therefore,\njustified man inwardly by the Divine power, but not against man's\nwill. Nor did this pertain to His miracles, but to the end of His\nmiracles. In like manner by the Divine power He infused wisdom into\nthe simple minds of His disciples: hence He said to them (Luke\n21:15): \"I will give you a mouth and wisdom\" which \"all your\nadversaries will not be able to resist and gainsay.\" And this, in so\nfar as the enlightenment was inward, is not to be reckoned as a\nmiracle, but only as regards the outward action--namely, in so far as\nmen saw that those who had been unlettered and simple spoke with such\nwisdom and constancy. Wherefore it is written (Acts 4:13) that the\nJews, \"seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that\nthey were illiterate and ignorant men . . . wondered.\"--And though\nsuch like spiritual effects are different from visible miracles, yet\ndo they testify to Christ's doctrine and power, according to Heb.\n2:4: \"God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers\nmiracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nNevertheless Christ did work some miracles on the soul of man,\nprincipally by changing its lower powers. Hence Jerome, commenting on\nMatt. 9:9, \"He rose up and followed Him,\" says: \"Such was the\nsplendor and majesty of His hidden Godhead, which shone forth even in\nHis human countenance, that those who gazed on it were drawn to Him\nat first sight.\" And on Matt. 21:12, \"(Jesus) cast out all them that\nsold and bought,\" the same Jerome says: \"Of all the signs worked by\nour Lord, this seems to me the most wondrous--that one man, at that\ntime despised, could, with the blows of one scourge, cast out such a\nmultitude. For a fiery and heavenly light flashed from His eyes, and\nthe majesty of His Godhead shone in His countenance.\" And Origen says\non John 2:15 that \"this was a greater miracle than when He changed\nwater into wine, for there He shows His power over inanimate matter,\nwhereas here He tames the minds of thousands of men.\" Again, on John\n18:6, \"They went backward and fell to the ground,\" Augustine says:\n\"Though that crowd was fierce in hate and terrible with arms, yet did\nthat one word . . . without any weapon, smite them through, drive\nthem back, lay them prostrate: for God lay hidden in that flesh.\"\nMoreover, to this must be referred what Luke says (4:30) --namely,\nthat Jesus, \"passing through the midst of them, went His way,\" on\nwhich Chrysostom observes (Hom. xlviii in Joan.): \"That He stood in\nthe midst of those who were lying in wait for Him, and was not seized\nby them, shows the power of His Godhead\"; and, again, that which is\nwritten John 8:59, \"Jesus hid Himself and went out of the Temple,\" on\nwhich Theophylact says: \"He did not hide Himself in a corner of the\nTemple, as if afraid, or take shelter behind a wall or pillar; but by\nHis heavenly power making Himself invisible to those who were\nthreatening Him, He passed through the midst of them.\"\n\nFrom all these instances it is clear that Christ, when He willed,\nchanged the minds of men by His Divine power, not only by the\nbestowal of righteousness and the infusion of wisdom, which pertains\nto the end of miracles, but also by outwardly drawing men to Himself,\nor by terrifying or stupefying them, which pertains to the miraculous\nitself.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ came to save the world, not only by Divine\npower, but also through the mystery of His Incarnation. Consequently\nin healing the sick He frequently not only made use of His Divine\npower, healing by way of command, but also by applying something\npertaining to His human nature. Hence on Luke 4:40, \"He, laying His\nhands on every one of them, healed them,\" Cyril says: \"Although, as\nGod, He might, by one word, have driven out all diseases, yet He\ntouched them, showing that His own flesh was endowed with a healing\nvirtue.\" And on Mk. 8:23, \"Spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands\non him,\" etc., Chrysostom [*Victor of Antioch] says: \"He spat and\nlaid His hands upon the blind man, wishing to show that His Divine\nword, accompanied by His operation, works wonders: for the hand\nsignifies operation; the spittle signifies the word which proceeds\nfrom the mouth.\" Again, on John 9:6, \"He made clay of the spittle,\nand spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man,\" Augustine says:\n\"Of His spittle He made clay--because 'the Word was made flesh.'\" Or,\nagain, as Chrysostom says, to signify that it was He who made man of\n\"the slime of the earth.\"\n\nIt is furthermore to be observed concerning Christ's miracles that\ngenerally what He did was most perfect. Hence on John 2:10, \"Every\nman at first setteth forth good wine,\" Chrysostom says: \"Christ's\nmiracles are such as to far surpass the works of nature in splendor\nand usefulness.\" Likewise in an instant He conferred perfect health\non the sick. Hence on Matt. 8:15, \"She arose and ministered to them,\"\nJerome says: \"Health restored by our Lord returns wholly and\ninstantly.\"\n\nThere was, however, special reason for the contrary happening in the\ncase of the man born blind, and this was his want of faith, as\nChrysostom [*Victor of Antioch] says. Or as Bede observes on Mk.\n8:23: \"Whom He might have healed wholly and instantly by a single\nword, He heals little by little, to show the extent of human\nblindness, which hardly, and that only by degrees, can come back to\nthe light: and to point out that each step forward in the way of\nperfection is due to the help of His grace.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 43, A. 2), Christ worked miracles\nby Divine power. Now \"the works of God are perfect\" (Deut. 32:4). But\nnothing is perfect except it attain its end. Now the end of the\noutward healing worked by Christ is the healing of the soul.\nConsequently it was not fitting that Christ should heal a man's body\nwithout healing his soul. Wherefore on John 7:23, \"I have healed the\nwhole man on a Sabbath day,\" Augustine says: \"Because he was cured,\nso as to be whole in body; he believed, so as to be whole in soul.\"\nTo the man sick of the palsy it is said specially, \"Thy sins are\nforgiven thee,\" because, as Jerome observes on Matt. 9:5, 6: \"We are\nhereby given to understand that ailments of the body are frequently\ndue to sin: for which reason, perhaps, first are his sins forgiven,\nthat the cause of the ailment being removed, health may return.\"\nWherefore, also (John 4:14), it is said: \"Sin no more, lest some\nworse thing happen to thee.\" Whence, says Chrysostom, \"we learn that\nhis sickness was the result of sin.\"\n\nNevertheless, as Chrysostom says on Matt. 9:5: \"By how much a soul is\nof more account than a body, by so much is the forgiving of sins a\ngreater work than healing the body; but because the one is unseen He\ndoes the lesser and more manifest thing in order to prove the greater\nand more unseen.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: On Matt. 9:30, \"See that no man know this,\" Chrysostom\nsays: \"If in another place we find Him saying, 'Go and declare the\nglory of God' (cf. Mk. 5:19; Luke 8:39), that is not contrary to\nthis. For He instructs us to forbid them that would praise us on our\nown account: but if the glory be referred to God, then we must not\nforbid, but command, that it be done.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 44, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Worked Miracles Fittingly on Irrational Creatures?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ worked miracles unfittingly on\nirrational creatures. For brute animals are more noble than plants.\nBut Christ worked a miracle on plants as when the fig-tree withered\naway at His command (Matt. 21:19). Therefore Christ should have\nworked miracles also on brute animals.\n\nObj. 2: Further, punishment is not justly inflicted save for fault.\nBut it was not the fault of the fig-tree that Christ found no fruit\non it, when fruit was not in season (Mk. 11:13). Therefore it seems\nunfitting that He withered it up.\n\nObj. 3: Further, air and water are between heaven and earth. But\nChrist worked some miracles in the heavens, as stated above (A. 2),\nand likewise in the earth, when it quaked at the time of His Passion\n(Matt. 27:51). Therefore it seems that He should also have worked\nmiracles in the air and water, such as to divide the sea, as did\nMoses (Ex. 14:21); or a river, as did Josue (Josh. 3:16) and Elias (4\nKings 2:8); and to cause thunder to be heard in the air, as occurred\non Mount Sinai when the Law was given (Ex. 19:16), and like to what\nElias did (3 Kings 18:45).\n\nObj. 4: Further, miraculous works pertain to the work of Divine\nprovidence in governing the world. But this work presupposes\ncreation. It seems, therefore, unfitting that in His miracles Christ\nmade use of creation: when, to wit, He multiplied the loaves.\nTherefore His miracles in regard to irrational creatures seem to have\nbeen unfitting.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Christ is \"the wisdom of God\" (1 Cor. 1:24), of\nwhom it is said (Wis. 8:1) that \"she ordereth all things sweetly.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above, Christ's miracles were ordained to\nthe end that He should be recognized as having Divine power, unto the\nsalvation of mankind. Now it belongs to the Divine power that every\ncreature be subject thereto. Consequently it behooved Him to work\nmiracles on every kind of creature, not only on man, but also on\nirrational creatures.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Brute animals are akin generically to man, wherefore\nthey were created on the same day as man. And since He had worked\nmany miracles on the bodies of men, there was no need for Him to work\nmiracles on the bodies of brute animals. And so much the less that,\nas to their sensible and corporeal nature, the same reason applies to\nboth men and animals, especially terrestrial. But fish, from living\nin water, are more alien from human nature; wherefore they were made\non another day. On them Christ worked a miracle in the plentiful\ndraught of fishes, related Luke 5 and John 21; and, again, in the\nfish caught by Peter, who found a stater in it (Matt. 17:26). As to\nthe swine who were cast headlong into the sea, this was not the\neffect of a Divine miracle, but of the action of the demons, God\npermitting.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Chrysostom says on Matt. 21:19: \"When our Lord does\nany such like thing\" on plants or brute animals, \"ask not how it was\njust to wither up the fig-tree, since it was not the fruit season; to\nask such a question is foolish in the extreme,\" because such things\ncannot commit a fault or be punished: \"but look at the miracle, and\nwonder at the worker.\" Nor does the Creator \"inflict\" any hurt on the\nowner, if He choose to make use of His own creature for the salvation\nof others; rather, as Hilary says on Matt. 21:19, \"we should see in\nthis a proof of God's goodness, for when He wished to afford an\nexample of salvation as being procured by Him, He exercised His\nmighty power on the human body: but when He wished to picture to them\nHis severity towards those who wilfully disobey Him, He foreshadows\ntheir doom by His sentence on the tree.\" This is the more noteworthy\nin a fig-tree which, as Chrysostom observes (on Matt. 21:19), \"being\nfull of moisture, makes the miracle all the more remarkable.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ also worked miracles befitting to Himself in the\nair and water: when, to wit, as related Matt. 8:26, \"He commanded the\nwinds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.\" But it was not\nbefitting that He who came to restore all things to a state of peace\nand calm should cause either a disturbance in the atmosphere or a\ndivision of waters. Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 12:18): \"You are not\ncome to a fire that may be touched and approached [Vulg.: 'a mountain\nthat might be touched, and a burning fire'], and a whirlwind, and\ndarkness, and storm.\"\n\nAt the time of His Passion, however, the \"veil was rent,\" to signify\nthe unfolding of the mysteries of the Law; \"the graves were opened,\"\nto signify that His death gave life to the dead; \"the earth quaked\nand the rocks were rent,\" to signify that man's stony heart would be\nsoftened, and the whole world changed for the better by the virtue of\nHis Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The multiplication of the loaves was not effected by\nway of creation, but by an addition of extraneous matter transformed\ninto loaves; hence Augustine says on John 6:1-14: \"Whence He\nmultiplieth a few grains into harvests, thence in His hands He\nmultiplied the five loaves\": and it is clearly by a process of\ntransformation that grains are multiplied into harvests.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 45\n\nOF CHRIST'S TRANSFIGURATION\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe now consider Christ's transfiguration; and here there are four\npoints of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should be transfigured?\n\n(2) Whether the clarity of the transfiguration was the clarity of\nglory?\n\n(3) Of the witnesses of the transfiguration;\n\n(4) Of the testimony of the Father's voice.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 45, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Be Transfigured?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should\nbe transfigured. For it is not fitting for a true body to be changed\ninto various shapes (_figuras_), but only for an imaginary body. Now\nChrist's body was not imaginary, but real, as stated above (Q. 5, A.\n1). Therefore it seems that it should not have been transfigured.\n\nObj. 2: Further, figure is in the fourth species of quality, whereas\nclarity is in the third, since it is a sensible quality. Therefore\nChrist's assuming clarity should not be called a transfiguration.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a glorified body has four gifts, as we shall state\nfarther on (Suppl., Q. 82), viz. impassibility, agility, subtlety,\nand clarity. Therefore His transfiguration should not have consisted\nin an assumption of clarity rather than of the other gifts.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 17:2) that Jesus \"was\ntransfigured\" in the presence of three of His disciples.\n\n_I answer that,_ Our Lord, after foretelling His Passion to His\ndisciples, had exhorted them to follow the path of His sufferings\n(Matt. 16:21, 24). Now in order that anyone go straight along a road,\nhe must have some knowledge of the end: thus an archer will not shoot\nthe arrow straight unless he first see the target. Hence Thomas said\n(John 14:5): \"Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we\nknow the way?\" Above all is this necessary when hard and rough is the\nroad, heavy the going, but delightful the end. Now by His Passion\nChrist achieved glory, not only of His soul, not only of His soul,\nwhich He had from the first moment of His conception, but also of His\nbody; according to Luke (24:26): \"Christ ought [Vulg.: 'ought not\nChrist'] to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His\nglory (?).\" To which glory He brings those who follow the footsteps\nof His Passion, according to Acts 14:21: \"Through many tribulations\nwe must enter into the kingdom of God.\" Therefore it was fitting that\nHe should show His disciples the glory of His clarity (which is to be\ntransfigured), to which He will configure those who are His;\naccording to Phil. 3:21: \"(Who) will reform the body of our lowness\nconfigured [Douay: 'made like'] to the body of His glory.\" Hence Bede\nsays on Mk. 8:39: \"By His loving foresight He allowed them to taste\nfor a short time the contemplation of eternal joy, so that they might\nbear persecution bravely.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Jerome says on Matt. 17:2: \"Let no one suppose that\nChrist,\" through being said to be transfigured, \"laid aside His\nnatural shape and countenance, or substituted an imaginary or aerial\nbody for His real body. The Evangelist describes the manner of His\ntransfiguration when he says: 'His face did shine as the sun, and His\ngarments became white as snow.' Brightness of face and whiteness of\ngarments argue not a change of substance, but a putting on of glory.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Figure is seen in the outline of a body, for it is\n\"that which is enclosed by one or more boundaries\" [*Euclid, bk i,\ndef. xiv]. Therefore whatever has to do with the outline of a body\nseems to pertain to the figure. Now the clarity, just as the color,\nof a non-transparent body is seen on its surface, and consequently\nthe assumption of clarity is called transfiguration.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Of those four gifts, clarity alone is a quality\nof the very person in himself; whereas the other three are not\nperceptible, save in some action or movement, or in some passion.\nChrist, then, did show in Himself certain indications of those three\ngifts--of agility, for instance, when He walked on the waves of the\nsea; of subtlety, when He came forth from the closed womb of the\nVirgin; of impassibility, when He escaped unhurt from the hands of the\nJews who wished to hurl Him down or to stone Him. And yet He is not\nsaid, on account of this, to be transfigured, but only on account of\nclarity, which pertains to the aspect of His Person.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 45, Art. 2]\n\nWhether This Clarity Was the Clarity of Glory?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this clarity was not the clarity of\nglory. For a gloss of Bede on Matt. 17:2, \"He was transfigured before\nthem,\" says: \"In His mortal body He shows forth, not the state of\nimmortality, but clarity like to that of future immortality.\" But the\nclarity of glory is the clarity of immortality. Therefore the clarity\nwhich Christ showed to His disciples was not the clarity of glory.\n\nObj. 2: Further, on Luke 9:27 \"(That) shall not taste death unless\n[Vulg.: 'till'] they see the kingdom of God,\" Bede's gloss says:\n\"That is, the glorification of the body in an imaginary vision of\nfuture beatitude.\" But the image of a thing is not the thing itself.\nTherefore this was not the clarity of beatitude.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the clarity of glory is only in a human body. But\nthis clarity of the transfiguration was seen not only in Christ's\nbody, but also in His garments, and in \"the bright cloud\" which\n\"overshaded\" the disciples. Therefore it seems that this was not the\nclarity of glory.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Jerome says on the words \"He was transfigured\nbefore them\" (Matt. 17:2): \"He appeared to the Apostles such as He\nwill appear on the day of judgment.\" And on Matt. 16:28, \"Till they\nsee the Son of Man coming in His kingdom,\" Chrysostom says: \"Wishing\nto show with what kind of glory He is afterwards to come, so far as\nit was possible for them to learn it, He showed it to them in their\npresent life, that they might not grieve even over the death of their\nLord.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The clarity which Christ assumed in His\ntransfiguration was the clarity of glory as to its essence, but not\nas to its mode of being. For the clarity of the glorified body is\nderived from that of the soul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Diosc.\ncxviii). And in like manner the clarity of Christ's body in His\ntransfiguration was derived from His Godhead, as Damascene says\n(Orat. de Transfig.) and from the glory of His soul. That the glory\nof His soul did not overflow into His body from the first moment of\nChrist's conception was due to a certain Divine dispensation, that,\nas stated above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2), He might fulfil the mysteries of\nour redemption in a passible body. This did not, however, deprive\nChrist of His power of outpouring the glory of His soul into His\nbody. And this He did, as to clarity, in His transfiguration, but\notherwise than in a glorified body. For the clarity of the soul\noverflows into a glorified body, by way of a permanent quality\naffecting the body. Hence bodily refulgence is not miraculous in a\nglorified body. But in Christ's transfiguration clarity overflowed\nfrom His Godhead and from His soul into His body, not as an immanent\nquality affecting His very body, but rather after the manner of a\ntransient passion, as when the air is lit up by the sun. Consequently\nthe refulgence, which appeared in Christ's body then, was miraculous:\njust as was the fact of His walking on the waves of the sea. Hence\nDionysius says (Ep. ad Cai. iv): \"Christ excelled man in doing that\nwhich is proper to man: this is shown in His supernatural conception\nof a virgin and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of material\nand earthly feet.\"\n\nWherefore we must not say, as Hugh of St. Victor [*Innocent III, De\nMyst. Miss. iv] said, that Christ assumed the gift of clarity in the\ntransfiguration, of agility in walking on the sea, and of subtlety in\ncoming forth from the Virgin's closed womb: because the gifts are\nimmanent qualities of a glorified body. _On the contrary,_ whatever\npertained to the gifts, that He had miraculously. The same is to be\nsaid, as to the soul, of the vision in which Paul saw God in a\nrapture, as we have stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 175, A. 3,\nad 2).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The words quoted prove, not that the clarity of Christ\nwas not that of glory, but that it was not the clarity of a glorified\nbody, since Christ's body was not as yet immortal. And just as it was\nby dispensation that in Christ the glory of the soul should not\noverflow into the body so was it possible that by dispensation it\nmight overflow as to the gift of clarity and not as to that of\nimpassibility.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This clarity is said to have been imaginary, not as\nthough it were not really the clarity of glory, but because it was a\nkind of image representing that perfection of glory, in virtue of\nwhich the body will be glorious.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Just as the clarity which was in Christ's body was a\nrepresentation of His body's future clarity, so the clarity which was\nin His garments signified the future clarity of the saints, which\nwill be surpassed by that of Christ, just as the brightness of the\nsnow is surpassed by that of the sun. Hence Gregory says (Moral.\nxxxii) that Christ's garments became resplendent, \"because in the\nheight of heavenly clarity all the saints will cling to Him in the\nrefulgence of righteousness. For His garments signify the righteous,\nbecause He will unite them to Himself,\" according to Isa. 49:18:\n\"Thou shalt be clothed with all these as with an ornament.\"\n\nThe bright cloud signifies the glory of the Holy Ghost or the \"power\nof the Father,\" as Origen says (Tract. iii in Matth.), by which in\nthe glory to come the saints will be covered. Or, again, it may be\nsaid fittingly that it signifies the clarity of the world redeemed,\nwhich clarity will cover the saints as a tent. Hence when Peter\nproposed to make tents, \"a bright cloud overshaded\" the disciples.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 45, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Witnesses of the Transfiguration Were Fittingly Chosen?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the witnesses of the transfiguration\nwere unfittingly chosen. For everyone is a better witness of things\nthat he knows. But at the time of Christ's transfiguration no one but\nthe angels had as yet any knowledge from experience of the glory to\ncome. Therefore the witnesses of the transfiguration should have been\nangels rather than men.\n\nObj. 2: Further, truth, not fiction, is becoming in a witness of the\ntruth. Now, Moses and Elias were there, not really, but only in\nappearance; for a gloss on Luke 9:30, \"They were Moses and Elias,\"\nsays: \"It must be observed that Moses and Elias were there neither in\nbody nor in soul\"; but that those bodies were formed \"of some\navailable matter. It is also credible that this was the result of the\nangelic ministries, through the angels impersonating them.\" Therefore\nit seems that they were unsuitable witnesses.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is said (Acts 10:43) that \"all the prophets give\ntestimony\" to Christ. Therefore not only Moses and Elias, but also\nall the prophets, should have been present as witnesses.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Christ's glory is promised as a reward to all the\nfaithful (2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21), in whom He wished by His\ntransfiguration to enkindle a desire of that glory. Therefore He\nshould have taken not only Peter, James, and John, but all His\ndisciples, to be witnesses of His transfiguration.\n\nOn the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ wished to be transfigured in order to show\nmen His glory, and to arouse men to a desire of it, as stated above\n(A. 1). Now men are brought to the glory of eternal beatitude by\nChrist--not only those who lived after Him, but also those who\npreceded Him; therefore, when He was approaching His Passion, both\n\"the multitude that followed\" and that \"which went before, cried\nsaying: 'Hosanna,'\" as related Matt. 21:9, beseeching Him, as it\nwere, to save them. Consequently it was fitting that witnesses should\nbe present from among those who preceded Him--namely, Moses and\nElias--and from those who followed after Him--namely, Peter, James,\nand John--that \"in the mouth of two or three witnesses\" this word\nmight stand.\n\nReply Obj. 1: By His transfiguration Christ manifested to His\ndisciples the glory of His body, which belongs to men only. It was\ntherefore fitting that He should choose men and not angels as\nwitnesses.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This gloss is said to be taken from a book entitled _On\nthe Marvels of Holy Scripture._ It is not an authentic work, but is\nwrongly ascribed to St. Augustine; consequently we need not stand by\nit. For Jerome says on Matt. 17:3: \"Observe that when the Scribes and\nPharisees asked for a sign from heaven, He refused to give one;\nwhereas here in order to increase the apostles' faith, He gives a\nsign from heaven, Elias coming down thence, whither he had ascended,\nand Moses arising from the nether world.\" This is not to be\nunderstood as though the soul of Moses was reunited to his body, but\nthat his soul appeared through some assumed body, just as the angels\ndo. But Elias appeared in his own body, not that he was brought down\nfrom the empyrean heaven, but from some place on high whither he was\ntaken up in the fiery chariot.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says on Matt. 17:3: \"Moses and Elias are\nbrought forward for many reasons.\" And, first of all, \"because the\nmultitude said He was Elias or Jeremias or one of the prophets, He\nbrings the leaders of the prophets with Him; that hereby at least\nthey might see the difference between the servants and their Lord.\"\nAnother reason was \" . . . that Moses gave the Law . . . while Elias\n. . . was jealous for the glory of God.\" Therefore by appearing\ntogether with Christ, they show how falsely the Jews \"accused Him of\ntransgressing the Law, and of blasphemously appropriating to Himself\nthe glory of God.\" A third reason was \"to show that He has power of\ndeath and life, and that He is the judge of the dead and the living;\nby bringing with Him Moses who had died, and Elias who still lived.\"\nA fourth reason was because, as Luke says (9:31), \"they spoke\" with\nHim \"of His decease that He should accomplish in Jerusalem,\" i.e. of\nHis Passion and death. Therefore, \"in order to strengthen the hearts\nof His disciples with a view to this,\" He sets before them those who\nhad exposed themselves to death for God's sake: since Moses braved\ndeath in opposing Pharaoh, and Elias in opposing Achab. A fifth\nreason was that \"He wished His disciples to imitate the meekness of\nMoses and the zeal of Elias.\" Hilary adds a sixth reason--namely, in\norder to signify that He had been foretold by the Law, which Moses\ngave them, and by the prophets, of whom Elias was the principal.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Lofty mysteries should not be immediately explained to\neveryone, but should be handed down through superiors to others in\ntheir proper turn. Consequently, as Chrysostom says (on Matt. 17:3),\n\"He took these three as being superior to the rest.\" For \"Peter\nexcelled in the love\" he bore to Christ and in the power bestowed on\nhim; John in the privilege of Christ's love for him on account of his\nvirginity, and, again, on account of his being privileged to be an\nEvangelist; James on account of the privilege of martyrdom.\nNevertheless He did not wish them to tell others what they had seen\nbefore His Resurrection; \"lest,\" as Jerome says on Matt. 17:19, \"such\na wonderful thing should seem incredible to them; and lest, after\nhearing of so great glory, they should be scandalized at the Cross\"\nthat followed; or, again, \"lest [the Cross] should be entirely\nhindered by the people\" [*Bede, Hom. xviii; cf. Catena Aurea]; and\n\"in order that they might then be witnesses of spiritual things when\nthey should be filled with the Holy Ghost\" [*Hilary, in Matth. xvii].\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 45, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Testimony of the Father's Voice, Saying, \"This Is My\nBeloved Son,\" Was Fittingly Added?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the testimony of the Father's voice,\nsaying, \"This is My beloved Son,\" was not fittingly added; for, as it\nis written (Job 33:14), \"God speaketh once, and repeateth not the\nselfsame thing the second time.\" But the Father's voice had testified\nto this at the time of (Christ's) baptism. Therefore it was not\nfitting that He should bear witness to it a second time.\n\nObj. 2: Further, at the baptism the Holy Ghost appeared under the\nform of a dove at the same time as the Father's voice was heard. But\nthis did not happen at the transfiguration. Therefore it seems that\nthe testimony of the Father was made in an unfitting manner.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ began to teach after His baptism.\nNevertheless, the Father's voice did not then command men to hear\nhim. Therefore neither should it have so commanded at the\ntransfiguration.\n\nObj. 4: Further, things should not be said to those who cannot bear\nthem, according to John 16:12: \"I have yet many things to say to you,\nbut you cannot bear them now.\" But the disciples could not bear the\nFather's voice; for it is written (Matt. 17:6) that \"the disciples\nhearing, fell upon their face, and were very much afraid.\" Therefore\nthe Father's voice should not have been addressed to them.\n\nOn the contrary is the authority of the Gospel.\n\n_I answer that,_ The adoption of the sons of God is through a certain\nconformity of image to the natural Son of God. Now this takes place\nin two ways: first, by the grace of the wayfarer, which is imperfect\nconformity; secondly, by glory, which is perfect conformity,\naccording to 1 John 3:2: \"We are now the sons of God, and it hath not\nyet appeared what we shall be: we know that, when He shall appear, we\nshall be like to Him, because we shall see Him as He is.\" Since,\ntherefore, it is in baptism that we acquire grace, while the clarity\nof the glory to come was foreshadowed in the transfiguration,\ntherefore both in His baptism and in His transfiguration the natural\nsonship of Christ was fittingly made known by the testimony of the\nFather: because He alone with the Son and Holy Ghost is perfectly\nconscious of that perfect generation.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The words quoted are to be understood of God's eternal\nspeaking, by which God the Father uttered the only-begotten and\nco-eternal Word. Nevertheless, it can be said that God uttered the\nsame thing twice in a bodily voice, yet not for the same purpose, but\nin order to show the divers modes in which men can be partakers of\nthe likeness of the eternal Sonship.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Just as in the Baptism, where the mystery of the first\nregeneration was proclaimed, the operation of the whole Trinity was\nmade manifest, because the Son Incarnate was there, the Holy Ghost\nappeared under the form of a dove, and the Father made Himself known\nin the voice; so also in the transfiguration, which is the mystery of\nthe second regeneration, the whole Trinity appears--the Father in the\nvoice, the Son in the man, the Holy Ghost in the bright cloud; for\njust as in baptism He confers innocence, signified by the simplicity\nof the dove, so in the resurrection will He give His elect the\nclarity of glory and refreshment from all sorts of evil, which are\nsignified by the bright cloud.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ came to give grace actually, and to promise\nglory by His words. Therefore it was fitting at the time of His\ntransfiguration, and not at the time of His baptism, that men should\nbe commanded to hear Him.\n\nReply Obj. 4: It was fitting that the disciples should be afraid and\nfall down on hearing the voice of the Father, to show that the glory\nwhich was then being revealed surpasses in excellence the sense and\nfaculty of all mortal beings; according to Ex. 33:20: \"Man shall not\nsee Me and live.\" This is what Jerome says on Matt. 17:6: \"Such is\nhuman frailty that it cannot bear to gaze on such great glory.\" But\nmen are healed of this frailty by Christ when He brings them into\nglory. And this is signified by what He says to them: \"Arise, and\nfear not.\"\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 46\n\nTHE PASSION OF CHRIST\n(In Twelve Articles)\n\nIn proper sequence we have now to consider all that relates to\nChrist's leaving the world. In the first place, His Passion;\nsecondly, His death; thirdly, His burial; and, fourthly, His descent\ninto hell.\n\nWith regard to the Passion, there arises a threefold consideration:\n(1) The Passion itself; (2) the efficient cause of the Passion;\n(3) the fruits of the Passion.\n\nUnder the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for men's\ndeliverance?\n\n(2) Whether there was any other possible means of delivering men?\n\n(3) Whether this was the more suitable means?\n\n(4) Whether it was fitting for Christ to suffer on the cross?\n\n(5) The extent of His sufferings;\n\n(6) Whether the pain which He endured was the greatest?\n\n(7) Whether His entire soul suffered?\n\n(8) Whether His Passion hindered the joy of fruition?\n\n(9) The time of the Passion;\n\n(10) The place;\n\n(11) Whether it was fitting for Him to be crucified with robbers?\n\n(12) Whether Christ's Passion is to be attributed to the Godhead?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Necessary for Christ to Suffer for the Deliverance of\nthe Human Race?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to\nsuffer for the deliverance of the human race. For the human race\ncould not be delivered except by God, according to Isa. 45:21: \"Am\nnot I the Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a\nSaviour, there is none besides Me.\" But no necessity can compel God,\nfor this would be repugnant to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not\nnecessary for Christ to suffer.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary.\nBut Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Isa. 53:7):\n\"He was offered because it was His own will.\" Therefore it was not\nnecessary for Him to suffer.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as is written (Ps. 24:10): \"All the ways of the Lord\nare mercy and truth.\" But it does not seem necessary that He should\nsuffer on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts\nfreely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor,\nagain, on the part of Divine justice, according to which man had\ndeserved everlasting condemnation. Therefore it does not seem\nnecessary that Christ should have suffered for man's deliverance.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human,\nas appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But Christ did not suffer\nto repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently,\nneither was it necessary for Him to suffer for the salvation of the\nhuman race.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 3:14): \"As Moses lifted up the\nserpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that\nwhosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life\neverlasting.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are\nseveral acceptations of the word \"necessary.\" In one way it means\nanything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it\nis evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on\nthe part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be\nnecessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be\neither an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the\nnecessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away\nowing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the\nexternal factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be\nsaid to be necessary from presupposing such end--namely, when some\nparticular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such\nend be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer\nfrom necessity of compulsion, either on God's part, who ruled that\nChrist should suffer, or on Christ's own part, who suffered\nvoluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed;\nand this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part,\nwho have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14):\n\"The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him\nmay not perish, but may have life everlasting.\" Secondly, on Christ's\npart, who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness\nof His Passion: and to this must be referred Luke 24:26: \"Ought not\nChrist to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His\nglory?\" Thirdly, on God's part, whose determination regarding the\nPassion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the\nobservances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is\nwhat St. Luke says (22:22): \"The Son of man indeed goeth, according\nto that which is determined\"; and (Luke 24:44, 46): \"These are the\nwords which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things\nmust needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in\nthe prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus\nwritten, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again\nfrom the dead.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion\non God's part.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on\nthe part of the man Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 3: That man should be delivered by Christ's Passion was in\nkeeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice,\nbecause by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the\nhuman race; and so man was set free by Christ's justice: and with His\nmercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all\nhuman nature, as was said above (Q. 1, A. 2), God gave him His Son to\nsatisfy for him, according to Rom. 3:24, 25: \"Being justified freely\nby His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom\nGod hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.\"\nAnd this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins\nwithout satisfaction. Hence it is said (Eph. 2:4): \"God, who is rich\nin mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when\nwe were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin\nof the first man (I, Q. 64, A. 2).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 2]\n\nWhether There Was Any Other Possible Way of Human Deliverance Besides\nthe Passion of Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was no other possible way of\nhuman deliverance besides Christ's Passion. For our Lord says (John\n12:24): \"Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling\ninto the ground dieth, itself remaineth alone; but if it die, it\nbringeth forth much fruit.\" Upon this St. Augustine (Tract. li)\nobserves that \"Christ called Himself the seed.\" Consequently, unless\nHe suffered death, He would not otherwise have produced the fruit of\nour redemption.\n\nObj. 2: Further, our Lord addresses the Father (Matt. 26:42): \"My\nFather, if this chalice may not pass away but I must drink it, Thy\nwill be done.\" But He spoke there of the chalice of the Passion.\nTherefore Christ's Passion could not pass away; hence Hilary says\n(Comm. 31 in Matth.): \"Therefore the chalice cannot pass except He\ndrink of it, because we cannot be restored except through His\nPassion.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, God's justice required that Christ should satisfy by\nthe Passion in order that man might be delivered from sin. But Christ\ncannot let His justice pass; for it is written (2 Tim. 2:13): \"If we\nbelieve not, He continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself.\" But He\nwould deny Himself were He to deny His justice, since He is justice\nitself. It seems impossible, then, for man to be delivered otherwise\nthan by Christ's Passion.\n\nObj. 4: Further, there can be no falsehood underlying faith. But the\nFathers of old believed that Christ would suffer. Consequently, it\nseems that it had to be that Christ should suffer.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): \"We assert that\nthe way whereby God deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ,\nwho is mediator between God and man, is both good and befitting the\nDivine dignity; but let us also show that other possible means were\nnot lacking on God's part, to whose power all things are equally\nsubordinate.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing may be said to be possible or impossible in\ntwo ways: first of all, simply and absolutely; or secondly, from\nsupposition. Therefore, speaking simply and absolutely, it was\npossible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of\nChrist, because \"no word shall be impossible with God\" (Luke 1:37).\nYet it was impossible if some supposition be made. For since it is\nimpossible for God's foreknowledge to be deceived and His will or\nordinance to be frustrated, then, supposing God's foreknowledge and\nordinance regarding Christ's Passion, it was not possible at the same\ntime for Christ not to suffer, and for mankind to be delivered\notherwise than by Christ's Passion. And the same holds good of all\nthings foreknown and preordained by God, as was laid down in the\nFirst Part (Q. 14, A. 13).\n\nReply Obj. 1: Our Lord is speaking there presupposing God's\nforeknowledge and predetermination, according to which it was\nresolved that the fruit of man's salvation should not follow unless\nChrist suffered.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In the same way we must understand what is here\nobjected to in the second instance: \"If this chalice may not pass\naway but I must drink of it\"--that is to say, because Thou hast so\nordained it--hence He adds: \"Thy will be done.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Even this justice depends on the Divine will, requiring\nsatisfaction for sin from the human race. But if He had willed to\nfree man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted\nagainst justice. For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot pardon\nfault without penalty, if he must visit fault committed against\nanother--for instance, against another man, or against the State, or\nany Prince in higher authority. But God has no one higher than\nHimself, for He is the sovereign and common good of the whole\nuniverse. Consequently, if He forgive sin, which has the formality of\nfault in that it is committed against Himself, He wrongs no one: just\nas anyone else, overlooking a personal trespass, without\nsatisfaction, acts mercifully and not unjustly. And so David\nexclaimed when he sought mercy: \"To Thee only have I sinned\" (Ps.\n50:6), as if to say: \"Thou canst pardon me without injustice.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Human faith, and even the Divine Scriptures upon which\nfaith is based, are both based on the Divine foreknowledge and\nordinance. And the same reason holds good of that necessity which\ncomes of supposition, and of the necessity which arises of the Divine\nforeknowledge and will.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 3]\n\nWhether There Was Any More Suitable Way of Delivering the Human Race\nThan by Christ's Passion?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was some other more suitable\nway of delivering the human race besides Christ's Passion. For nature\nin its operation imitates the Divine work, since it is moved and\nregulated by God. But nature never employs two agents where one will\nsuffice. Therefore, since God could have liberated mankind solely by\nHis Divine will, it does not seem fitting that Christ's Passion\nshould have been added for the deliverance of the human race.\n\nObj. 2: Further, natural actions are more suitably performed than\ndeeds of violence, because violence is \"a severance or lapse from\nwhat is according to nature,\" as is said in _De Coelo_ ii. But\nChrist's Passion brought about His death by violence. Therefore it\nwould have been more appropriate had Christ died a natural death\nrather than suffer for man's deliverance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it seems most fitting that whatsoever keeps\nsomething unjustly and by violence, should be deprived of it by some\nsuperior power; hence Isaias says (52:3): \"You were sold gratis, and\nyou shall be redeemed without money.\" But the devil possessed no\nright over man, whom he had deceived by guile, and whom he held\nsubject in servitude by a sort of violence. Therefore it seems most\nsuitable that Christ should have despoiled the devil solely by His\npower and without the Passion.\n\n_On the contrary,_ St. Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): \"There was no\nother more suitable way of healing our misery\" than by the Passion of\nChrist.\n\n_I answer that,_ Among means to an end that one is the more suitable\nwhereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful\nto such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ's Passion,\nmany other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man's\nsalvation. In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves\nhim, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies\nthe perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Rom. 5:8):\n\"God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were\nsinners . . . Christ died for us.\" Secondly, because thereby He set\nus an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the\nother virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man's\nsalvation. Hence it is written (1 Pet. 2:21): \"Christ also suffered\nfor us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps.\"\nThirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from\nsin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of\nbliss, as shall be shown later (Q. 48, A. 1; Q. 49, AA. 1, 5).\nFourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from\nsin, according to 1 Cor. 6:20: \"You are bought with a great price:\nglorify and bear God in your body.\" Fifthly, because it redounded to\nman's greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the\ndevil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil;\nand as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death.\nHence it is written (1 Cor. 15:57): \"Thanks be to God who hath given\nus the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.\" It was accordingly\nmore fitting that we should be delivered by Christ's Passion than\nsimply by God's good-will.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Even nature uses several means to one intent, in order\nto do something more fittingly: as two eyes for seeing; and the same\ncan be observed in other matters.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Chrysostom [*Athanasius, Orat. De Incarn. Verb.]\nsays: \"Christ had come in order to destroy death, not His own, (for\nsince He is life itself, death could not be His), but men's death.\nHence it was not by reason of His being bound to die that He laid His\nbody aside, but because the death He endured was inflicted on Him by\nmen. But even if His body had sickened and dissolved in the sight of\nall men, it was not befitting Him who healed the infirmities of\nothers to have his own body afflicted with the same. And even had He\nlaid His body aside without any sickness, and had then appeared, men\nwould not have believed Him when He spoke of His resurrection. For\nhow could Christ's victory over death appear, unless He endured it in\nthe sight of all men, and so proved that death was vanquished by the\nincorruption of His body?\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although the devil assailed man unjustly, nevertheless,\non account of sin, man was justly left by God under the devil's\nbondage. And therefore it was fitting that through justice man should\nbe delivered from the devil's bondage by Christ making satisfaction\non his behalf in the Passion. This was also a fitting means of\noverthrowing the pride of the devil, \"who is a deserter from justice,\nand covetous of sway\"; in that Christ \"should vanquish him and\ndeliver man, not merely by the power of His Godhead, but likewise by\nthe justice and lowliness of the Passion,\" as Augustine says (De\nTrin. xiii).\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Ought to Have Suffered on the Cross?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ ought not to have suffered on\nthe cross. For the truth ought to conform to the figure. But in all\nthe sacrifices of the Old Testament which prefigured Christ the\nbeasts were slain with a sword and afterwards consumed by fire.\nTherefore it seems that Christ ought not to have suffered on a cross,\nbut rather by the sword or by fire.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that Christ ought\nnot to assume \"dishonoring afflictions.\" But death on a cross was\nmost dishonoring and ignominious; hence it is written (Wis. 2:20):\n\"Let us condemn Him to a most shameful death.\" Therefore it seems\nthat Christ ought not to have undergone the death of the cross.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it was said of Christ (Matt. 21:9): \"Blessed is He\nthat cometh in the name of the Lord.\" But death upon the cross was a\ndeath of malediction, as we read Deut. 21:23: \"He is accursed of God\nthat hangeth on a tree.\" Therefore it does not seem fitting for\nChrist to be crucified.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:8): \"He became obedient\nunto death, even the death of the cross.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was most fitting that Christ should suffer the\ndeath of the cross.\n\nFirst of all, as an example of virtue. For Augustine thus writes (QQ.\nlxxxiii, qu. 25): \"God's Wisdom became man to give us an example in\nrighteousness of living. But it is part of righteous living not to\nstand in fear of things which ought not to be feared. Now there are\nsome men who, although they do not fear death in itself, are yet\ntroubled over the manner of their death. In order, then, that no kind\nof death should trouble an upright man, the cross of this Man had to\nbe set before him, because, among all kinds of death, none was more\nexecrable, more fear-inspiring, than this.\"\n\nSecondly, because this kind of death was especially suitable in order\nto atone for the sin of our first parent, which was the plucking of\nthe apple from the forbidden tree against God's command. And so, to\natone for that sin, it was fitting that Christ should suffer by being\nfastened to a tree, as if restoring what Adam had purloined;\naccording to Ps. 68:5: \"Then did I pay that which I took not away.\"\nHence Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion [*Cf. Serm. ci De\nTempore]: \"Adam despised the command, plucking the apple from the\ntree: but all that Adam lost, Christ found upon the cross.\"\n\nThe third reason is because, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the\nPassion (De Cruce et Latrone i, ii): \"He suffered upon a high rood\nand not under a roof, in order that the nature of the air might be\npurified: and the earth felt a like benefit, for it was cleansed by\nthe flowing of the blood from His side.\" And on John 3:14: \"The Son\nof man must be lifted up,\" Theophylact says: \"When you hear that He\nwas lifted up, understand His hanging on high, that He might sanctify\nthe air who had sanctified the earth by walking upon it.\"\n\nThe fourth reason is, because, by dying on it, He prepares for us an\nascent into heaven, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A, III, ad 2]\nsays. Hence it is that He says (John 12:32): \"If I be lifted up from\nthe earth, I will draw all things to Myself.\"\n\nThe fifth reason is because it is befitting the universal salvation\nof the entire world. Hence Gregory of Nyssa observes (In Christ.\nResurr., Orat. i) that \"the shape of the cross extending out into\nfour extremes from their central point of contact denotes the power\nand the providence diffused everywhere of Him who hung upon it.\"\nChrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A. III, ad 2] also says that upon the\ncross \"He dies with outstretched hands in order to draw with one hand\nthe people of old, and with the other those who spring from the\nGentiles.\"\n\nThe sixth reason is because of the various virtues denoted by this\nclass of death. Hence Augustine in his book on the grace of the Old\nand New Testament (Ep. cxl) says: \"Not without purpose did He choose\nthis class of death, that He might be a teacher of that breadth, and\nheight, and length, and depth,\" of which the Apostle speaks (Eph.\n3:18): \"For breadth is in the beam, which is fixed transversely\nabove; this appertains to good works, since the hands are stretched\nout upon it. Length is the tree's extent from the beam to the ground;\nand there it is planted--that is, it stands and abides--which is the\nnote of longanimity. Height is in that portion of the tree which\nremains over from the transverse beam upwards to the top, and this is\nat the head of the Crucified, because He is the supreme desire of\nsouls of good hope. But that part of the tree which is hidden from\nview to hold it fixed, and from which the entire rood springs,\ndenotes the depth of gratuitous grace.\" And, as Augustine says\n(Tract. cxix in Joan.): \"The tree upon which were fixed the members\nof Him dying was even the chair of the Master teaching.\"\n\nThe seventh reason is because this kind of death responds to very\nmany figures. For, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion\n(Serm. ci De Tempore), an ark of wood preserved the human race from\nthe waters of the Deluge; at the exodus of God's people from Egypt,\nMoses with a rod divided the sea, overthrew Pharaoh and saved the\npeople of God. the same Moses dipped his rod into the water, changing\nit from bitter to sweet; at the touch of a wooden rod a salutary\nspring gushed forth from a spiritual rock; likewise, in order to\novercome Amalec, Moses stretched forth his arms with rod in hand;\nlastly, God's law is entrusted to the wooden Ark of the Covenant; all\nof which are like steps by which we mount to the wood of the cross.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The altar of holocausts, upon which the sacrifices of\nanimals were immolated, was constructed of timbers, as is set forth\nEx. 27; and in this respect the truth answers to the figure; but \"it\nis not necessary for it to be likened in every respect, otherwise it\nwould not be a likeness,\" but the reality, as Damascene says (De Fide\nOrth. iii). But, in particular, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius, vide A,\nIII, ad 2] says: \"His head is not cut off, as was done to John; nor\nwas He sawn in twain, like Isaias, in order that His entire and\nindivisible body might obey death, and that there might be no excuse\nfor them who want to divide the Church.\" While, instead of material\nfire, there was the spiritual fire of charity in Christ's holocaust.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ refused to undergo dishonorable sufferings which\nare allied with defects of knowledge, or of grace, or even of virtue,\nbut not those injuries inflicted from without--nay, more, as is\nwritten Heb. 12:2: \"He endured the cross, despising the shame.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xiv), sin is accursed,\nand, consequently, so is death, and mortality, which comes of sin.\n\"But Christ's flesh was mortal, 'having the resemblance of the flesh\nof sin'\"; and hence Moses calls it \"accursed,\" just as the Apostle\ncalls it \"sin,\" saying (2 Cor. 5:21): \"Him that knew no sin, for us\nHe hath made sin\"--namely, because of the penalty of sin. \"Nor is\nthere greater ignominy on that account, because he said: 'He is\naccursed of God.'\" For, \"unless God had hated sin, He would never\nhave sent His Son to take upon Himself our death, and to destroy it.\nAcknowledge, then, that it was for us He took the curse upon Himself,\nwhom you confess to have died for us.\" Hence it is written (Gal.\n3:13): \"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made\na curse for us.\"\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Christ Endured All Suffering?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did endure all sufferings,\nbecause Hilary (De Trin. x) says: \"God's only-begotten Son testifies\nthat He endured every kind of human sufferings in order to accomplish\nthe sacrament of His death, when with bowed head He gave up the\nghost.\" It seems, therefore, that He did endure all human sufferings.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Isa. 52:13): \"Behold My servant shall\nunderstand, He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding\nhigh; as many as have been astonished at Him [Vulg.: 'thee'], so shall\nHis visage be inglorious among men, and His form among the sons of\nmen.\" But Christ was exalted in that He had all grace and all\nknowledge, at which many were astonished in admiration thereof.\nTherefore it seems that He was \"inglorious,\" by enduring every human\nsuffering.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's Passion was ordained for man's deliverance\nfrom sin, as stated above (A. 3). But Christ came to deliver men from\nevery kind of sin. Therefore He ought to have endured every kind of\nsuffering.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 19:32): \"The soldiers\ntherefore came: and they broke the legs of the first, and of the\nother who was crucified with Him; but after they were come to Jesus,\nwhen they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.\"\nConsequently, He did not endure every human suffering.\n\n_I answer that,_ Human sufferings may be considered under two\naspects. First of all, specifically, and in this way it was not\nnecessary for Christ to endure them all, since many are mutually\nexclusive, as burning and drowning; for we are dealing now with\nsufferings inflicted from without, since it was not beseeming for Him\nto endure those arising from within, such as bodily ailments, as\nalready stated (Q. 14, A. 4). But, speaking generically, He did\nendure every human suffering. This admits of a threefold acceptance.\nFirst of all, on the part of men: for He endured something from\nGentiles and from Jews; from men and from women, as is clear from the\nwomen servants who accused Peter. He suffered from the rulers, from\ntheir servants and from the mob, according to Ps. 2:1, 2: \"Why have\nthe Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of\nthe earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord\nand against His Christ.\" He suffered from friends and acquaintances,\nas is manifest from Judas betraying and Peter denying Him.\n\nSecondly, the same is evident on the part of the sufferings which a\nman can endure. For Christ suffered from friends abandoning Him; in\nHis reputation, from the blasphemies hurled at Him; in His honor and\nglory, from the mockeries and the insults heaped upon Him; in things,\nfor He was despoiled of His garments; in His soul, from sadness,\nweariness, and fear; in His body, from wounds and scourgings.\n\nThirdly, it may be considered with regard to His bodily members. In\nHis head He suffered from the crown of piercing thorns; in His hands\nand feet, from the fastening of the nails; on His face from the blows\nand spittle; and from the lashes over His entire body. Moreover, He\nsuffered in all His bodily senses: in touch, by being scourged and\nnailed; in taste, by being given vinegar and gall to drink; in smell,\nby being fastened to the gibbet in a place reeking with the stench of\ncorpses, \"which is called Calvary\"; in hearing, by being tormented\nwith the cries of blasphemers and scorners; in sight, by beholding\nthe tears of His Mother and of the disciple whom He loved.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Hilary's words are to be understood as to all classes\nof sufferings, but not as to their kinds.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The likeness is sustained, not as to the number of the\nsufferings and graces, but as to their greatness; for, as He was\nuplifted above others in gifts of graces, so was He lowered beneath\nothers by the ignominy of His sufferings.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The very least one of Christ's sufferings was\nsufficient of itself to redeem the human race from all sins; but as\nto fittingness, it sufficed that He should endure all classes of\nsufferings, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Pain of Christ's Passion Was Greater Than All Other Pains?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the pain of Christ's Passion was not\ngreater than all other pains. For the sufferer's pain is increased by\nthe sharpness and the duration of the suffering. But some of the\nmartyrs endured sharper and more prolonged pains than Christ, as is\nseen in St. Lawrence, who was roasted upon a gridiron; and in St.\nVincent, whose flesh was torn with iron pincers. Therefore it seems\nthat the pain of the suffering Christ was not the greatest.\n\nObj. 2: Further, strength of soul mitigates pain, so much so that the\nStoics held there was no sadness in the soul of a wise man; and\nAristotle (Ethic. ii) holds that moral virtue fixes the mean in the\npassions. But Christ had most perfect strength of soul. Therefore it\nseems that the greatest pain did not exist in Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the more sensitive the sufferer is, the more acute\nwill the pain be. But the soul is more sensitive than the body, since\nthe body feels in virtue of the soul; also, Adam in the state of\ninnocence seems to have had a body more sensitive than Christ had,\nwho assumed a human body with its natural defects. Consequently, it\nseems that the pain of a sufferer in purgatory, or in hell, or even\nAdam's pain, if he suffered at all, was greater than Christ's in the\nPassion.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the greater the good lost, the greater the pain. But\nby sinning the sinner loses a greater good than Christ did when\nsuffering; since the life of grace is greater than the life of\nnature: also, Christ, who lost His life, but was to rise again after\nthree days, seems to have lost less than those who lose their lives\nand abide in death. Therefore it seems that Christ's pain was not the\ngreatest of all.\n\nObj. 5: Further, the victim's innocence lessens the sting of his\nsufferings. But Christ died innocent, according to Jer. 9:19: \"I was\nas a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim.\" Therefore it seems\nthat the pain of Christ's Passion was not the greatest.\n\nObj. 6: Further, there was nothing superfluous in Christ's conduct.\nBut the slightest pain would have sufficed to secure man's salvation,\nbecause from His Divine Person it would have had infinite virtue.\nTherefore it would have been superfluous to choose the greatest of\nall pains.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Lam. 1:12) on behalf of Christ's\nPerson: \"O all ye that pass by the way attend, and see if there be\nany sorrow like unto My sorrow.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As we have stated, when treating of the defects\nassumed by Christ (Q. 15, AA. 5, 6), there was true and sensible pain\nin the suffering Christ, which is caused by something hurtful to the\nbody: also, there was internal pain, which is caused from the\napprehension of something hurtful, and this is termed \"sadness.\" And\nin Christ each of these was the greatest in this present life. This\narose from four causes. First of all, from the sources of His pain.\nFor the cause of the sensitive pain was the wounding of His body; and\nthis wounding had its bitterness, both from the extent of the\nsuffering already mentioned (A. 5) and from the kind of suffering,\nsince the death of the crucified is most bitter, because they are\npierced in nervous and highly sensitive parts--to wit, the hands and\nfeet; moreover, the weight of the suspended body intensifies the\nagony, and besides this there is the duration of the suffering\nbecause they do not die at once like those slain by the sword. The\ncause of the interior pain was, first of all, all the sins of the\nhuman race, for which He made satisfaction by suffering; hence He\nascribes them, so to speak, to Himself, saying (Ps. 21:2): \"The words\nof my sins.\" Secondly, especially the fall of the Jews and of the\nothers who sinned in His death chiefly of the apostles, who were\nscandalized at His Passion. Thirdly, the loss of His bodily life,\nwhich is naturally horrible to human nature.\n\nThe magnitude of His suffering may be considered, secondly, from the\nsusceptibility of the sufferer as to both soul and body. For His body\nwas endowed with a most perfect constitution, since it was fashioned\nmiraculously by the operation of the Holy Ghost; just as some other\nthings made by miracles are better than others, as Chrysostom says\n(Hom. xxii in Joan.) respecting the wine into which Christ changed\nthe water at the wedding-feast. And, consequently, Christ's sense of\ntouch, the sensitiveness of which is the reason for our feeling pain,\nwas most acute. His soul likewise, from its interior powers,\napprehended most vehemently all the causes of sadness.\n\nThirdly, the magnitude of Christ's suffering can be estimated from\nthe singleness of His pain and sadness. In other sufferers the\ninterior sadness is mitigated, and even the exterior suffering, from\nsome consideration of reason, by some derivation or redundance from\nthe higher powers into the lower; but it was not so with the\nsuffering Christ, because \"He permitted each one of His powers to\nexercise its proper function,\" as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).\n\nFourthly, the magnitude of the pain of Christ's suffering can be\nreckoned by this, that the pain and sorrow were accepted voluntarily,\nto the end of men's deliverance from sin; and consequently He\nembraced the amount of pain proportionate to the magnitude of the\nfruit which resulted therefrom.\n\nFrom all these causes weighed together, it follows that Christ's pain\nwas the very greatest.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument follows from only one of the\nconsiderations adduced--namely, from the bodily injury, which is the\ncause of sensitive pain; but the torment of the suffering Christ is\nmuch more intensified from other causes, as above stated.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Moral virtue lessens interior sadness in one way, and\noutward sensitive pain in quite another; for it lessens interior\nsadness directly by fixing the mean, as being its proper matter,\nwithin limits. But, as was laid down in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 64,\nA. 2), moral virtue fixes the mean in the passions, not according to\nmathematical quantity, but according to quantity of proportion, so\nthat the passion shall not go beyond the rule of reason. And since\nthe Stoics held all sadness to be unprofitable, they accordingly\nbelieved it to be altogether discordant with reason, and consequently\nto be shunned altogether by a wise man. But in very truth some\nsadness is praiseworthy, as Augustine proves (De Civ. Dei\nxiv)--namely, when it flows from holy love, as, for instance, when a\nman is saddened over his own or others' sins. Furthermore, it is\nemployed as a useful means of satisfying for sins, according to the\nsaying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 7:10): \"The sorrow that is according to\nGod worketh penance, steadfast unto salvation.\" And so to atone for\nthe sins of all men, Christ accepted sadness, the greatest in\nabsolute quantity, yet not exceeding the rule of reason. But moral\nvirtue does not lessen outward sensitive pain, because such pain is\nnot subject to reason, but follows the nature of the body; yet it\nlessens it indirectly by redundance of the higher powers into the\nlower. But this did not happen in Christ's case, as stated above (cf.\nQ. 14, A. 1, ad 2; Q. 45, A. 2).\n\nReply Obj. 3: The pain of a suffering, separated soul belongs to the\nstate of future condemnation, which exceeds every evil of this life,\njust as the glory of the saints surpasses every good of the present\nlife. Accordingly, when we say that Christ's pain was the greatest,\nwe make no comparison between His and the pain of a separated soul.\nBut Adam's body could not suffer, except he sinned; so that he would\nbecome mortal, and passible. And, though actually suffering, it would\nhave felt less pain than Christ's body, for the reasons already\nstated. From all this it is clear that even if Adam had suffered in\nthe state of innocence, [though this was impossible] his pain would\nhave been less than Christ's.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Christ grieved not only over the loss of His own bodily\nlife, but also over the sins of all others. And this grief in Christ\nsurpassed all grief of every contrite heart, both because it flowed\nfrom a greater wisdom and charity, by which the pang of contrition is\nintensified, and because He grieved at the one time for all sins,\naccording to Isa. 53:4: \"Surely He hath carried our sorrows.\" But\nsuch was the dignity of Christ's life in the body, especially on\naccount of the Godhead united with it, that its loss, even for one\nhour, would be a matter of greater grief than the loss of another\nman's life for howsoever long a time. Hence the Philosopher says\n(Ethic. iii) that the man of virtue loves his life all the more in\nproportion as he knows it to be better; and yet he exposes it for\nvirtue's sake. And in like fashion Christ laid down His most beloved\nlife for the good of charity, according to Jer. 12:7: \"I have given\nMy dear soul into the hands of her enemies.\"\n\nReply Obj. 5: The sufferer's innocence does lessen numerically the\npain of the suffering, since, when a guilty man suffers, he grieves\nnot merely on account of the penalty, but also because of the crime,\nwhereas the innocent man grieves only for the penalty: yet this pain\nis more intensified by reason of his innocence, in so far as he deems\nthe hurt inflicted to be the more undeserved. Hence it is that even\nothers are more deserving of blame if they do not compassionate him,\naccording to Isa. 57:1: \"The just perisheth, and no man layeth it to\nheart.\"\n\nReply Obj. 6: Christ willed to deliver the human race from sins not\nmerely by His power, but also according to justice. And therefore He\ndid not simply weigh what great virtue His suffering would have from\nunion with the Godhead, but also how much, according to His human\nnature, His pain would avail for so great a satisfaction.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 7]\n\nWhether Christ Suffered in His Whole Soul?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer in His whole\nsoul. For the soul suffers indirectly when the body suffers, inasmuch\nas it is the \"act of the body.\" But the soul is not, as to its every\npart, the \"act of the body\"; because the intellect is the act of no\nbody, as is said _De Anima_ iii. Therefore it seems that Christ did\nnot suffer in His whole soul.\n\nObj. 2: Further, every power of the soul is passive in regard to its\nproper object. But the higher part of reason has for its object the\neternal types, \"to the consideration and consultation of which it\ndirects itself,\" as Augustine says (De Trin. xii). But Christ could\nsuffer no hurt from the eternal types, since they are nowise opposed\nto Him. Therefore it seems that He did not suffer in His whole soul.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a sensitive passion is said to be complete when it\ncomes into contact with the reason. But there was none such in\nChrist, but only \"pro-passions\"; as Jerome remarks on Matt. 26:37.\nHence Dionysius says in a letter to John the Evangelist that \"He\nendured only mentally the sufferings inflicted upon Him.\"\nConsequently it does not seem that Christ suffered in His whole soul.\n\nObj. 4: Further, suffering causes pain: but there is no pain in the\nspeculative intellect, because, as the Philosopher says (Topic. i),\n\"there is no sadness in opposition to the pleasure which comes of\nconsideration.\" Therefore it seems that Christ did not suffer in His\nwhole soul.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 87:4) on behalf of Christ: \"My\nsoul is filled with evils\": upon which the gloss adds: \"Not with\nvices, but with woes, whereby the soul suffers with the flesh; or\nwith evils, viz. of a perishing people, by compassionating them.\" But\nHis soul would not have been filled with these evils except He had\nsuffered in His whole soul. Therefore Christ suffered in His entire\nsoul.\n\n_I answer that,_ A whole is so termed with respect to its parts. But\nthe parts of a soul are its faculties. So, then, the whole soul is\nsaid to suffer in so far as it is afflicted as to its essence, or as\nto all its faculties. But it must be borne in mind that a faculty of\nthe soul can suffer in two ways: first of all, by its own passion;\nand this comes of its being afflicted by its proper object; thus,\nsight may suffer from superabundance of the visible object. In\nanother way a faculty suffers by a passion in the subject on which it\nis based; as sight suffers when the sense of touch in the eye is\naffected, upon which the sense of sight rests, as, for instance, when\nthe eye is pricked, or is disaffected by heat.\n\nSo, then, we say that if the soul be considered with respect to its\nessence, it is evident that Christ's whole soul suffered. For the\nsoul's whole essence is allied with the body, so that it is entire in\nthe whole body and in its every part. Consequently, when the body\nsuffered and was disposed to separate from the soul, the entire soul\nsuffered. But if we consider the whole soul according to its\nfaculties, speaking thus of the proper passions of the faculties, He\nsuffered indeed as to all His lower powers; because in all the soul's\nlower powers, whose operations are but temporal, there was something\nto be found which was a source of woe to Christ, as is evident from\nwhat was said above (A. 6). But Christ's higher reason did not suffer\nthereby on the part of its object, which is God, who was the cause,\nnot of grief, but rather of delight and joy, to the soul of Christ.\nNevertheless, all the powers of Christ's soul did suffer according as\nany faculty is said to be affected as regards its subject, because\nall the faculties of Christ's soul were rooted in its essence, to\nwhich suffering extended when the body, whose act it is, suffered.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although the intellect as a faculty is not the act of\nthe body, still the soul's essence is the act of the body, and in it\nthe intellective faculty is rooted, as was shown in the First Part,\nQ. 77, AA. 6, 8.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This argument proceeds from passion on the part of the\nproper object, according to which Christ's higher reason did not\nsuffer.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Grief is then said to be a true passion, by which the\nsoul is troubled, when the passion in the sensitive part causes\nreason to deflect from the rectitude of its act, so that it then\nfollows the passion, and has no longer free-will with regard to it.\nIn this way passion of the sensitive part did not extend to reason in\nChrist, but merely subjectively, as was stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The speculative intellect can have no pain or sadness\non the part of its object, which is truth considered absolutely, and\nwhich is its perfection: nevertheless, both grief and its cause can\nreach it in the way mentioned above.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Christ's Entire Soul Enjoyed Blessed Fruition During the\nPassion?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's entire soul did not enjoy\nblessed fruition during the Passion. For it is not possible to be sad\nand glad at the one time, since sadness and gladness are contraries.\nBut Christ's whole soul suffered grief during the Passion, as was\nstated above (A. 7). Therefore His whole soul could not enjoy\nfruition.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii) that, if sadness\nbe vehement, it not only checks the contrary delight, but every\ndelight; and conversely. But the grief of Christ's Passion was the\ngreatest, as shown above (A. 6); and likewise the enjoyment of\nfruition is also the greatest, as was laid down in the first volume\nof the Second Part (I-II, Q. 34, A. 3). Consequently, it was not\npossible for Christ's whole soul to be suffering and rejoicing at the\none time.\n\nObj. 3: Further, beatific \"fruition\" comes of the knowledge and love\nof Divine things, as Augustine says (Doctr. Christ. i). But all the\nsoul's powers do not extend to the knowledge and love of God.\nTherefore Christ's whole soul did not enjoy fruition.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): Christ's\nGodhead \"permitted His flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to\nit.\" In like fashion, since it belonged to Christ's soul, inasmuch as\nit was blessed, to enjoy fruition, His Passion did not impede\nfruition.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 7), the whole soul can be\nunderstood both according to its essence and according to all its\nfaculties. If it be understood according to its essence, then His\nwhole soul did enjoy fruition, inasmuch as it is the subject of the\nhigher part of the soul, to which it belongs, to enjoy the Godhead:\nso that as passion, by reason of the essence, is attributed to the\nhigher part of the soul, so, on the other hand, by reason of the\nsuperior part of the soul, fruition is attributed to the essence. But\nif we take the whole soul as comprising all its faculties, thus His\nentire soul did not enjoy fruition: not directly, indeed, because\nfruition is not the act of any one part of the soul; nor by any\noverflow of glory, because, since Christ was still upon earth, there\nwas no overflowing of glory from the higher part into the lower, nor\nfrom the soul into the body. But since, on the contrary, the soul's\nhigher part was not hindered in its proper acts by the lower, it\nfollows that the higher part of His soul enjoyed fruition perfectly\nwhile Christ was suffering.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The joy of fruition is not opposed directly to the\ngrief of the Passion, because they have not the same object. Now\nnothing prevents contraries from being in the same subject, but not\naccording to the same. And so the joy of fruition can appertain to\nthe higher part of reason by its proper act; but grief of the Passion\naccording to the subject. Grief of the Passion belongs to the essence\nof the soul by reason of the body, whose form the soul is; whereas\nthe joy of fruition (belongs to the soul) by reason of the faculty in\nwhich it is subjected.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Philosopher's contention is true because of the\noverflow which takes place naturally of one faculty of the soul into\nanother; but it was not so with Christ, as was said above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Such argument holds good of the totality of the soul\nwith regard to its faculties.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 9]\n\nWhether Christ Suffered at a Suitable Time?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer at a suitable\ntime. For Christ's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifice of the\nPaschal lamb: hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7): \"Christ our Pasch\nis sacrificed.\" But the paschal lamb was slain \"on the fourteenth day\nat eventide,\" as is stated in Ex. 12:6. Therefore it seems that\nChrist ought to have suffered then; which is manifestly false: for He\nwas then celebrating the Pasch with His disciples, according to\nMark's account (14:12): \"On the first day of the unleavened bread,\nwhen they sacrificed the Pasch\"; whereas it was on the following day\nthat He suffered.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's Passion is called His uplifting, according\nto John 3:14: \"So must the Son of man be lifted up.\" And Christ is\nHimself called the Sun of Justice, as we read Mal. 4:2. Therefore it\nseems that He ought to have suffered at the sixth hour, when the sun\nis at its highest point, and yet the contrary appears from Mk. 15:25:\n\"It was the third hour, and they crucified Him.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, as the sun is at its highest point in each day at\nthe sixth hour, so also it reaches its highest point in every year at\nthe summer solstice. Therefore Christ ought to have suffered about\nthe time of the summer solstice rather than about the vernal equinox.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the world was enlightened by Christ's presence in\nit, according to John 9:5: \"As long as I am in the world I am the\nlight of the world.\" Consequently it was fitting for man's salvation\nthat Christ should have lived longer in the world, so that He should\nhave suffered, not in young, but in old, age.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 13:1): \"Jesus, knowing that\nHis hour was come for Him to pass out of this world to the Father\";\nand (John 2:4): \"My hour is not yet come.\" Upon which texts Augustine\nobserves: \"When He had done as much as He deemed sufficient, then\ncame His hour, not of necessity, but of will, not of condition, but\nof power.\" Therefore Christ died at an opportune time.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was observed above (A. 1), Christ's Passion was\nsubject to His will. But His will was ruled by the Divine wisdom\nwhich \"ordereth all things\" conveniently and \"sweetly\" (Wis. 8:1).\nConsequently it must be said that Christ's Passion was enacted at an\nopportune time. Hence it is written in De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu.\nlv: \"The Saviour did everything in its proper place and season.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Some hold that Christ did die on the fourteenth day of\nthe moon, when the Jews sacrificed the Pasch: hence it is stated\n(John 18:28) that the Jews \"went not into Pilate's hall\" on the day\nof the Passion, \"that they might not be defiled, but that they might\neat the Pasch.\" Upon this Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxii in Joan.):\n\"The Jews celebrated the Pasch then; but He celebrated the Pasch on\nthe previous day, reserving His own slaying until the Friday, when\nthe old Pasch was kept.\" And this appears to tally with the statement\n(John 13:1-5) that \"before the festival day of the Pasch . . . when\nsupper was done\" . . . Christ washed \"the feet of the disciples.\"\n\nBut Matthew's account (26:17) seems opposed to this; that \"on the\nfirst day of the Azymes the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where\nwilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pasch?\" From which, as\nJerome says, \"since the fourteenth day of the first month is called\nthe day of the Azymes, when the lamb was slain, and when it was full\nmoon,\" it is quite clear that Christ kept the supper on the\nfourteenth and died on the fifteenth. And this comes out more clearly\nfrom Mk. 14:12: \"On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they\nsacrificed the Pasch,\" etc.; and from Luke 22:7: \"The day of the\nunleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the Pasch\nshould be killed.\"\n\nConsequently, then, others say that Christ ate the Pasch with His\ndisciples on the proper day--that is, on the fourteenth day of the\nmoon--\"showing thereby that up to the last day He was not opposed to\nthe law,\" as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxi in Matth.): but that the\nJews, being busied in compassing Christ's death against the law, put\noff celebrating the Pasch until the following day. And on this\naccount it is said of them that on the day of Christ's Passion they\nwere unwilling to enter Pilate's hall, \"that they might not be\ndefiled, but that they might eat the Pasch.\"\n\nBut even this solution does not tally with Mark, who says: \"On the\nfirst day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pasch.\"\nConsequently Christ and the Jews celebrated the ancient Pasch at the\none time. And as Bede says on Luke 22:7, 8: \"Although Christ who is\nour Pasch was slain on the following day--that is, on the fifteenth\nday of the moon--nevertheless, on the night when the Lamb was\nsacrificed, delivering to the disciples to be celebrated, the\nmysteries of His body and blood, and being held and bound by the\nJews, He hallowed the opening of His own immolation--that is, of His\nPassion.\"\n\nBut the words (John 13:1) \"Before the festival day of the Pasch\" are\nto be understood to refer to the fourteenth day of the moon, which\nthen fell upon the Thursday: for the fifteenth day of the moon was\nthe most solemn day of the Pasch with the Jews: and so the same day\nwhich John calls \"before the festival day of the Pasch,\" on account\nof the natural distinction of days, Matthew calls the first day of\nthe unleavened bread, because, according to the rite of the Jewish\nfestivity, the solemnity began from the evening of the preceding day.\nWhen it is said, then, that they were going to eat the Pasch on the\nfifteenth day of the month, it is to be understood that the Pasch\nthere is not called the Paschal lamb, which was sacrificed on the\nfourteenth day, but the Paschal food--that is, the unleavened\nbread--which had to be eaten by the clean. Hence Chrysostom in the\nsame passage gives another explanation, that the Pasch can be taken\nas meaning the whole feast of the Jews, which lasted seven days.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): \"'It was\nabout the sixth hour' when the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be\ncrucified,\" as John relates. For it \"was not quite the sixth hour,\nbut about the sixth--that is, it was after the fifth, and when part\nof the sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was\nended--that the darkness began, when Christ hung upon the cross. It\nis understood to have been the third hour when the Jews clamored for\nthe Lord to be crucified: and it is most clearly shown that they\ncrucified Him when they clamored out. Therefore, lest anyone might\ndivert the thought of so great a crime from the Jews to the soldiers,\nhe says: 'It was the third hour, and they crucified Him,' that they\nbefore all may be found to have crucified Him, who at the third hour\nclamored for His crucifixion. Although there are not wanting some\npersons who wish the Parasceve to be understood as the third hour,\nwhich John recalls, saying: 'It was the Parasceve, about the sixth\nhour.' For 'Parasceve' is interpreted 'preparation.' But the true\nPasch, which was celebrated in the Lord's Passion, began to be\nprepared from the ninth hour of the night--namely, when the chief\npriests said: 'He is deserving of death.'\" According to John, then,\n\"the sixth hour of the Parasceve\" lasts from that hour of the night\ndown to Christ's crucifixion; while, according to Mark, it is the\nthird hour of the day.\n\nStill, there are some who contend that this discrepancy is due to the\nerror of a Greek transcriber: since the characters employed by them\nto represent 3 and 6 are somewhat alike.\n\nReply Obj. 3: According to the author of De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test.,\nqu. lv, \"our Lord willed to redeem and reform the world by His\nPassion, at the time of year at which He had created it--that is, at\nthe equinox. It is then that day grows upon night; because by our\nSaviour's Passion we are brought from darkness to light.\" And since\nthe perfect enlightening will come about at Christ's second coming,\ntherefore the season of His second coming is compared (Matt. 24:32,\n33) to the summer in these words: \"When the branch thereof is now\ntender, and the leaves come forth, you know that summer is nigh: so\nyou also, when you shall see all these things, know ye that it is\nnigh even at the doors.\" And then also shall be Christ's greatest\nexaltation.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Christ willed to suffer while yet young, for three\nreasons. First of all, to commend the more His love by giving up His\nlife for us when He was in His most perfect state of life. Secondly,\nbecause it was not becoming for Him to show any decay of nature nor\nto be subject to disease, as stated above (Q. 14, A. 4). Thirdly,\nthat by dying and rising at an early age Christ might exhibit\nbeforehand in His own person the future condition of those who rise\nagain. Hence it is written (Eph. 4:13): \"Until we all meet into the\nunity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a\nperfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ.\"\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 10]\n\nWhether Christ Suffered in a Suitable Place?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not suffer in a suitable\nplace. For Christ suffered according to His human nature, which was\nconceived in Nazareth and born in Bethlehem. Consequently it seems\nthat He ought not to have suffered in Jerusalem, but in Nazareth or\nBethlehem.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the reality ought to correspond with the figure. But\nChrist's Passion was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Law, and\nthese were offered up in the Temple. Therefore it seems that Christ\nought to have suffered in the Temple, and not outside the city gate.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the medicine should correspond with the disease. But\nChrist's Passion was the medicine against Adam's sin: and Adam was\nnot buried in Jerusalem, but in Hebron; for it is written (Josh.\n14:15): \"The name of Hebron before was called Cariath-Arbe: Adam the\ngreatest in the land of [Vulg.: 'among'] the Enacims was laid there.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 13:33): \"It cannot be that a\nprophet perish out of Jerusalem.\" Therefore it was fitting that He\nshould die in Jerusalem.\n\n_I answer that,_ According to the author of _De Qq. Vet. et Nov.\nTest.,_ qu. lv, \"the Saviour did everything in its proper place and\nseason,\" because, as all things are in His hands, so are all places:\nand consequently, since Christ suffered at a suitable time, so did He\nin a suitable place.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ died most appropriately in Jerusalem. First of\nall, because Jerusalem was God's chosen place for the offering of\nsacrifices to Himself: and these figurative sacrifices foreshadowed\nChrist's Passion, which is a true sacrifice, according to Eph. 5:2:\n\"He hath delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God\nfor an odor of sweetness.\" Hence Bede says in a Homily (xxiii): \"When\nthe Passion drew nigh, our Lord willed to draw nigh to the place of\nthe Passion\"--that is to say, to Jerusalem--whither He came five days\nbefore the Pasch; just as, according to the legal precept, the\nPaschal lamb was led to the place of immolation five days before the\nPasch, which is the tenth day of the moon.\n\nSecondly, because the virtue of His Passion was to be spread over the\nwhole world, He wished to suffer in the center of the habitable\nworld--that is, in Jerusalem. Accordingly it is written (Ps. 73:12):\n\"But God is our King before ages: He hath wrought salvation in the\nmidst of the earth\"--that is, in Jerusalem, which is called \"the\nnavel of the earth\" [*Cf. Jerome's comment on Ezech. 5:5].\n\nThirdly, because it was specially in keeping with His humility: that,\nas He chose the most shameful manner of death, so likewise it was\npart of His humility that He did not refuse to suffer in so\ncelebrated a place. Hence Pope Leo says (Serm. I in Epiph.): \"He who\nhad taken upon Himself the form of a servant chose Bethlehem for His\nnativity and Jerusalem for His Passion.\"\n\nFourthly, He willed to suffer in Jerusalem, where the chief priests\ndwelt, to show that the wickedness of His slayers arose from the\nchiefs of the Jewish people. Hence it is written (Acts 4:27): \"There\nassembled together in this city against Thy holy child Jesus whom\nThou hast anointed, Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and\nthe people of Israel.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: For three reasons Christ suffered outside the gate, and\nnot in the Temple nor in the city. First of all, that the truth might\ncorrespond with the figure. For the calf and the goat which were\noffered in most solemn sacrifice for expiation on behalf of the\nentire multitude were burnt outside the camp, as commanded in Lev.\n16:27. Hence it is written (Heb. 13:27): \"For the bodies of those\nbeasts, whose blood is brought into the holies by the high-priest for\nsin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might\nsanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without the gate.\"\n\nSecondly, to set us the example of shunning worldly conversation.\nAccordingly the passage continues: \"Let us go forth therefore to Him\nwithout the camp, bearing His reproach.\"\n\nThirdly, as Chrysostom says in a sermon on the Passion (Hom. i De\nCruce et Latrone): \"The Lord was not willing to suffer under a roof,\nnor in the Jewish Temple, lest the Jews might take away the saving\nsacrifice, and lest you might think He was offered for that people\nonly. Consequently, it was beyond the city and outside the walls,\nthat you may learn it was a universal sacrifice, an oblation for the\nwhole world, a cleansing for all.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: According to Jerome, in his commentary on Matt. 27:33,\n\"someone explained 'the place of Calvary' as being the place where\nAdam was buried; and that it was so called because the skull of the\nfirst man was buried there. A pleasing interpretation indeed, and one\nsuited to catch the ear of the people, but, still, not the true one.\nFor the spots where the condemned are beheaded are outside the city\nand beyond the gates, deriving thence the name of Calvary--that is,\nof the beheaded. Jesus, accordingly, was crucified there, that the\nstandards of martyrdom might be uplifted over what was formerly the\nplace of the condemned. But Adam was buried close by Hebron and Arbe,\nas we read in the book of Jesus Ben Nave.\" But Jesus was to be\ncrucified in the common spot of the condemned rather than beside\nAdam's sepulchre, to make it manifest that Christ's cross was the\nremedy, not only for Adam's personal sin, but also for the sin of the\nentire world.\n_______________________\n\nELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 11]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting for Christ to Be Crucified with Thieves?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been\ncrucified with thieves, because it is written (2 Cor. 6:14): \"What\nparticipation hath justice with injustice?\" But for our sakes Christ\n\"of God is made unto us justice\" (1 Cor. 1:30); whereas iniquity\napplies to thieves. Therefore it was not fitting for Christ to be\ncrucified with thieves.\n\nObj. 2: Further, on Matt. 26:35, \"Though I should die with Thee, I\nwill not deny Thee,\" Origen (Tract. xxxv in Matth.) observes: \"It was\nnot men's lot to die with Jesus, since He died for all.\" Again, on\nLuke 22:33, \"I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison and death,\"\nAmbrose says: \"Our Lord's Passion has followers, but not equals.\" It\nseems, then, much less fitting for Christ to suffer with thieves.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 27:44) that \"the thieves who\nwere crucified with Him reproached Him.\" But in Luke 22:42 it is\nstated that one of them who were crucified with Christ cried out to\nHim: \"Lord, remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy kingdom.\" It\nseems, then, that besides the blasphemous thieves there was another\nman who did not blaspheme Him: and so the Evangelist's account does\nnot seem to be accurate when it says that Christ was crucified with\nthieves.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It was foretold by Isaias (53:12): \"And He was\nreputed with the wicked.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ was crucified between thieves from one\nintention on the part of the Jews, and from quite another on the part\nof God's ordaining. As to the intention of the Jews, Chrysostom\nremarks (Hom. lxxxvii in Matth.) that they crucified the two thieves,\none on either side, \"that He might be made to share their guilt. But\nit did not happen so; because mention is never made of them; whereas\nHis cross is honored everywhere. Kings lay aside their crowns to take\nup the cross: on their purple robes, on their diadems, on their\nweapons, on the consecrated table, everywhere the cross shines forth.\"\n\nAs to God's ordinance, Christ was crucified with thieves, because, as\nJerome says on Matt. 27:33: \"As Christ became accursed of the cross\nfor us, so for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among\nthe guilty.\" Secondly, as Pope Leo observes (Serm. iv de Passione):\n\"Two thieves were crucified, one on His right hand and one on His\nleft, to set forth by the very appearance of the gibbet that\nseparation of all men which shall be made in His hour of judgment.\"\nAnd Augustine on John 7:36: \"The very cross, if thou mark it well,\nwas a judgment-seat: for the judge being set in the midst, the one\nwho believed was delivered, the other who mocked Him was condemned.\nAlready He has signified what He shall do to the quick and the dead;\nsome He will set on His right, others on His left hand.\" Thirdly,\naccording to Hilary (Comm. xxxiii in Matth.): \"Two thieves are set,\none upon His right and one upon His left, to show that all mankind is\ncalled to the sacrament of His Passion. But because of the cleavage\nbetween believers and unbelievers, the multitude is divided into\nright and left, those on the right being saved by the justification\nof faith.\" Fourthly, because, as Bede says on Mk. 15:27: \"The thieves\ncrucified with our Lord denote those who, believing in and confessing\nChrist, either endure the conflict of martyrdom or keep the\ninstitutes of stricter observance. But those who do the like for the\nsake of everlasting glory are denoted by the faith of the thief on\nthe right; while others who do so for the sake of human applause copy\nthe mind and behavior of the one on the left.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Just as Christ was not obliged to die, but willingly\nsubmitted to death so as to vanquish death by His power: so neither\ndeserved He to be classed with thieves; but willed to be reputed with\nthe ungodly that He might destroy ungodliness by His power.\nAccordingly, Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxiv in Joan.) that \"to convert\nthe thief upon the cross, and lead him into paradise, was no less a\nwonder than to shake the rocks.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: It was not fitting that anyone else should die with\nChrist from the same cause as Christ: hence Origen continues thus in\nthe same passage: \"All had been under sin, and all required that\nanother should die for them, not they for others.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): We can\nunderstand Matthew \"as putting the plural for the singular\" when he\nsaid \"the thieves reproached Him.\" Or it may be said, with Jerome,\nthat \"at first both blasphemed Him, but afterwards one believed in\nHim on witnessing the wonders.\"\n_______________________\n\nTWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 46, Art. 12]\n\nWhether Christ's Passion Is to Be Attributed to His Godhead?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion is to be attributed\nto His Godhead; for it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): \"If they had known\nit, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.\" But Christ is\nthe Lord of glory in respect of His Godhead. Therefore Christ's\nPassion is attributed to Him in respect of His Godhead.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the principle of men's salvation is the Godhead\nItself, according to Ps. 36:39: \"But the salvation of the just is\nfrom the Lord.\" Consequently, if Christ's Passion did not appertain\nto His Godhead, it would seem that it could not produce fruit in us.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Jews were punished for slaying Christ as for\nmurdering God Himself; as is proved by the gravity of the punishment.\nNow this would not be so if the Passion were not attributed to the\nGodhead. Therefore Christ's Passion should be so attributed.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.): \"The Word is\nimpassible whose Nature is Divine.\" But what is impassible cannot\nsuffer. Consequently, Christ's Passion did not concern His Godhead.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 2, AA. 1, 2, 3, 6), the union of\nthe human nature with the Divine was effected in the Person, in the\nhypostasis, in the suppositum, yet observing the distinction of\nnatures; so that it is the same Person and hypostasis of the Divine\nand human natures, while each nature retains that which is proper to\nit. And therefore, as stated above (Q. 16, A. 4), the Passion is to\nbe attributed to the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not because of\nthe Divine Nature, which is impassible, but by reason of the human\nnature. Hence, in a Synodal Epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes., P.\ni, cap. 26] we read: \"If any man does not confess that the Word of\nGod suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh, let him be\nanathema.\" Therefore Christ's Passion belongs to the _suppositum_ of\nthe Divine Nature by reason of the passible nature assumed, but not\non account of the impassible Divine Nature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Lord of glory is said to be crucified, not as the\nLord of glory, but as a man capable of suffering.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As is said in a sermon of the Council of Ephesus\n[*P. iii, cap. 10], \"Christ's death being, as it were, God's\ndeath\"--namely, by union in Person--\"destroyed death\"; since He who\nsuffered \"was both God and man. For God's Nature was not wounded,\nnor did It undergo any change by those sufferings.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As the passage quoted goes on to say: \"The Jews did not\ncrucify one who was simply a man; they inflicted their presumptions\nupon God. For suppose a prince to speak by word of mouth, and that\nhis words are committed to writing on a parchment and sent out to the\ncities, and that some rebel tears up the document, he will be led\nforth to endure the death sentence, not for merely tearing up a\ndocument, but as destroying the imperial message. Let not the Jew,\nthen, stand in security, as crucifying a mere man; since what he saw\nwas as the parchment, but what was hidden under it was the imperial\nWord, the Son by nature, not the mere utterance of a tongue.\"\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 47\n\nOF THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF CHRIST'S PASSION\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the efficient cause of Christ's Passion,\nconcerning which there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ was slain by others, or by Himself?\n\n(2) From what motive did He deliver Himself up to the Passion?\n\n(3) Whether the Father delivered Him up to suffer?\n\n(4) Whether it was fitting that He should suffer at the hands of the\nGentiles, or rather of the Jews?\n\n(5) Whether His slayers knew who He was?\n\n(6) Of the sin of them who slew Christ.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Was Slain by Another or by Himself?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was not slain by another, but\nby Himself. For He says Himself (John 10:18): \"No man taketh My life\nfrom Me, but I lay it down of Myself.\" But he is said to kill another\nwho takes away his life. Consequently, Christ was not slain by\nothers, but by Himself.\n\nObj. 2: Further, those slain by others sink gradually from exhausted\nnature, and this is strikingly apparent in the crucified: for, as\nAugustine says (De Trin. iv): \"Those who were crucified were\ntormented with a lingering death.\" But this did not happen in\nChrist's case, since \"crying out, with a loud voice, He yielded up\nthe ghost\" (Matt. 27:50). Therefore Christ was not slain by others,\nbut by Himself.\n\nObj. 3: Further, those slain by others suffer a violent death, and\nhence die unwillingly, because violent is opposed to voluntary. But\nAugustine says (De Trin. iv): \"Christ's spirit did not quit the flesh\nunwillingly, but because He willed it, when He willed it, and as He\nwilled it.\" Consequently Christ was not slain by others, but by\nHimself.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 18:33): \"After they have\nscourged Him, they will put him to death.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing may cause an effect in two ways: in the\nfirst instance by acting directly so as to produce the effect; and in\nthis manner Christ's persecutors slew Him because they inflicted on\nHim what was a sufficient cause of death, and with the intention of\nslaying Him, and the effect followed, since death resulted from that\ncause. In another way someone causes an effect indirectly--that is,\nby not preventing it when he can do so; just as one person is said to\ndrench another by not closing the window through which the shower is\nentering: and in this way Christ was the cause of His own Passion and\ndeath. For He could have prevented His Passion and death. Firstly, by\nholding His enemies in check, so that they would not have been eager\nto slay Him, or would have been powerless to do so. Secondly, because\nHis spirit had the power of preserving His fleshly nature from the\ninfliction of any injury; and Christ's soul had this power, because\nit was united in unity of person with the Divine Word, as Augustine\nsays (De Trin. iv). Therefore, since Christ's soul did not repel the\ninjury inflicted on His body, but willed His corporeal nature to\nsuccumb to such injury, He is said to have laid down His life, or to\nhave died voluntarily.\n\nReply Obj. 1: When we hear the words, \"No man taketh away My life\nfrom Me,\" we must understand \"against My will\": for that is properly\nsaid to be \"taken away\" which one takes from someone who is unwilling\nand unable to resist.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In order for Christ to show that the Passion inflicted\nby violence did not take away His life, He preserved the strength of\nHis bodily nature, so that at the last moment He was able to cry out\nwith a loud voice: and hence His death should be computed among His\nother miracles. Accordingly it is written (Mk. 15:39): \"And the\ncenturion who stood over against Him, seeing that crying out in this\nmanner, He had given up the ghost, said: Indeed, this man was the Son\nof God.\" It was also a subject of wonder in Christ's death that He\ndied sooner than the others who were tormented with the same\nsuffering. Hence John says (19:32) that \"they broke the legs of the\nfirst, and of the other that was crucified with Him,\" that they might\ndie more speedily; \"but after they were come to Jesus, when they saw\nthat He was already dead, they did not break His legs.\" Mark also\nstates (15:44) that \"Pilate wondered that He should be already dead.\"\nFor as of His own will His bodily nature kept its vigor to the end,\nso likewise, when He willed, He suddenly succumbed to the injury\ninflicted.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ at the same time suffered violence in order to\ndie, and died, nevertheless, voluntarily; because violence was\ninflicted on His body, which, however, prevailed over His body only\nso far as He willed it.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Died Out of Obedience?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not die out of obedience.\nFor obedience is referred to a command. But we do not read that\nChrist was commanded to suffer. Therefore He did not suffer out of\nobedience.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a man is said to do from obedience what he does from\nnecessity of precept. But Christ did not suffer necessarily, but\nvoluntarily. Therefore He did not suffer out of obedience.\n\nObj. 3: Further, charity is a more excellent virtue than obedience.\nBut we read that Christ suffered out of charity, according to Eph.\n5:2: \"Walk in love, as Christ also has loved us, and delivered\nHimself up for us.\" Therefore Christ's Passion ought to be ascribed\nrather to charity than to obedience.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:8): \"He became obedient\" to\nthe Father \"unto death.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was befitting that Christ should suffer out of\nobedience. First of all, because it was in keeping with human\njustification, that \"as by the disobedience of one man, many were\nmade sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made\njust,\" as is written Rom. 5:19. Secondly, it was suitable for\nreconciling man with God: hence it is written (Rom. 5:10): \"We are\nreconciled to God by the death of His Son,\" in so far as Christ's\ndeath was a most acceptable sacrifice to God, according to Eph. 5:2:\n\"He delivered Himself for us an oblation and a sacrifice to God for\nan odor of sweetness.\" Now obedience is preferred to all sacrifices.\naccording to 1 Kings 15:22: \"Obedience is better than sacrifices.\"\nTherefore it was fitting that the sacrifice of Christ's Passion and\ndeath should proceed from obedience. Thirdly, it was in keeping with\nHis victory whereby He triumphed over death and its author; because a\nsoldier cannot conquer unless he obey his captain. And so the\nMan-Christ secured the victory through being obedient to God,\naccording to Prov. 21:28: \"An obedient man shall speak of victory.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ received a command from the Father to suffer.\nFor it is written (John 10:18): \"I have power to lay down My life,\nand I have power to take it up again: (and) this commandment have I\nreceived of My Father\"--namely, of laying down His life and of\nresuming it again. \"From which,\" as Chrysostom says (Hom. lix in\nJoan.), it is not to be understood \"that at first He awaited the\ncommand, and that He had need to be told, but He showed the\nproceeding to be a voluntary one, and destroyed suspicion of\nopposition\" to the Father. Yet because the Old Law was ended by\nChrist's death, according to His dying words, \"It is consummated\"\n(John 19:30), it may be understood that by His suffering He fulfilled\nall the precepts of the Old Law. He fulfilled those of the moral\norder which are founded on the precepts of charity, inasmuch as He\nsuffered both out of love of the Father, according to John 14:31:\n\"That the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father\nhath given Me commandment, so do I: arise, let us go hence\"--namely,\nto the place of His Passion: and out of love of His neighbor,\naccording to Gal. 2:20: \"He loved me, and delivered Himself up for\nme.\" Christ likewise by His Passion fulfilled the ceremonial precepts\nof the Law, which are chiefly ordained for sacrifices and oblations,\nin so far as all the ancient sacrifices were figures of that true\nsacrifice which the dying Christ offered for us. Hence it is written\n(Col. 2:16, 17): \"Let no man judge you in meat or drink, or in\nrespect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths,\nwhich are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's,\" for\nthe reason that Christ is compared to them as a body is to a shadow.\nChrist also by His Passion fulfilled the judicial precepts of the\nLaw, which are chiefly ordained for making compensation to them who\nhave suffered wrong, since, as is written Ps. 68:5: He \"paid that\nwhich\" He \"took not away,\" suffering Himself to be fastened to a tree\non account of the apple which man had plucked from the tree against\nGod's command.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although obedience implies necessity with regard to the\nthing commanded, nevertheless it implies free-will with regard to the\nfulfilling of the precept. And, indeed, such was Christ's obedience,\nfor, although His Passion and death, considered in themselves, were\nrepugnant to the natural will, yet Christ resolved to fulfill God's\nwill with respect to the same, according to Ps. 39:9: \"That I should\ndo Thy will: O my God, I have desired it.\" Hence He said (Matt.\n26:42): \"If this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, Thy\nwill be done.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: For the same reason Christ suffered out of charity and\nout of obedience; because He fulfilled even the precepts of charity\nout of obedience only; and was obedient, out of love, to the Father's\ncommand.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 3]\n\nWhether God the Father Delivered Up Christ to the Passion?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that God the Father did not deliver up\nChrist to the Passion. For it is a wicked and cruel act to hand over\nan innocent man to torment and death. But, as it is written (Deut.\n32:4): \"God is faithful, and without any iniquity.\" Therefore He did\nnot hand over the innocent Christ to His Passion and death.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is not likely that a man be given over to death\nby himself and by another also. But Christ gave Himself up for us, as\nit is written (Isa. 53:12): \"He hath delivered His soul unto death.\"\nConsequently it does not appear that God the Father delivered Him up.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Judas is held to be guilty because he betrayed\nChrist to the Jews, according to John 6:71: \"One of you is a devil,\"\n  alluding to Judas, who was to betray Him. The Jews are likewise\nreviled for delivering Him up to Pilate; as we read in John 18:35:\n\"Thy own nation, and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me.\"\nMoreover, as is related in John 19:16: Pilate \"delivered Him to them\nto be crucified\"; and according to 2 Cor. 6:14: there is no\n\"participation of justice with injustice.\" It seems, therefore, that\nGod the Father did not deliver up Christ to His Passion.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 8:32): \"God hath not spared\nHis own Son, but delivered Him up for us all.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As observed above (A. 2), Christ suffered\nvoluntarily out of obedience to the Father. Hence in three respects\nGod the Father did deliver up Christ to the Passion. In the first\nway, because by His eternal will He preordained Christ's Passion for\nthe deliverance of the human race, according to the words of Isaias\n(53:6): \"The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquities of us all\"; and\nagain (Isa. 53:10): \"The Lord was pleased to bruise Him in\ninfirmity.\" Secondly, inasmuch as, by the infusion of charity, He\ninspired Him with the will to suffer for us; hence we read in the\nsame passage: \"He was offered because it was His own will\" (Isa.\n53:7). Thirdly, by not shielding Him from the Passion, but abandoning\nHim to His persecutors: thus we read (Matt. 27:46) that Christ, while\nhanging upon the cross, cried out: \"My God, My God, why hast Thou\nforsaken Me?\" because, to wit, He left Him to the power of His\npersecutors, as Augustine says (Ep. cxl).\n\nReply Obj. 1: It is indeed a wicked and cruel act to hand over an\ninnocent man to torment and to death against his will. Yet God the\nFather did not so deliver up Christ, but inspired Him with the will\nto suffer for us. God's \"severity\" (cf. Rom. 11:22) is thereby shown,\nfor He would not remit sin without penalty: and the Apostle indicates\nthis when (Rom. 8:32) he says: \"God spared not even His own Son.\"\nLikewise His \"goodness\" (Rom. 11:22) shines forth, since by no\npenalty endured could man pay Him enough satisfaction: and the\nApostle denotes this when he says: \"He delivered Him up for us all\":\nand, again (Rom. 3:25): \"Whom\"--that is to say, Christ--God \"hath\nproposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ as God delivered Himself up to death by the same\nwill and action as that by which the Father delivered Him up; but as\nman He gave Himself up by a will inspired of the Father. Consequently\nthere is no contrariety in the Father delivering Him up and in Christ\ndelivering Himself up.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The same act, for good or evil, is judged differently,\naccordingly as it proceeds from a different source. The Father\ndelivered up Christ, and Christ surrendered Himself, from charity,\nand consequently we give praise to both: but Judas betrayed Christ\nfrom greed, the Jews from envy, and Pilate from worldly fear, for he\nstood in fear of Caesar; and these accordingly are held guilty.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 4]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting for Christ to Suffer at the Hands of the\nGentiles?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should suffer at the\nhands of the Gentiles. For since men were to be freed from sin by\nChrist's death, it would seem fitting that very few should sin in His\ndeath. But the Jews sinned in His death, on whose behalf it is said\n(Matt. 21:38): \"This is the heir; come, let us kill him.\" It seems\nfitting, therefore, that the Gentiles should not be implicated in the\nsin of Christ's slaying.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the truth should respond to the figure. Now it was\nnot the Gentiles but the Jews who offered the figurative sacrifices\nof the Old Law. Therefore neither ought Christ's Passion, which was a\ntrue sacrifice, to be fulfilled at the hands of the Gentiles.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as related John 5:18, \"the Jews sought to kill\"\nChrist because \"He did not only break the sabbath, but also said God\nwas His Father, making Himself equal to God.\" But these things seemed\nto be only against the Law of the Jews: hence they themselves said\n(John 19:7): \"According to the Law He ought to die because He made\nHimself the Son of God.\" It seems fitting, therefore, that Christ\nshould suffer, at the hands not of the Gentiles, but of the Jews, and\nthat what they said was untrue: \"It is not lawful for us to put any\nman to death,\" since many sins are punishable with death according to\nthe Law, as is evident from Lev. 20.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord Himself says (Matt. 20:19): \"They shall\ndeliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and\ncrucified.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The effect of Christ's Passion was foreshown by the\nvery manner of His death. For Christ's Passion wrought its effect of\nsalvation first of all among the Jews, very many of whom were\nbaptized in His death, as is evident from Acts 2:41 and Acts 4:4.\nAfterwards, by the preaching of Jews, Christ's Passion passed on to\nthe Gentiles. Consequently it was fitting that Christ should begin\nHis sufferings at the hands of the Jews, and, after they had\ndelivered Him up, finish His Passion at the hands of the Gentiles.\n\nReply Obj. 1: In order to demonstrate the fulness of His love, on\naccount of which He suffered, Christ upon the cross prayed for His\npersecutors. Therefore, that the fruits of His petition might accrue\nto Jews and Gentiles, Christ willed to suffer from both.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's Passion was the offering of a sacrifice,\ninasmuch as He endured death of His own free-will out of charity: but\nin so far as He suffered from His persecutors it was not a sacrifice,\nbut a most grievous sin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Tract. cxiv in Joan.): \"The Jews\nsaid that 'it is not lawful for us to put any man to death,' because\nthey understood that it was not lawful for them to put any man to\ndeath\" owing to the sacredness of the feast-day, which they had\nalready begun to celebrate. or, as Chrysostom observes (Hom. lxxxiii\nin Joan.), because they wanted Him to be slain, not as a transgressor\nof the Law, but as a public enemy, since He had made Himself out to\nbe a king, of which it was not their place to judge. Or, again,\nbecause it was not lawful for them to crucify Him (as they wanted\nto), but to stone Him, as they did to Stephen. Better still is it to\nsay that the power of putting to death was taken from them by the\nRomans, whose subjects they were.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Christ's Persecutors Knew Who He Was?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's persecutors did know who He\nwas. For it is written (Matt. 21:38) that the husbandmen seeing the\nson said within themselves: \"This is the heir; come, let us kill\nhim.\" On this Jerome remarks: \"Our Lord proves most manifestly by\nthese words that the rulers of the Jews crucified the Son of God, not\nfrom ignorance, but out of envy: for they understood that it was He\nto whom the Father says by the Prophet: 'Ask of Me, and I will give\nThee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance.'\" It seems, therefore, that\nthey knew Him to be Christ or the Son of God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, our Lord says (John 15:24): \"But now they have both\nseen and hated both Me and My Father.\" Now what is seen is known\nmanifestly. Therefore the Jews, knowing Christ, inflicted the Passion\non Him out of hatred.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is said in a sermon delivered in the Council of\nEphesus (P. iii, cap. x): \"Just as he who tears up the imperial\nmessage is doomed to die, as despising the prince's word; so the Jew,\nwho crucified Him whom he had seen, will pay the penalty for daring\nto lay his hands on God the Word Himself.\" Now this would not be so\nhad they not known Him to be the Son of God, because their ignorance\nwould have excused them. Therefore it seems that the Jews in\ncrucifying Christ knew Him to be the Son of God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 2:8): \"If they had known it,\nthey would never have crucified the Lord of glory.\" And (Acts 3:17),\nPeter, addressing the Jews, says: \"I know that you did it through\nignorance, as did also your rulers.\" Likewise the Lord hanging upon\nthe cross said: \"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they\ndo\" (Luke 23:34).\n\n_I answer that,_ Among the Jews some were elders, and others of\nlesser degree. Now according to the author of De Qq. Nov. et Vet.\nTest., qu. lxvi, the elders, who were called \"rulers, knew,\" as did\nalso the devils, \"that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for\nthey saw all the signs in Him which the prophets said would come to\npass: but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead.\" Consequently\nthe Apostle says: \"If they had known it, they would never have\ncrucified the Lord of glory.\" It must, however, be understood that\ntheir ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it\nwere, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead;\nyet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ; neither\nwould they believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son\nof God. Hence He Himself says of them (John 15:22): \"If I had not\ncome, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have\nno excuse for their sin.\" And afterwards He adds (John 15:24): \"If I\nhad not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they\nwould not have sin.\" And so the expression employed by Job (21:14)\ncan be accepted on their behalf: \"(Who) said to God: depart from us,\nwe desire not the knowledge of Thy ways.\"\n\nBut those of lesser degree--namely, the common folk--who had not\ngrasped the mysteries of the Scriptures, did not fully comprehend\nthat He was the Christ or the Son of God. For although some of them\nbelieved in Him, yet the multitude did not; and if they doubted\nsometimes whether He was the Christ, on account of the manifold signs\nand force of His teaching, as is stated John 7:31, 41, nevertheless\nthey were deceived afterwards by their rulers, so that they did not\nbelieve Him to be the Son of God or the Christ. Hence Peter said to\nthem: \"I know that you did it through ignorance, as did also your\nrulers\"--namely, because they were seduced by the rulers.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Those words are spoken by the husbandmen of the\nvineyard; and these signify the rulers of the people, who knew Him to\nbe the heir, inasmuch as they knew Him to be the Christ promised in\nthe Law, but the words of Ps. 2:8 seem to militate against this\nanswer: \"Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy\ninheritance\"; which are addressed to Him of whom it is said: \"Thou\nart My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.\" If, then, they knew Him\nto be the one to whom the words were addressed: \"Ask of Me, and I\nwill give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance,\" it follows that\nthey knew Him to be the Son of God. Chrysostom, too, says upon the\nsame passage that \"they knew Him to be the Son of God.\" Bede\nlikewise, commenting on the words, \"For they know not what they do\"\n(Luke 23:34), says: \"It is to be observed that He does not pray for\nthem who, understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to\ncrucify Him rather than acknowledge Him.\" But to this it may be\nreplied that they knew Him to be the Son of God, not from His Nature,\nbut from the excellence of His singular grace.\n\nYet we may hold that they are said to have known also that He was\nverily the Son of God, in that they had evident signs thereof: yet\nout of hatred and envy, they refused credence to these signs, by\nwhich they might have known that He was the Son of God.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The words quoted are preceded by the following: \"If I\nhad not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they\nwould not have sin\"; and then follow the words: \"But now they have\nboth seen and hated both Me and My Father.\" Now all this shows that\nwhile they beheld Christ's marvelous works, it was owing to their\nhatred that they did not know Him to be the Son of God.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but\nseems, rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so\nstrongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he\navoid sinning. The Jews therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of\nthe Man-Christ, but also as of God.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 47, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Sin of Those Who Crucified Christ Was Most Grievous?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the sin of Christ's crucifiers was\nnot the most grievous. Because the sin which has some excuse cannot\nbe most grievous. But our Lord Himself excused the sin of His\ncrucifiers when He said: \"Father, forgive them: for they know not\nwhat they do\" (Luke 23:34). Therefore theirs was not the most\ngrievous sin.\n\nObj. 2: Further, our Lord said to Pilate (John 19:11): \"He that hath\ndelivered Me to thee hath the greater sin.\" But it was Pilate who\ncaused Christ to be crucified by his minions. Therefore the sin of\nJudas the traitor seems to be greater than that of those who\ncrucified Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v): \"No one\nsuffers injustice willingly\"; and in the same place he adds: \"Where\nno one suffers injustice, nobody works injustice.\" Consequently\nnobody wreaks injustice upon a willing subject. But Christ suffered\nwillingly, as was shown above (AA. 1, 2). Therefore those who\ncrucified Christ did Him no injustice; and hence their sin was not\nthe most grievous.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Chrysostom, commenting on the words, \"Fill ye up,\nthen, the measure of your fathers\" (Matt. 23:32), says: \"In very\ntruth they exceeded the measure of their fathers; for these latter\nslew men, but they crucified God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), the rulers of the Jews knew\nthat He was the Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, it\nwas affected ignorance, which could not excuse them. Therefore their\nsin was the most grievous, both on account of the kind of sin, as\nwell as from the malice of their will. The Jews also of the common\norder sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one\nrespect their crime was lessened by reason of their ignorance. Hence\nBede, commenting on Luke 23:34, \"Father, forgive them, for they know\nnot what they do,\" says: \"He prays for them who know not what they\nare doing, as having the zeal of God, but not according to\nknowledge.\" But the sin of the Gentiles, by whose hands He was\ncrucified, was much more excusable, since they had no knowledge of\nthe Law.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As stated above, the excuse made by our Lord is not to\nbe referred to the rulers among the Jews, but to the common people.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Judas did not deliver up Christ to Pilate, but to the\nchief priests who gave Him up to Pilate, according to John 18:35:\n\"Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee up to me.\"\nBut the sin of all these was greater than that of Pilate, who slew\nChrist from fear of Caesar; and even greater than the sin of the\nsoldiers who crucified Him at the governor's bidding, not out of\ncupidity like Judas, nor from envy and hate like the chief priests.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ, indeed willed His Passion just as the Father\nwilled it; yet He did not will the unjust action of the Jews.\nConsequently Christ's slayers are not excused of their injustice.\nNevertheless, whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one\nslain, but likewise to God and to the State; just as he who kills\nhimself, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v). Hence it was that David\ncondemned to death the man who \"did not fear to lay hands upon the\nLord's anointed,\" even though he (Saul) had requested it, as related\n2 Kings 1:5-14.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 48\n\nOF THE EFFICIENCY OF CHRIST'S PASSION\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe now have to consider Christ's Passion as to its effect; first of\nall, as to the manner in which it was brought about; and, secondly,\nas to the effect in itself. Under the first heading there are six\npoints for inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of\nmerit?\n\n(2) Whether it was by way of atonement?\n\n(3) Whether it was by way of sacrifice?\n\n(4) Whether it was by way of redemption?\n\n(5) Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer?\n\n(6) Whether (the Passion) secured man's salvation efficiently?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ's Passion Brought About Our Salvation by Way of Merit?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about\nour salvation by way of merit. For the sources of our sufferings are\nnot within us. But no one merits or is praised except for that whose\nprinciple lies within him. Therefore Christ's Passion wrought nothing\nby way of merit.\n\nObj. 2: Further, from the beginning of His conception Christ merited\nfor Himself and for us, as stated above (Q. 9, A. 4; Q. 34, A. 3).\nBut it is superfluous to merit over again what has been merited\nbefore. Therefore by His Passion Christ did not merit our salvation.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the source of merit is charity. But Christ's charity\nwas not made greater by the Passion than it was before. Therefore He\ndid not merit our salvation by suffering more than He had already.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on the words of Phil. 2:9, \"Therefore God exalted\nHim,\" etc., Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): \"The lowliness\" of\nthe Passion \"merited glory; glory was the reward of lowliness.\" But\nHe was glorified, not merely in Himself, but likewise in His faithful\nones, as He says Himself (John 17:10). Therefore it appears that He\nmerited the salvation of the faithful.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 7, AA. 1, 9; Q. 8, AA. 1, 5),\ngrace was bestowed upon Christ, not only as an individual, but\ninasmuch as He is the Head of the Church, so that it might overflow\ninto His members; and therefore Christ's works are referred to\nHimself and to His members in the same way as the works of any other\nman in a state of grace are referred to himself. But it is evident\nthat whosoever suffers for justice's sake, provided that he be in a\nstate of grace, merits his salvation thereby, according to Matt.\n5:10: \"Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake.\"\nConsequently Christ by His Passion merited salvation, not only for\nHimself, but likewise for all His members.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Suffering, as such, is caused by an outward principle:\nbut inasmuch as one bears it willingly, it has an inward principle.\n\nReply Obj. 2: From the beginning of His conception Christ merited our\neternal salvation; but on our side there were some obstacles, whereby\nwe were hindered from securing the effect of His preceding merits:\nconsequently, in order to remove such hindrances, \"it was necessary\nfor Christ to suffer,\" as stated above (Q. 46, A. 3).\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's Passion has a special effect, which His\npreceding merits did not possess, not on account of greater charity,\nbut because of the nature of the work, which was suitable for such an\neffect, as is clear from the arguments brought forward above all the\nfittingness of Christ's Passion (Q. 46, AA, 3, 4).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ's Passion Brought About Our Salvation by Way of\nAtonement?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about\nour salvation by way of atonement. For it seems that to make the\natonement devolves on him who commits the sin; as is clear in the\nother parts of penance, because he who has done the wrong must grieve\nover it and confess it. But Christ never sinned, according to 1 Pet.\n2:22: \"Who did no sin.\" Therefore He made no atonement by His\npersonal suffering.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no atonement is made to another by committing a\ngraver offense. But in Christ's Passion the gravest of all offenses\nwas perpetrated, because those who slew Him sinned most grievously,\nas stated above (Q. 47, A. 6). Consequently it seems that atonement\ncould not be made to God by Christ's Passion.\n\nObj. 3: Further, atonement implies equality with the trespass, since\nit is an act of justice. But Christ's Passion does not appear equal\nto all the sins of the human race, because Christ did not suffer in\nHis Godhead, but in His flesh, according to 1 Pet. 4:1: \"Christ\ntherefore having suffered in the flesh.\" Now the soul, which is the\nsubject of sin, is of greater account than the flesh. Therefore\nChrist did not atone for our sins by His Passion.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 68:5) in Christ's person: \"Then\ndid I pay that which I took not away.\" But he has not paid who has\nnot fully atoned. Therefore it appears that Christ by His suffering\nhas fully atoned for our sins.\n\n_I answer that,_ He properly atones for an offense who offers\nsomething which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he\ndetested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience,\nChrist gave more to God than was required to compensate for the\noffense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the\nexceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the\ndignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the\nlife of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of\nthe Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above\n(Q. 46, A. 6). And therefore Christ's Passion was not only a\nsufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human\nrace; according to 1 John 2:2: \"He is the propitiation for our sins:\nand not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The head and members are as one mystic person; and\ntherefore Christ's satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being\nHis members. Also, in so far as any two men are one in charity, the\none can atone for the other as shall be shown later (Suppl., Q. 13,\nA. 2). But the same reason does not hold good of confession and\ncontrition, because atonement consists in an outward action, for\nwhich helps may be used, among which friends are to be computed.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's love was greater than His slayers' malice: and\ntherefore the value of His Passion in atoning surpassed the murderous\nguilt of those who crucified Him: so much so that Christ's suffering\nwas sufficient and superabundant atonement for His murderer's crime.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The dignity of Christ's flesh is not to be estimated\nsolely from the nature of flesh, but also from the Person assuming\nit--namely, inasmuch as it was God's flesh, the result of which was\nthat it was of infinite worth.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ's Passion Operated by Way of Sacrifice?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not operate by\nway of sacrifice. For the truth should correspond with the figure.\nBut human flesh was never offered up in the sacrifices of the Old\nLaw, which were figures of Christ: nay, such sacrifices were reputed\nas impious, according to Ps. 105:38: \"And they shed innocent blood:\nthe blood of their sons and of their daughters, which they sacrificed\nto the idols of Chanaan.\" It seems therefore that Christ's Passion\ncannot be called a sacrifice.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x) that \"a visible\nsacrifice is a sacrament--that is, a sacred sign--of an invisible\nsacrifice.\" Now Christ's Passion is not a sign, but rather the thing\nsignified by other signs. Therefore it seems that Christ's Passion is\nnot a sacrifice.\n\nObj. 3: Further, whoever offers sacrifice performs some sacred rite,\nas the very word \"sacrifice\" shows. But those men who slew Christ did\nnot perform any sacred act, but rather wrought a great wrong.\nTherefore Christ's Passion was rather a malefice than a sacrifice.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 5:2): \"He delivered Himself\nup for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of\nsweetness.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A sacrifice properly so called is something done for\nthat honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him: and\nhence it is that Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): \"A true sacrifice is\nevery good work done in order that we may cling to God in holy\nfellowship, yet referred to that consummation of happiness wherein we\ncan be truly blessed.\" But, as is added in the same place, \"Christ\noffered Himself up for us in the Passion\": and this voluntary\nenduring of the Passion was most acceptable to God, as coming from\ncharity. Therefore it is manifest that Christ's Passion was a true\nsacrifice. Moreover, as Augustine says farther on in the same book,\n\"the primitive sacrifices of the holy Fathers were many and various\nsigns of this true sacrifice, one being prefigured by many, in the\nsame way as a single concept of thought is expressed in many words,\nin order to commend it without tediousness\": and, as Augustine\nobserve, (De Trin. iv), \"since there are four things to be noted in\nevery sacrifice--to wit, to whom it is offered, by whom it is\noffered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered--that the same\none true Mediator reconciling us with God through the peace-sacrifice\nmight continue to be one with Him to whom He offered it, might be one\nwith them for whom He offered it, and might Himself be the offerer\nand what He offered.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although the truth answers to the figure in some\nrespects, yet it does not in all, since the truth must go beyond the\nfigure. Therefore the figure of this sacrifice, in which Christ's\nflesh is offered, was flesh right fittingly, not the flesh of men,\nbut of animals, as denoting Christ's. And this is a most perfect\nsacrifice. First of all, since being flesh of human nature, it is\nfittingly offered for men, and is partaken of by them under the\nSacrament. Secondly, because being passible and mortal, it was fit\nfor immolation. Thirdly, because, being sinless, it had virtue to\ncleanse from sins. Fourthly, because, being the offerer's own flesh,\nit was acceptable to God on account of His charity in offering up His\nown flesh. Hence it is that Augustine says (De Trin. iv): \"What else\ncould be so fittingly partaken of by men, or offered up for men, as\nhuman flesh? What else could be so appropriate for this immolation as\nmortal flesh? What else is there so clean for cleansing mortals as\nthe flesh born in the womb without fleshly concupiscence, and coming\nfrom a virginal womb? What could be so favorably offered and accepted\nas the flesh of our sacrifice, which was made the body of our Priest?\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Augustine is speaking there of visible figurative\nsacrifices: and even Christ's Passion, although denoted by other\nfigurative sacrifices, is yet a sign of something to be observed by\nus, according to 1 Pet. 4:1: \"Christ therefore, having suffered in\nthe flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for he that hath\nsuffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins: that now he may live the\nrest of his time in the flesh, not after the desires of men, but\naccording to the will of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's Passion was indeed a malefice on His slayers'\npart; but on His own it was the sacrifice of one suffering out of\ncharity. Hence it is Christ who is said to have offered this\nsacrifice, and not the executioners.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ's Passion Brought About Our Salvation by Way of\nRedemption?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not effect our\nsalvation by way of redemption. For no one purchases or redeems what\nnever ceased to belong to him. But men never ceased to belong to God\naccording to Ps. 23:1: \"The earth is the Lord's and the fulness\nthereof: the world and all they that dwell therein.\" Therefore it\nseems that Christ did not redeem us by His Passion.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): \"The devil had to\nbe overthrown by Christ's justice.\" But justice requires that the man\nwho has treacherously seized another's property shall be deprived of\nit, because deceit and cunning should not benefit anyone, as even\nhuman laws declare. Consequently, since the devil by treachery\ndeceived and subjugated to himself man, who is God's creature, it\nseems that man ought not to be rescued from his power by way of\nredemption.\n\nObj. 3: Further, whoever buys or redeems an object pays the price to\nthe holder. But it was not to the devil, who held us in bondage, that\nChrist paid His blood as the price of our redemption. Therefore\nChrist did not redeem us by His Passion.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Pet. 1:18): \"You were not\nredeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver from your vain\nconversation of the tradition of your fathers: but with the precious\nblood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.\" And (Gal.\n3:13): \"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made\na curse for us.\" Now He is said to be a curse for us inasmuch as He\nsuffered upon the tree, as stated above (Q. 46, A. 4). Therefore He\ndid redeem us by His Passion.\n\n_I answer that,_ Man was held captive on account of sin in two ways:\nfirst of all, by the bondage of sin, because (John 8:34): \"Whosoever\ncommitteth sin is the servant of sin\"; and (2 Pet. 2:19): \"By whom a\nman is overcome, of the same also he is the slave.\" Since, then, the\ndevil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was subject to the\ndevil's bondage. Secondly, as to the debt of punishment, to the\npayment of which man was held fast by God's justice: and this, too,\nis a kind of bondage, since it savors of bondage for a man to suffer\nwhat he does not wish, just as it is the free man's condition to\napply himself to what he wills.\n\nSince, then, Christ's Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant\natonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a\nprice at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For\nthe atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called\nthe price, by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and\nits penalty, according to Dan. 4:24: \"Redeem thou thy sins with\nalms.\" Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything\nof the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest\nprice--Himself--for us. And therefore Christ's Passion is called our\nredemption.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Man is said to belong to God in two ways. First of all,\nin so far as he comes under God's power: in which way he never ceased\nto belong to God; according to Dan. 4:22: \"The Most High ruleth over\nthe kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.\" Secondly,\nby being united to Him in charity, according to Rom. 8:9: \"If any man\nhave not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.\" In the first way,\nthen, man never ceased to belong to God, but in the second way he did\ncease because of sin. And therefore in so far as he was delivered\nfrom sin by the satisfaction of Christ's Passion, he is said to be\nredeemed by the Passion of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Man by sinning became the bondsman both of God and of\nthe devil. Through guilt he had offended God, and put himself under\nthe devil by consenting to him; consequently he did not become God's\nservant on account of his guilt, but rather, by withdrawing from\nGod's service, he, by God's just permission, fell under the devil's\nservitude on account of the offense perpetrated. But as to the\npenalty, man was chiefly bound to God as his sovereign judge, and to\nthe devil as his torturer, according to Matt. 5:25: \"Lest perhaps the\nadversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to\nthe officer\"--that is, \"to the relentless avenging angel,\" as\nChrysostom says (Hom. xi). Consequently, although, after deceiving\nman, the devil, so far as in him lay, held him unjustly in bondage as\nto both sin and penalty, still it was just that man should suffer it,\nGod so permitting it as to the sin and ordaining it as to the\npenalty. And therefore justice required man's redemption with regard\nto God, but not with regard to the devil.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Because, with regard to God, redemption was necessary\nfor man's deliverance, but not with regard to the devil, the price\nhad to be paid not to the devil, but to God. And therefore Christ is\nsaid to have paid the price of our redemption--His own precious\nblood--not to the devil, but to God.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 5]\n\nWhether It Is Proper to Christ to Be the Redeemer?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to be the\nRedeemer, because it is written (Ps. 30:6): \"Thou hast redeemed me, O\nLord, the God of Truth.\" But to be the Lord God of Truth belongs to\nthe entire Trinity. Therefore it is not proper to Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, he is said to redeem who pays the price of\nredemption. But God the Father gave His Son in redemption for our\nsins, as is written (Ps. 110:9): \"The Lord hath sent redemption to\nHis people,\" upon which the gloss adds, \"that is, Christ, who gives\nredemption to captives.\" Therefore not only Christ, but the Father\nalso, redeemed us.\n\nObj. 3: Further, not only Christ's Passion, but also that of other\nsaints conduced to our salvation, according to Col. 1:24: \"I now\nrejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are\nwanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh for His body, which\nis the Church.\" Therefore the title of Redeemer belongs not only to\nChrist, but also to the other saints.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 3:13): \"Christ redeemed us\nfrom the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us.\" But only\nChrist was made a curse for us. Therefore only Christ ought to be\ncalled our Redeemer.\n\n_I answer that,_ For someone to redeem, two things are\nrequired--namely, the act of paying and the price paid. For if in\nredeeming something a man pays a price which is not his own, but\nanother's, he is not said to be the chief redeemer, but rather the\nother is, whose price it is. Now Christ's blood or His bodily life,\nwhich \"is in the blood,\" is the price of our redemption (Lev. 17:11,\n14), and that life He paid. Hence both of these belong immediately to\nChrist as man; but to the Trinity as to the first and remote cause,\nto whom Christ's life belonged as to its first author, and from whom\nChrist received the inspiration of suffering for us. Consequently it\nis proper to Christ as man to be the Redeemer immediately; although\nthe redemption may be ascribed to the whole Trinity as its first\ncause.\n\nReply Obj. 1: A gloss explains the text thus: \"Thou, O Lord God of\nTruth, hast redeemed me in Christ, crying out, 'Lord, into Thy hands\nI commend my spirit.'\" And so redemption belongs immediately to the\nMan-Christ, but principally to God.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Man-Christ paid the price of our redemption\nimmediately, but at the command of the Father as the original author.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the\nChurch, as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation,\naccording to 2 Cor. 1:6: \"Whether we be in tribulation, it is for\nyour exhortation and salvation.\"\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 48, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Christ's Passion Brought About Our Salvation Efficiently?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Passion did not bring about\nour salvation efficiently. For the efficient cause of our salvation\nis the greatness of the Divine power, according to Isa. 59:1: \"Behold\nthe hand of the Lord is not shortened that it cannot save.\" But\n\"Christ was crucified through weakness,\" as it is written (2 Cor.\n13:4). Therefore, Christ's Passion did not bring about our salvation\nefficiently.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no corporeal agency acts efficiently except by\ncontact: hence even Christ cleansed the leper by touching him \"in\norder to show that His flesh had saving power,\" as Chrysostom\n[*Theophylact, Enarr. in Luc.] says. But Christ's Passion could not\ntouch all mankind. Therefore it could not efficiently bring about the\nsalvation of all men.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it does not seem to be consistent for the same agent\nto operate by way of merit and by way of efficiency, since he who\nmerits awaits the result from someone else. But it was by way of\nmerit that Christ's Passion accomplished our salvation. Therefore it\nwas not by way of efficiency.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 1:18) that \"the word of the\ncross to them that are saved . . . is the power of God.\" But God's\npower brings about our salvation efficiently. Therefore Christ's\nPassion on the cross accomplished our salvation efficiently.\n\n_I answer that,_ There is a twofold efficient agency--namely, the\nprincipal and the instrumental. Now the principal efficient cause of\nman's salvation is God. But since Christ's humanity is the\n\"instrument of the Godhead,\" as stated above (Q. 43, A. 2), therefore\nall Christ's actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue\nof His Godhead for the salvation of men. Consequently, then, Christ's\nPassion accomplishes man's salvation efficiently.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's Passion in relation to His flesh is consistent\nwith the infirmity which He took upon Himself, but in relation to the\nGodhead it draws infinite might from It, according to 1 Cor. 1:25:\n\"The weakness of God is stronger than men\"; because Christ's\nweakness, inasmuch as He is God, has a might exceeding all human\npower.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's Passion, although corporeal, has yet a\nspiritual effect from the Godhead united: and therefore it secures\nits efficacy by spiritual contact--namely, by faith and the\nsacraments of faith, as the Apostle says (Rom. 3:25): \"Whom God hath\nproposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's Passion, according as it is compared with His\nGodhead, operates in an efficient manner: but in so far as it is\ncompared with the will of Christ's soul it acts in a meritorious\nmanner: considered as being within Christ's very flesh, it acts by\nway of satisfaction, inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt\nof punishment; while inasmuch as we are freed from the servitude of\nguilt, it acts by way of redemption: but in so far as we are\nreconciled with God it acts by way of sacrifice, as shall be shown\nfarther on (Q. 49).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 49\n\nOF THE EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S PASSION\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider what are the effects of Christ's Passion,\nconcerning which there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether we were freed from sin by Christ's Passion?\n\n(2) Whether we were thereby delivered from the power of the devil?\n\n(3) Whether we were freed thereby from our debt of punishment?\n\n(4) Whether we were thereby reconciled with God?\n\n(5) Whether heaven's gate was opened to us thereby?\n\n(6) Whether Christ derived exaltation from it?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 1]\n\nWhether We Were Delivered from Sin Through Christ's Passion?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that we were not delivered from sin\nthrough Christ's Passion. For to deliver from sin belongs to God\nalone, according to Isa. 43:25: \"I am He who blot out your iniquities\nfor My own sake.\" But Christ did not suffer as God, but as man.\nTherefore Christ's Passion did not free us from sin.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what is corporeal does not act upon what is\nspiritual. But Christ's Passion is corporeal, whereas sin exists in\nthe soul, which is a spiritual creature. Therefore Christ's Passion\ncould not cleanse us from sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, one cannot be purged from a sin not yet committed,\nbut which shall be committed hereafter. Since, then, many sins have\nbeen committed since Christ's death, and are being committed daily,\nit seems that we were not delivered from sin by Christ's death.\n\nObj. 4: Further, given an efficient cause, nothing else is required\nfor producing the effect. But other things besides are required for\nthe forgiveness of sins, such as baptism and penance. Consequently it\nseems that Christ's Passion is not the sufficient cause of the\nforgiveness of sins.\n\nObj. 5: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): \"Charity covereth all\nsins\"; and (Prov. 15:27): \"By mercy and faith, sins are purged away.\"\nBut there are many other things of which we have faith, and which\nexcite charity. Therefore Christ's Passion is not the proper cause of\nthe forgiveness of sins.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Apoc. 1:5): \"He loved us, and\nwashed us from our sins in His own blood.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ's Passion is the proper cause of the\nforgiveness of sins in three ways. First of all, by way of exciting\nour charity, because, as the Apostle says (Rom. 5:8): \"God commendeth\nHis charity towards us: because when as yet we were sinners,\naccording to the time, Christ died for us.\" But it is by charity that\nwe procure pardon of our sins, according to Luke 7:47: \"Many sins are\nforgiven her because she hath loved much.\" Secondly, Christ's Passion\ncauses forgiveness of sins by way of redemption. For since He is our\nhead, then, by the Passion which He endured from love and obedience,\nHe delivered us as His members from our sins, as by the price of His\nPassion: in the same way as if a man by the good industry of his\nhands were to redeem himself from a sin committed with his feet. For,\njust as the natural body is one though made up of diverse members, so\nthe whole Church, Christ's mystic body, is reckoned as one person\nwith its head, which is Christ. Thirdly, by way of efficiency,\ninasmuch as Christ's flesh, wherein He endured the Passion, is the\ninstrument of the Godhead, so that His sufferings and actions operate\nwith Divine power for expelling sin.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although Christ did not suffer as God, nevertheless His\nflesh is the instrument of the Godhead; and hence it is that His\nPassion has a kind of Divine Power of casting out sin, as was said\nabove.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although Christ's Passion is corporeal, still it\nderives a kind of spiritual energy from the Godhead, to which the\nflesh is united as an instrument: and according to this power\nChrist's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sins.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ by His Passion delivered us from our sins\ncausally--that is, by setting up the cause of our deliverance, from\nwhich cause all sins whatsoever, past, present, or to come, could be\nforgiven: just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by which all\nsicknesses can be cured even in future.\n\nReply Obj. 4: As stated above, since Christ's Passion preceded, as a\nkind of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins, it needs to be\napplied to each individual for the cleansing of personal sins. Now\nthis is done by baptism and penance and the other sacraments, which\nderive their power from Christ's Passion, as shall be shown later (Q.\n62, A. 5).\n\nReply Obj. 5: Christ's Passion is applied to us even through faith,\nthat we may share in its fruits, according to Rom. 3:25: \"Whom God\nhath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.\" But\nthe faith through which we are cleansed from sin is not _lifeless\nfaith,_ which can exist even with sin, but _faith living_ through\ncharity; that thus Christ's Passion may be applied to us, not only as\nto our minds, but also as to our hearts. And even in this way sins\nare forgiven through the power of the Passion of Christ.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 2]\n\nWhether We Were Delivered from the Devil's Power Through Christ's\nPassion?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that we were not delivered from the power\nof the devil through Christ's Passion. For he has no power over\nothers, who can do nothing to them without the sanction of another.\nBut without the Divine permission the devil could never do hurt to\nany man, as is evident in the instance of Job (1, 2), where, by power\nreceived from God, the devil first injured him in his possessions,\nand afterwards in his body. In like manner it is stated (Matt. 8:31,\n32) that the devils could not enter into the swine except with\nChrist's leave. Therefore the devil never had power over men: and\nhence we are not delivered from his power through Christ's Passion.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the devil exercises his power over men by tempting\nthem and molesting their bodies. But even after the Passion he\ncontinues to do the same to men. Therefore we are not delivered from\nhis power through Christ's Passion.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the might of Christ's Passion endures for ever, as,\naccording to Heb. 10:14: \"By one oblation He hath perfected for ever\nthem that are sanctified.\" But deliverance from the devil's power is\nnot found everywhere, since there are still idolaters in many regions\nof the world; nor will it endure for ever, because in the time of\nAntichrist he will be especially active in using his power to the\nhurt of men; because it is said of him (2 Thess. 2:9): \"Whose coming\nis according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and\nlying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity.\" Consequently it\nseems that Christ's Passion is not the cause of the human race being\ndelivered from the power of the devil.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 12:31), when His Passion was\ndrawing nigh: \"Now shall the prince of this world be cast out; and I,\nif I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.\"\nNow He was lifted up from the earth by His Passion on the cross.\nTherefore by His Passion the devil was deprived of his power over man.\n\n_I answer that,_ There are three things to be considered regarding\nthe power which the devil exercised over men previous to Christ's\nPassion. The first is on man's own part, who by his sin deserved to\nbe delivered over to the devil's power, and was overcome by his\ntempting. Another point is on God's part, whom man had offended by\nsinning, and who with justice left man under the devil's power. The\nthird is on the devil's part, who out of his most wicked will\nhindered man from securing his salvation.\n\nAs to the first point, by Christ's Passion man was delivered from the\ndevil's power, in so far as the Passion is the cause of the\nforgiveness of sins, as stated above (A. 1). As to the second, it\nmust be said that Christ's Passion freed us from the devil's power,\ninasmuch as it reconciled us with God, as shall be shown later (A.\n4). But as to the third, Christ's Passion delivered us from the\ndevil, inasmuch as in Christ's Passion he exceeded the limit of power\nassigned him by God, by conspiring to bring about Christ's death,\nWho, being sinless, did not deserve to die. Hence Augustine says (De\nTrin. xiii, cap. xiv): \"The devil was vanquished by Christ's justice:\nbecause, while discovering in Him nothing deserving of death,\nnevertheless he slew Him. And it is certainly just that the debtors\nwhom he held captive should be set at liberty since they believed in\nHim whom the devil slew, though He was no debtor.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The devil is said to have had such power over men not\nas though he were able to injure them without God's sanction, but\nbecause he was justly permitted to injure men whom by tempting he had\ninduced to give consent.\n\nReply Obj. 2: God so permitting it, the devil can still tempt men's\nsouls and harass their bodies: yet there is a remedy provided for man\nthrough Christ's Passion, whereby he can safeguard himself against\nthe enemy's assaults, so as not to be dragged down into the\ndestruction of everlasting death. And all who resisted the devil\nprevious to the Passion were enabled to do so through faith in the\nPassion, although it was not yet accomplished. Yet in one respect no\none was able to escape the devil's hands, i.e. so as not to descend\ninto hell. But after Christ's Passion, men can defend themselves from\nthis by its power.\n\nReply Obj. 3: God permits the devil to deceive men by certain\npersons, and in times and places, according to the hidden motive of\nHis judgments; still, there is always a remedy provided through\nChrist's Passion, for defending themselves against the wicked snares\nof the demons, even in Antichrist's time. But if any man neglect to\nmake use of this remedy, it detracts nothing from the efficacy of\nChrist's Passion.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Men Were Freed from the Punishment of Sin Through Christ's\nPassion?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that men were not freed from the\npunishment of sin by Christ's Passion. For the chief punishment of\nsin is eternal damnation. But those damned in hell for their sins\nwere not set free by Christ's Passion, because \"in hell there is no\nredemption\" [*Office of the Dead, Resp. vii]. It seems, therefore,\nthat Christ's Passion did not deliver men from the punishment of sin.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no punishment should be imposed upon them who are\ndelivered from the debt of punishment. But a satisfactory punishment\nis imposed upon penitents. Consequently, men were not freed from the\ndebt of punishment by Christ's Passion.\n\nObj. 3: Further, death is a punishment of sin, according to Rom.\n6:23: \"The wages of sin is death.\" But men still die after Christ's\nPassion. Therefore it seems that we have not been delivered from the\ndebt of punishment.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 53:4): \"Surely He hath borne\nour iniquities and carried our sorrows.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Through Christ's Passion we have been delivered from\nthe debt of punishment in two ways. First of all, directly--namely,\ninasmuch as Christ's Passion was sufficient and superabundant\nsatisfaction for the sins of the whole human race: but when\nsufficient satisfaction has been paid, then the debt of punishment is\nabolished. In another way--indirectly, that is to say--in so far as\nChrist's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, upon which\nthe debt of punishment rests.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's Passion works its effect in them to whom it is\napplied, through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. And,\nconsequently, the lost in hell cannot avail themselves of its\neffects, since they are not united to Christ in the aforesaid manner.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated above (A. 1, ad 4, 5), in order to secure the\neffects of Christ's Passion, we must be likened unto Him. Now we are\nlikened unto Him sacramentally in Baptism, according to Rom. 6:4:\n\"For we are buried together with Him by baptism into death.\" Hence no\npunishment of satisfaction is imposed upon men at their baptism,\nsince they are fully delivered by Christ's satisfaction. But because,\nas it is written (1 Pet. 3:18), \"Christ died\" but \"once for our\nsins,\" therefore a man cannot a second time be likened unto Christ's\ndeath by the sacrament of Baptism. Hence it is necessary that those\nwho sin after Baptism be likened unto Christ suffering by some form\nof punishment or suffering which they endure in their own person;\nyet, by the co-operation of Christ's satisfaction, much lighter\npenalty suffices than one that is proportionate to the sin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch\nas we are incorporated with Him, as the members with their head, as\nstated above (A. 1). Now the members must be conformed to their head.\nConsequently, as Christ first had grace in His soul with bodily\npassibility, and through the Passion attained to the glory of\nimmortality, so we likewise, who are His members, are freed by His\nPassion from all debt of punishment, yet so that we first receive in\nour souls \"the spirit of adoption of sons,\" whereby our names are\nwritten down for the inheritance of immortal glory, while we yet have\na passible and mortal body: but afterwards, \"being made conformable\"\nto the sufferings and death of Christ, we are brought into immortal\nglory, according to the saying of the Apostle (Rom. 8:17): \"And if\nsons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ;\nyet so if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 4]\n\nWhether We Were Reconciled to God Through Christ's Passion?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that we were not reconciled to God through\nChrist's Passion. For there is no need of reconciliation between\nfriends. But God always loved us, according to Wis. 11:25: \"Thou\nlovest all the things that are, and hatest none of the things which\nThou hast made.\" Therefore Christ's Passion did not reconcile us to\nGod.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the same thing cannot be cause and effect: hence\ngrace, which is the cause of meriting, does not come under merit. But\nGod's love is the cause of Christ's Passion, according to John 3:16:\n\"God so loved the world, as to give His only-begotten Son.\" It does\nnot appear, then, that we were reconciled to God through Christ's\nPassion, so that He began to love us anew.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's Passion was completed by men slaying Him;\nand thereby they offended God grievously. Therefore Christ's Passion\nis rather the cause of wrath than of reconciliation to God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 5:10): \"We are reconciled\nto God by the death of His Son.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ's Passion is in two ways the cause of our\nreconciliation to God. In the first way, inasmuch as it takes away\nsin by which men became God's enemies, according to Wis. 14:9: \"To\nGod the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike\"; and Ps. 5:7:\n\"Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity.\" In another way, inasmuch\nas it is a most acceptable sacrifice to God. Now it is the proper\neffect of sacrifice to appease God: just as man likewise overlooks an\noffense committed against him on account of some pleasing act of\nhomage shown him. Hence it is written (1 Kings 26:19): \"If the Lord\nstir thee up against me, let Him accept of sacrifice.\" And in like\nfashion Christ's voluntary suffering was such a good act that,\nbecause of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for\nevery offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one\nwith the crucified Christ in the aforesaid manner (A. 1, ad 4).\n\nReply Obj. 1: God loves all men as to their nature, which He Himself\nmade; yet He hates them with respect to the crimes they commit\nagainst Him, according to Ecclus. 12:3: \"The Highest hateth sinners.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ is not said to have reconciled us with God, as\nif God had begun anew to love us, since it is written (Jer. 31:3): \"I\nhave loved thee with an everlasting love\"; but because the source of\nhatred was taken away by Christ's Passion, both through sin being\nwashed away and through compensation being made in the shape of a\nmore pleasing offering.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Christ's slayers were men, so also was the Christ\nslain. Now the charity of the suffering Christ surpassed the\nwickedness of His slayers. Accordingly Christ's Passion prevailed\nmore in reconciling God to the whole human race than in provoking Him\nto wrath.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Christ Opened the Gate of Heaven to Us by His Passion?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not open the gate of\nheaven to us by His Passion. For it is written (Prov. 11:18): \"To him\nthat soweth justice, there is a faithful reward.\" But the reward of\njustice is the entering into the kingdom of heaven. It seems,\ntherefore, that the holy Fathers who wrought works of justice,\nobtained by faith the entering into the heavenly kingdom even without\nChrist's Passion. Consequently Christ's Passion is not the cause of\nthe opening of the gate of the kingdom of heaven.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Elias was caught up to heaven previous to Christ's\nPassion (4 Kings 2). But the effect never precedes the cause.\nTherefore it seems that the opening of heaven's gate is not the\nresult of Christ's Passion.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as it is written (Matt. 3:16), when Christ was\nbaptized the heavens were opened to Him. But His baptism preceded the\nPassion. Consequently the opening of heaven is not the result of\nChrist's Passion.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it is written (Mic. 2:13): \"For He shall go up that\nshall open the way before them.\" But to open the way to heaven seems\nto be nothing else than to throw open its gate. Therefore it seems\nthat the gate of heaven was opened to us, not by Christ's Passion,\nbut by His Ascension.\n\n_On the contrary,_ is the saying of the Apostle (Heb. 10:19): \"We\nhave [Vulg.: 'having a'] confidence in the entering into the\nHolies\"--that is, of the heavenly places--\"through the blood of\nChrist.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The shutting of the gate is the obstacle which\nhinders men from entering in. But it is on account of sin that men\nwere prevented from entering into the heavenly kingdom, since,\naccording to Isa. 35:8: \"It shall be called the holy way, and the\nunclean shall not pass over it.\" Now there is a twofold sin which\nprevents men from entering into the kingdom of heaven. The first is\ncommon to the whole race, for it is our first parents' sin, and by\nthat sin heaven's entrance is closed to man. Hence we read in Gen.\n3:24 that after our first parents' sin God \"placed . . . cherubim and\na flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of\nlife.\" The other is the personal sin of each one of us, committed by\nour personal act.\n\nNow by Christ's Passion we have been delivered not only from the\ncommon sin of the whole human race, both as to its guilt and as to\nthe debt of punishment, for which He paid the penalty on our behalf;\nbut, furthermore, from the personal sins of individuals, who share in\nHis Passion by faith and charity and the sacraments of faith.\nConsequently, then the gate of heaven's kingdom is thrown open to us\nthrough Christ's Passion. This is precisely what the Apostle says\n(Heb. 9:11, 12): \"Christ being come a high-priest of the good things\nto come . . . by His own blood entered once into the Holies, having\nobtained eternal redemption.\" And this is foreshadowed (Num. 35:25,\n28), where it is said that the slayer* \"shall abide there\"--that is\nto say, in the city of refuge--\"until the death of the high-priest,\nthat is anointed with the holy oil: but after he is dead, then shall\nhe return home.\" [*The Septuagint has 'slayer', the Vulgate,\n'innocent'--i.e. the man who has slain 'without hatred and enmity'.]\n\nReply Obj. 1: The holy Fathers, by doing works of justice, merited to\nenter into the heavenly kingdom, through faith in Christ's Passion,\naccording to Heb. 11:33: The saints \"by faith conquered kingdoms,\nwrought justice,\" and each of them was thereby cleansed from sin, so\nfar as the cleansing of the individual is concerned. Nevertheless the\nfaith and righteousness of no one of them sufficed for removing the\nbarrier arising from the guilt of the whole human race: but this was\nremoved at the cost of Christ's blood. Consequently, before Christ's\nPassion no one could enter the kingdom of heaven by obtaining\neverlasting beatitude, which consists in the full enjoyment of God.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not\nin to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and\nlikewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is\nbelieved to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As was stated above (Q. 39, A. 5), the heavens were\nopened at Christ's baptism, not for Christ's sake, to whom heaven was\never open, but in order to signify that heaven is opened to the\nbaptized, through Christ's baptism, which has its efficacy from His\nPassion.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Christ by His Passion merited for us the opening of the\nkingdom of heaven, and removed the obstacle; but by His ascension He,\nas it were, brought us to the possession of the heavenly kingdom. And\nconsequently it is said that by ascending He \"opened the way before\nthem.\"\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 49, Art. 6]\n\nWhether by His Passion Christ Merited to Be Exalted?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ did not merit to be exalted on\naccount of His Passion. For eminence of rank belongs to God alone,\njust as knowledge of truth, according to Ps. 112:4: \"The Lord is high\nabove all nations, and His glory above the heavens.\" But Christ as\nman had the knowledge of all truth, not on account of any preceding\nmerit, but from the very union of God and man, according to John\n1:14: \"We saw His glory . . . as it were of the only-Begotten of the\nFather, full of grace and of truth.\" Therefore neither had He\nexaltation from the merit of the Passion but from the union alone.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ merited for Himself from the first instant of\nHis conception, as stated above (Q. 34, A. 3). But His love was no\ngreater during the Passion than before. Therefore, since charity is\nthe principle of merit, it seems that He did not merit exaltation\nfrom the Passion more than before.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the glory of the body comes from the glory of the\nsoul, as Augustine says (Ep. ad Dioscor.). But by His Passion Christ\ndid not merit exaltation as to the glory of His soul, because His\nsoul was beatified from the first instant of His conception.\nTherefore neither did He merit exaltation, as to the glory of His\nbody, from the Passion.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Phil. 2:8): \"He became obedient\nunto death, even the death of the cross; for which cause God also\nexalted Him.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Merit implies a certain equality of justice: hence\nthe Apostle says (Rom. 4:4): \"Now to him that worketh, the reward is\nreckoned according to debt.\" But when anyone by reason of his unjust\nwill ascribes to himself something beyond his due, it is only just\nthat he be deprived of something else which is his due; thus, \"when a\nman steals a sheep he shall pay back four\" (Ex. 22:1). And he is said\nto deserve it, inasmuch as his unjust will is chastised thereby. So\nlikewise when any man through his just will has stripped himself of\nwhat he ought to have, he deserves that something further be granted\nto him as the reward of his just will. And hence it is written (Luke\n14:11): \"He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.\"\n\nNow in His Passion Christ humbled Himself beneath His dignity in four\nrespects. In the first place as to His Passion and death, to which He\nwas not bound; secondly, as to the place, since His body was laid in\na sepulchre and His soul in hell; thirdly, as to the shame and\nmockeries He endured; fourthly, as to His being delivered up to man's\npower, as He Himself said to Pilate (John 19:11): \"Thou shouldst not\nhave any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.\"\nAnd, consequently, He merited a four-fold exaltation from His\nPassion. First of all, as to His glorious Resurrection: hence it is\nwritten (Ps. 138:1): \"Thou hast known my sitting down\"--that is, the\nlowliness of My Passion--\"and My rising up.\" Secondly, as to His\nascension into heaven: hence it is written (Eph. 4:9): \"Now that He\nascended, what is it, but because He also descended first into the\nlower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that\nascended above all the heavens.\" Thirdly, as to the sitting on the\nright hand of the Father and the showing forth of His Godhead,\naccording to Isa. 52:13: \"He shall be exalted and extolled, and shall\nbe exceeding high: as many have been astonished at him, so shall His\nvisage be inglorious among men.\" Moreover (Phil. 2:8) it is written:\n\"He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death\nof the cross: for which cause also God hath exalted Him, and hath\ngiven Him a name which is above all names\"--that is to say, so that\nHe shall be hailed as God by all; and all shall pay Him homage as\nGod. And this is expressed in what follows: \"That in the name of\nJesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth,\nand under the earth.\" Fourthly, as to His judiciary power: for it is\nwritten (Job 36:17): \"Thy cause hath been judged as that of the\nwicked cause and judgment Thou shalt recover.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The source of meriting comes of the soul, while the\nbody is the instrument of the meritorious work. And consequently the\nperfection of Christ's soul, which was the source of meriting, ought\nnot to be acquired in Him by merit, like the perfection of the body,\nwhich was the subject of suffering, and was thereby the instrument of\nHis merit.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ by His previous merits did merit exaltation on\nbehalf of His soul, whose will was animated with charity and the\nother virtues; but in the Passion He merited His exaltation by way of\nrecompense even on behalf of His body: since it is only just that the\nbody, which from charity was subjected to the Passion, should receive\nrecompense in glory.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It was owing to a special dispensation in Christ that\nbefore the Passion the glory of His soul did not shine out in His\nbody, in order that He might procure His bodily glory with greater\nhonor, when He had merited it by His Passion. But it was not\nbeseeming for the glory of His soul to be postponed, since the soul\nwas united immediately with the Word; hence it was beseeming that its\nglory should be filled by the Word Himself. But the body was united\nwith the Word through the soul.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 50\n\nOF THE DEATH OF CHRIST\n\nWe have now to consider the death of Christ; concerning which there\nare six subjects of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it was fitting that Christ should die?\n\n(2) Whether His death severed the union of Godhead and flesh?\n\n(3) Whether His Godhead was separated from His soul?\n\n(4) Whether Christ was a man during the three days of His death?\n\n(5) Whether His was the same body, living and dead?\n\n(6) Whether His death conduced in any way to our salvation?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That Christ Should Die?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that Christ should\ndie. For a first principle in any order is not affected by anything\ncontrary to such order: thus fire, which is the principle of heat,\ncan never become cold. But the Son of God is the fountain-head and\nprinciple of all life, according to Ps. 35:10: \"With Thee is the\nfountain of life.\" Therefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to\ndie.\n\nObj. 2: Further, death is a greater defect than sickness, because it\nis through sickness that one comes to die. But it was not beseeming\nfor Christ to languish from sickness, as Chrysostom [*Athanasius,\nOrat. de Incarn. Verbi] says. Consequently, neither was it becoming\nfor Christ to die.\n\nObj. 3: Further, our Lord said (John 10:10): \"I am come that they may\nhave life, and may have it more abundantly.\" But one opposite does\nnot lead to another. Therefore it seems that neither was it fitting\nfor Christ to die.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written, (John 11:50): \"It is expedient that\none man should die for the people . . . that the whole nation perish\nnot\": which words were spoken prophetically by Caiphas, as the\nEvangelist testifies.\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting for Christ to die. First of all to\nsatisfy for the whole human race, which was sentenced to die on\naccount of sin, according to Gen. 2:17: \"In what day soever ye shall\n[Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] eat of it ye shall [Vulg.: 'thou shalt'] die\nthe death.\" Now it is a fitting way of satisfying for another to\nsubmit oneself to the penalty deserved by that other. And so Christ\nresolved to die, that by dying He might atone for us, according to 1\nPet. 3:18: \"Christ also died once for our sins.\" Secondly, in order\nto show the reality of the flesh assumed. For, as Eusebius says\n(Orat. de Laud. Constant. xv), \"if, after dwelling among men Christ\nwere suddenly to disappear from men's sight, as though shunning\ndeath, then by all men He would be likened to a phantom.\" Thirdly,\nthat by dying He might deliver us from fearing death: hence it is\nwritten (Heb. 2:14, 15) that He communicated \"to flesh and blood,\nthat through death He might destroy him who had the empire of death\nand might deliver them who, through the fear of death, were all their\nlifetime subject to servitude.\" Fourthly, that by dying in the body\nto the likeness of sin--that is, to its penalty--He might set us the\nexample of dying to sin spiritually. Hence it is written (Rom. 6:10):\n\"For in that He died to sin, He died once, but in that He liveth, He\nliveth unto God: so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but\nalive unto God.\" Fifthly, that by rising from the dead, and\nmanifesting His power whereby He overthrew death, He might instill\ninto us the hope of rising from the dead. Hence the Apostle says (1\nCor. 15:12): \"If Christ be preached that He rose again from the dead,\nhow do some among you say, that there is no resurrection from the\ndead?\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ is the fountain of life, as God, and not as man:\nbut He died as man, and not as God. Hence Augustine [*Vigilius\nTapsensis] says against Felician: \"Far be it from us to suppose that\nChrist so felt death that He lost His life inasmuch as He is life in\nHimself; for, were it so, the fountain of life would have run dry.\nAccordingly, He experienced death by sharing in our human feeling,\nwhich of His own accord He had taken upon Himself, but He did not\nlose the power of His Nature, through which He gives life to all\nthings.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ did not suffer death which comes of sickness,\nlest He should seem to die of necessity from exhausted nature: but He\nendured death inflicted from without, to which He willingly\nsurrendered Himself, that His death might be shown to be a voluntary\none.\n\nReply Obj. 3: One opposite does not of itself lead to the other, yet\nit does so indirectly at times: thus cold sometimes is the indirect\ncause of heat: and in this way Christ by His death brought us back to\nlife, when by His death He destroyed our death; just as he who bears\nanother's punishment takes such punishment away.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Godhead Was Separated from the Flesh When Christ Died?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the Godhead was separated from the\nflesh when Christ died. For as Matthew relates (27:46), when our Lord\nwas hanging upon the cross He cried out: \"My God, My God, why hast\nThou forsaken Me?\" which words Ambrose, commenting on Luke 23:46,\nexplains as follows: \"The man cried out when about to expire by being\nsevered from the Godhead; for since the Godhead is immune from death,\nassuredly death could not be there, except life departed, for the\nGodhead is life.\" And so it seems that when Christ died, the Godhead\nwas separated from His flesh.\n\nObj. 2: Further, extremes are severed when the mean is removed. But\nthe soul was the mean through which the Godhead was united with the\nflesh, as stated above (Q. 6, A. 1). Therefore since the soul was\nsevered from the flesh by death, it seems that, in consequence, His\nGodhead was also separated from it.\n\nObj. 3: Further, God's life-giving power is greater than that of the\nsoul. But the body could not die unless the soul quitted it.\nTherefore, much less could it die unless the Godhead departed.\n\n_On the contrary,_ As stated above (Q. 16, AA. 4, 5), the attributes\nof human nature are predicated of the Son of God only by reason of\nthe union. But what belongs to the body of Christ after death is\npredicated of the Son of God--namely, being buried: as is evident\nfrom the Creed, in which it is said that the Son of God \"was\nconceived and born of a Virgin, suffered, died, and was buried.\"\nTherefore Christ's Godhead was not separated from the flesh when He\ndied.\n\n_I answer that,_ What is bestowed through God's grace is never\nwithdrawn except through fault. Hence it is written (Rom. 11:29):\n\"The gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.\" But the\ngrace of union whereby the Godhead was united to the flesh in\nChrist's Person, is greater than the grace of adoption whereby others\nare sanctified: also it is more enduring of itself, because this\ngrace is ordained for personal union, whereas the grace of adoption\nis referred to a certain affective union. And yet we see that the\ngrace of adoption is never lost without fault. Since, then there was\nno sin in Christ, it was impossible for the union of the Godhead with\nthe flesh to be dissolved. Consequently, as before death Christ's\nflesh was united personally and hypostatically with the Word of God,\nit remained so after His death, so that the hypostasis of the Word of\nGod was not different from that of Christ's flesh after death, as\nDamascene says (De Fide Orth. iii).\n\nReply Obj. 1: Such forsaking is not to be referred to the dissolving\nof the personal union, but to this, that God the Father gave Him up\nto the Passion: hence there \"to forsake\" means simply not to protect\nfrom persecutors. Or else He says there that He is forsaken, with\nreference to the prayer He had made: \"Father, if it be possible, let\nthis chalice pass away from Me,\" as Augustine explains it (De Gratia\nNovi Test.).\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Word of God is said to be united with the flesh\nthrough the medium of the soul, inasmuch as it is through the soul\nthat the flesh belongs to human nature, which the Son of God intended\nto assume; but not as though the soul were the medium linking them\ntogether. But it is due to the soul that the flesh is human even\nafter the soul has been separated from it--namely, inasmuch as by\nGod's ordinance there remains in the dead flesh a certain relation to\nthe resurrection. And therefore the union of the Godhead with the\nflesh is not taken away.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The soul formally possesses the life-giving\nenergy, and therefore, while it is present, and united formally, the\nbody must necessarily be a living one, whereas the Godhead has not the\nlife-giving energy formally, but effectively; because It cannot be the\nform of the body: and therefore it is not necessary for the flesh to\nbe living while the union of the Godhead with the flesh remains, since\nGod does not act of necessity, but of His own will.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 3]\n\nWhether in Christ's Death There Was a Severance Between His Godhead\nand His Soul?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that there was a severance in death\nbetween Christ's Godhead and His soul, because our Lord said (John\n10:18): \"No man taketh away My soul from Me: but I lay it down of\nMyself, and I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it\nup again.\" But it does not appear that the body can set the soul\naside, by separating the soul from itself, because the soul is not\nsubject to the power of the body, but rather conversely: and so it\nappears that it belongs to Christ, as the Word of God, to lay down\nHis soul: but this is to separate it from Himself. Consequently, by\ndeath His soul was severed from the Godhead.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Athanasius [*Vigilius Tapsensis, De Trin. vi;\nBardenhewer assigns it to St. Athanasius: 45, iii. The full title is\nDe Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto] says that he \"is accursed who does\nnot confess that the entire man, whom the Son of God took to Himself,\nafter being assumed once more or delivered by Him, rose again from\nthe dead on the third day.\" But the entire man could not be assumed\nagain, unless the entire man was at one time separated from the Word\nof God: and the entire man is made of soul and body. Therefore there\nwas a separation made at one time of the Godhead from both the body\nand the soul.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Son of God is truly styled a man because of the\nunion with the entire man. If then, when the union of the soul with\nthe body was dissolved by death, the Word of God continued united\nwith the soul, it would follow that the Son of God could be truly\ncalled a soul. But this is false, because since the soul is the form\nof the body, it would result in the Word of God being the form of the\nbody; which is impossible. Therefore, in death the soul of Christ was\nseparated from the Word of God.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the separated soul and body are not one hypostasis,\nbut two. Therefore, if the Word of God remained united with Christ's\nsoul and body, then, when they were severed by Christ's death, it\nseems to follow that the Word of God was two hypostases during such\ntime as Christ was dead; which cannot be admitted. Therefore after\nChrist's death His soul did not continue to be united with the Word.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): \"Although\nChrist died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless\nbody, nevertheless His Godhead remained unseparated from both--from\nthe soul, I mean, and from the body.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The soul is united with the Word of God more\nimmediately and more primarily than the body is, because it is\nthrough the soul that the body is united with the Word of God, as\nstated above (Q. 6, A. 1). Since, then, the Word of God was not\nseparated from the body at Christ's death, much less was He separated\nfrom the soul. Accordingly, since what regards the body severed from\nthe soul is affirmed of the Son of God--namely, that \"it was\nburied\"--so is it said of Him in the Creed that \"He descended into\nhell,\" because His soul when separated from the body did go down into\nhell.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Augustine (Tract. xlvii in Joan.), in commenting on the\ntext of John, asks, since Christ is Word and soul and body, \"whether\nHe putteth down His soul, for that He is the Word? Or, for that He is\na soul?\" Or, again, \"for that He is flesh?\" And he says that, \"should\nwe say that the Word of God laid down His soul\" . . . it would follow\nthat \"there was a time when that soul was severed from the\nWord\"--which is untrue. \"For death severed the body and soul . . .\nbut that the soul was severed from the Word I do not affirm . . . But\nshould we say that the soul laid itself down,\" it follows \"that it is\nsevered from itself: which is most absurd.\" It remains, therefore,\nthat \"the flesh itself layeth down its soul and taketh it again, not\nby its own power, but by the power of the Word dwelling in the\nflesh\": because, as stated above (A. 2), the Godhead of the Word was\nnot severed from the flesh in death.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In those words Athanasius never meant to say that the\nwhole man was reassumed--that is, as to all his parts--as if the Word\nof God had laid aside the parts of human nature by His death; but\nthat the totality of the assumed nature was restored once more in the\nresurrection by the resumed union of soul and body.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Through being united to human nature, the Word of God\nis not on that account called human nature: but He is called a\nman--that is, one having human nature. Now the soul and the body are\nessential parts of human nature. Hence it does not follow that the\nWord is a soul or a body through being united with both, but that He\nis one possessing a soul or a body.\n\nReply Obj. 4: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): \"In Christ's\ndeath the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis\ndivided into two: because both soul and body in the same respect had\ntheir existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and\nin death, though severed from one another, each one continued to have\nthe one same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of\nthe Word was the hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the\nbody. For neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own,\nbesides the hypostasis of the Word: for there was always one\nhypostasis of the Word, and never two.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Was a Man During the Three Days of His Death?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was a man during the three\ndays of His death, because Augustine says (De Trin. iii): \"Such was\nthe assuming [of nature] as to make God to be man, and man to be\nGod.\" But this assuming [of nature] did not cease at Christ's death.\nTherefore it seems that He did not cease to be a man in consequence\nof death.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix) that \"each man is\nhis intellect\"; consequently, when we address the soul of Peter after\nhis death we say: \"Saint Peter, pray for us.\" But the Son of God\nafter death was not separated from His intellectual soul. Therefore,\nduring those three days the Son of God was a man.\n\nObj. 3: Further, every priest is a man. But during those three days\nof death Christ was a priest: otherwise what is said in Ps. 109:4\nwould not be true: \"Thou art a priest for ever.\" Therefore Christ was\na man during those three days.\n\n_On the contrary,_ When the higher [species] is removed, so is the\nlower. But the living or animated being is a higher species than\nanimal and man, because an animal is a sensible animated substance.\nNow during those three days of death Christ's body was not living or\nanimated. Therefore He was not a man.\n\n_I answer that,_ It is an article of faith that Christ was truly\ndead: hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby\nthe truth of Christ's death is destroyed. Accordingly it is said in\nthe Synodal epistle of Cyril [*Act. Conc. Ephes. P. I, cap. xxvi]:\n\"If any man does not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in the\nflesh, and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh,\nlet him be anathema.\" Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man\nor animal that by death the subject ceases to be man or animal;\nbecause the death of the man or animal results from the separation of\nthe soul, which is the formal complement of the man or animal.\nConsequently, to say that Christ was a man during the three days of\nHis death simply and without qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can\nbe said that He was \"a dead man\" during those three days.\n\nHowever, some writers have contended that Christ was a man during\nthose three days, uttering words which are indeed erroneous, yet\nwithout intent of error in faith: as Hugh of Saint Victor, who (De\nSacram. ii) contended that Christ, during the three days that\nfollowed His death, was a man, because he held that the soul is a\nman: but this is false, as was shown in the First Part (I, Q. 75, A.\n4). Likewise the Master of the Sentences (iii, D, 22) held Christ to\nbe a man during the three days of His death for quite another reason.\nFor he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be essential to a\nman, and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it have a soul\nand body, whether united or separated: and that this is likewise\nfalse is clear both from what has been said in the First Part (I, Q.\n75, A. 4), and from what has been said above regarding the mode of\nunion (Q. 2, A. 5).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Word of God assumed a united soul and body: and the\nresult of this assumption was that God is man, and man is God. But\nthis assumption did not cease by the separation of the Word from the\nsoul or from the flesh; yet the union of soul and flesh ceased.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Man is said to be his own intellect, not because the\nintellect is the entire man, but because the intellect is the chief\npart of man, in which man's whole disposition lies virtually; just as\nthe ruler of the city may be called the whole city, since its entire\ndisposal is vested in him.\n\nReply Obj. 3: That a man is competent to be a priest is by reason of\nthe soul, which is the subject of the character of order: hence a man\ndoes not lose his priestly order by death, and much less does Christ,\nwho is the fount of the entire priesthood.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Christ's Was Identically the Same Body Living and Dead?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's was not identically the same\nbody living and dead. For Christ truly died just as other men do. But\nthe body of everyone else is not simply identically the same, dead\nand living, because there is an essential difference between them.\nTherefore neither is the body of Christ identically the same, dead\nand living.\n\nObj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. v, text. 12),\nthings specifically diverse are also numerically diverse. But\nChrist's body, living and dead, was specifically diverse: because the\neye or flesh of the dead is only called so equivocally, as is evident\nfrom the Philosopher (De Anima ii, text. 9; _Metaph._ vii). Therefore\nChrist's body was not simply identically the same, living and dead.\n\nObj. 3: Further, death is a kind of corruption. But what is corrupted\nby substantial corruption after being corrupted, exists no longer,\nsince corruption is change from being to non-being. Therefore,\nChrist's body, after it was dead, did not remain identically the\nsame, because death is a substantial corruption.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Athanasius says (Epist. ad Epict.): \"In that body\nwhich was circumcised and carried, which ate, and toiled, and was\nnailed on the tree, there was the impassible and incorporeal Word of\nGod: the same was laid in the tomb.\" But Christ's living body was\ncircumcised and nailed on the tree; and Christ's dead body was laid\nin the tomb. Therefore it was the same body living and dead.\n\n_I answer that,_ The expression \"simply\" can be taken in two senses.\nIn the first instance by taking \"simply\" to be the same as\n\"absolutely\"; thus \"that is said simply which is said without\naddition,\" as the Philosopher put it (Topic. ii): and in this way the\ndead and living body of Christ was simply identically the same: since\na thing is said to be \"simply\" identically the same from the identity\nof the subject. But Christ's body living and dead was identical in\nits suppositum because alive and dead it had none other besides the\nWord of God, as was stated above (A. 2). And it is in this sense that\nAthanasius is speaking in the passage quoted.\n\nIn another way \"simply\" is the same as \"altogether\" or \"totally\": in\nwhich sense the body of Christ, dead and alive, was not \"simply\" the\nsame identically, because it was not \"totally\" the same, since life\nis of the essence of a living body; for it is an essential and not an\naccidental predicate: hence it follows that a body which ceases to be\nliving does not remain totally the same. Moreover, if it were to be\nsaid that Christ's dead body did continue \"totally\" the same, it\nwould follow that it was not corrupted--I mean, by the corruption of\ndeath: which is the heresy of the Gaianites, as Isidore says (Etym.\nviii), and is to be found in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. iii). And\nDamascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that \"the term 'corruption'\ndenotes two things: in one way it is the separation of the soul from\nthe body and other things of the sort; in another way, the complete\ndissolving into elements. Consequently it is impious to say with\nJulian and Gaian that the Lord's body was incorruptible after the\nfirst manner of corruption before the resurrection: because Christ's\nbody would not be consubstantial with us, nor truly dead, nor would\nwe have been saved in very truth. But in the second way Christ's body\nwas incorrupt.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The dead body of everyone else does not continue united\nto an abiding hypostasis, as Christ's dead body did; consequently the\ndead body of everyone else is not the same \"simply,\" but only in some\nrespect: because it is the same as to its matter, but not the same as\nto its form. But Christ's body remains the same simply, on account of\nthe identity of the suppositum, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Since a thing is said to be the same identically\naccording to suppositum, but the same specifically according to form:\nwherever the suppositum subsists in only one nature, it follows of\nnecessity that when the unity of species is taken away the unity of\nidentity is also taken away. But the hypostasis of the Word of God\nsubsists in two natures; and consequently, although in others the\nbody does not remain the same according to the species of human\nnature, still it continues identically the same in Christ according\nto the suppositum of the Word of God.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Corruption and death do not belong to Christ by reason\nof the suppositum, from which suppositum follows the unity of\nidentity; but by reason of the human nature, according to which is\nfound the difference of death and of life in Christ's body.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 50, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Christ's Death Conduced in Any Way to Our Salvation?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's death did not conduce in any\nway to our salvation. For death is a sort of privation, since it is\nthe privation of life. But privation has not any power of activity,\nbecause it is nothing positive. Therefore it could not work anything\nfor our salvation.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's Passion wrought our salvation by way of\nmerit. But Christ's death could not operate in this way, because in\ndeath the body is separated from the soul, which is the principle of\nmeriting. Consequently, Christ's death did not accomplish anything\ntowards our salvation.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what is corporeal is not the cause of what is\nspiritual. But Christ's death was corporeal. Therefore it could not\nbe the cause of our salvation, which is something spiritual.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. iv): \"The one death of\nour Saviour,\" namely, that of the body, \"saved us from our two\ndeaths,\" that is, of the soul and the body.\n\n_I answer that,_ We may speak of Christ's death in two ways, \"in\nbecoming\" and \"in fact.\" Death is said to be \"in becoming\" when\nanyone from natural or enforced suffering is tending towards death:\nand in this way it is the same thing to speak of Christ's death as of\nHis Passion: so that in this sense Christ's death is the cause of our\nsalvation, according to what has been already said of the Passion (Q.\n48). But death is considered in fact, inasmuch as the separation of\nsoul and body has already taken place: and it is in this sense that\nwe are now speaking of Christ's death. In this way Christ's death\ncannot be the cause of our salvation by way of merit, but only by way\nof causality, that is to say, inasmuch as the Godhead was not\nseparated from Christ's flesh by death; and therefore, whatever\nbefell Christ's flesh, even when the soul was departed, was conducive\nto salvation in virtue of the Godhead united. But the effect of any\ncause is properly estimated according to its resemblance to the\ncause. Consequently, since death is a kind of privation of one's own\nlife, the effect of Christ's death is considered in relation to the\nremoval of the obstacles to our salvation: and these are the death of\nthe soul and of the body. Hence Christ's death is said to have\ndestroyed in us both the death of the soul, caused by sin, according\nto Rom. 4:25: \"He was delivered up [namely unto death] for our sins\":\nand the death of the body, consisting in the separation of the soul,\naccording to 1 Cor. 15:54: \"Death is swallowed up in victory.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's death wrought our salvation from the power of\nthe Godhead united, and not considered merely as His death.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Though Christ's death, considered \"in fact\" did not\neffect our salvation by way of merit, yet it did so by way of\ncausality, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's death was indeed corporeal; but the body was\nthe instrument of the Godhead united to Him, working by Its power,\nalthough dead.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 51\n\nOF CHRIST'S BURIAL\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider Christ's burial, concerning which there are\nfour points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to be buried?\n\n(2) Concerning the manner of His burial;\n\n(3) Whether His body was decomposed in the tomb?\n\n(4) Concerning the length of time He lay in the tomb.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 51, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting for Christ to Be Buried?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem unfitting for Christ to have been buried,\nbecause it is said of Him (Ps. 87:6): \"He is [Vulg.: 'I am'] become\nas a man without help, free among the dead.\" But the bodies of the\ndead are enclosed in a tomb; which seems contrary to liberty.\nTherefore it does not seem fitting for Christ to have been buried.\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing should be done to Christ except it was\nhelpful to our salvation. But Christ's burial seems in no way to be\nconducive to our salvation. Therefore, it was not fitting for Him to\nbe buried.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it seems out of place for God who is above the high\nheavens to be laid in the earth. But what befalls the dead body of\nChrist is attributed to God by reason of the union. Therefore it\nappears to be unbecoming for Christ to be buried.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Matt. 26:10) of the woman who\nanointed Him: \"She has wrought a good work upon Me,\" and then He\nadded (Matt. 26:12)--\"for she, in pouring this ointment upon My body,\nhath done it for My burial.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting for Christ to be buried. First of\nall, to establish the truth of His death; for no one is laid in the\ngrave unless there be certainty of death. Hence we read (Mk. 15:44,\n45), that Pilate by diligent inquiry assured himself of Christ's\ndeath before granting leave for His burial. Secondly, because by\nChrist's rising from the grave, to them who are in the grave, hope is\ngiven of rising again through Him, according to John 5:25, 28: \"All\nthat are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God . . .\nand they that hear shall live.\" Thirdly, as an example to them who\ndying spiritually to their sins are hidden away \"from the disturbance\nof men\" (Ps. 30:21). Hence it is said (Col. 3:3): \"You are dead, and\nyour life is hid with Christ in God.\" Wherefore the baptized likewise\nwho through Christ's death die to sins, are as it were buried with\nChrist by immersion, according to Rom. 6:4: \"We are buried together\nwith Christ by baptism into death.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Though buried, Christ proved Himself \"free among the\ndead\": since, although imprisoned in the tomb, He could not be\nhindered from going forth by rising again.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Christ's death wrought our salvation, so likewise\ndid His burial. Hence Jerome says (Super Marc. xiv): \"By Christ's\nburial we rise again\"; and on Isa. 53:9: \"He shall give the ungodly\nfor His burial,\" a gloss says: \"He shall give to God and the Father\nthe Gentiles who were without godliness, because He purchased them by\nHis death and burial.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As is said in a discourse made at the Council of\nEphesus [*P. iii, cap. 9], \"Nothing that saves man is derogatory to\nGod; showing Him to be not passible, but merciful\": and in another\ndiscourse of the same Council [*P. iii, cap. 10]: \"God does not\nrepute anything as an injury which is an occasion of men's salvation.\nThus thou shalt not deem God's Nature to be so vile, as though It may\nsometimes be subjected to injuries.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 51, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Was Buried in a Becoming Manner?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was buried in an unbecoming\nmanner. For His burial should be in keeping with His death. But\nChrist underwent a most shameful death, according to Wis. 2:20: \"Let\nus condemn Him to a most shameful death.\" It seems therefore\nunbecoming for honorable burial to be accorded to Christ, inasmuch as\nHe was buried by men of position--namely, by Joseph of Arimathea, who\nwas \"a noble counselor,\" to use Mark's expression (Mk. 15:43), and by\nNicodemus, who was \"a ruler of the Jews,\" as John states (John 3:1).\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing should be done to Christ which might set an\nexample of wastefulness. But it seems to savor of waste that in order\nto bury Christ Nicodemus came \"bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes\nabout a hundred pounds weight,\" as recorded by John (19:39),\nespecially since a woman came beforehand to anoint His body for the\nburial, as Mark relates (Mk. 14:28). Consequently, this was not done\nbecomingly with regard to Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is not becoming for anything done to be\ninconsistent with itself. But Christ's burial on the one hand was\nsimple, because \"Joseph wrapped His body in a clean linen cloth,\" as\nis related by Matthew (27:59), \"but not with gold or gems, or silk,\"\nas Jerome observes: yet on the other hand there appears to have been\nsome display, inasmuch as they buried Him with fragrant spices (John\n19:40). Consequently, the manner of Christ's burial does not seem to\nhave been seemly.\n\nObj. 4: Further, \"What things soever were written,\" especially of\nChrist, \"were written for our learning,\" according to Rom. 15:4. But\nsome of the things written in the Gospels touching Christ's burial in\nno wise seem to pertain to our instruction--as that He was buried \"in\na garden . . . \"in a tomb which was not His own,\" which was \"new,\"\nand \"hewed out in a rock.\" Therefore the manner of Christ's burial\nwas not becoming.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 11:10): \"And His sepulchre\nshall be glorious.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The manner of Christ's burial is shown to be seemly\nin three respects. First, to confirm faith in His death and\nresurrection. Secondly, to commend the devotion of those who gave Him\nburial. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i): \"The Gospel mentions as\npraiseworthy the deed of those who received His body from the cross,\nand with due care and reverence wrapped it up and buried it.\"\nThirdly, as to the mystery whereby those are molded who \"are buried\ntogether with Christ into death\" (Rom. 6:4).\n\nReply Obj. 1: With regard to Christ's death, His patience and\nconstancy in enduring death are commended, and all the more that His\ndeath was the more despicable: but in His honorable burial we can see\nthe power of the dying Man, who, even in death, frustrated the intent\nof His murderers, and was buried with honor: and thereby is\nforeshadowed the devotion of the faithful who in the time to come\nwere to serve the dead Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 2: On that expression of the Evangelist (John 19:40) that\nthey buried Him \"as the manner of the Jews is to bury,\" Augustine\nsays (Tract. in Joan. cxx): \"He admonishes us that in offices of this\nkind which are rendered to the dead, the custom of each nation should\nbe observed.\" Now it was the custom of this people to anoint bodies\nwith various spices in order the longer to preserve them from\ncorruption [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Joan. xix]. Accordingly it is said\nin De Doctr. Christ. iii that \"in all such things, it is not the use\nthereof, but the luxury of the user that is at fault\"; and, farther\non: \"what in other persons is frequently criminal, in a divine or\nprophetic person is a sign of something great.\" For myrrh and aloes\nby their bitterness denote penance, by which man keeps Christ within\nhimself without the corruption of sin; while the odor of the\nointments expresses good report.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Myrrh and aloes were used on Christ's body in order\nthat it might be preserved from corruption, and this seemed to imply\na certain need (in the body): hence the example is set us that we may\nlawfully use precious things medicinally, from the need of preserving\nour body. But the wrapping up of the body was merely a question of\nbecoming propriety. And we ought to content ourselves with simplicity\nin such things. Yet, as Jerome observes, by this act was denoted that\n\"he swathes Jesus in clean linen, who receives Him with a pure soul.\"\nHence, as Bede says on Mark 15:46: \"The Church's custom has prevailed\nfor the sacrifice of the altar to be offered not upon silk, nor upon\ndyed cloth, but on linen of the earth; as the Lord's body was buried\nin a clean winding-sheet.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Christ was buried \"in a garden\" to express that by His\ndeath and burial we are delivered from the death which we incur\nthrough Adam's sin committed in the garden of paradise. But for this\n\"was our Lord buried in the grave of a stranger,\" as Augustine says\nin a sermon (ccxlviii), \"because He died for the salvation of others;\nand a sepulchre is the abode of death.\" Also the extent of the\npoverty endured for us can be thereby estimated: since He who while\nliving had no home, after death was laid to rest in another's tomb,\nand being naked was clothed by Joseph. But He is laid in a \"new\"\nsepulchre, as Jerome observes on Matt. 27:60, \"lest after the\nresurrection it might be pretended that someone else had risen, while\nthe other corpses remained. The new sepulchre can also denote Mary's\nvirginal womb.\" And furthermore it may be understood that all of us\nare renewed by Christ's burial; death and corruption being destroyed.\nMoreover, He was buried in a monument \"hewn out of a rock,\" as Jerome\nsays on Matt. 27:64, \"lest, if it had been constructed of many\nstones, they might say that He was stolen away by digging away the\nfoundations of the tomb.\" Hence the \"great stone\" which was set shows\nthat \"the tomb could not be opened except by the help of many hands.\nAgain, if He had been buried in the earth, they might have said: They\ndug up the soil and stole Him away,\" as Augustine observes [*Cf.\nCatena Aurea]. Hilary (Comment. in Matth. cap. xxxiii) gives the\nmystical interpretation, saying that \"by the teaching of the\napostles, Christ is borne into the stony heart of the gentile; for it\nis hewn out by the process of teaching, unpolished and new,\nuntenanted and open to the entrance of the fear of God. And since\nnaught besides Him must enter into our hearts, a great stone is\nrolled against the door.\" Furthermore, as Origen says (Tract. xxxv in\nMatth.): \"It was not written by hazard: 'Joseph wrapped Christ's body\nin a clean winding-sheet, and placed it in a new monument,'\" and that\n\"'he rolled a great stone,' because all things around the body of\nJesus are clean, and new, and exceeding great.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 51, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Was Reduced to Dust in the Tomb?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was reduced to dust in\nthe tomb. For just as man dies in punishment of his first parent's\nsin, so also does he return to dust, since it was said to the first\nman after his sin: \"Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return\"\n(Gen. 3:19). But Christ endured death in order to deliver us from\ndeath. Therefore His body ought to be made to return to dust, so as\nto free us from the same penalty.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's body was of the same nature as ours. But\ndirectly after death our bodies begin to dissolve into dust, and are\ndisposed towards putrefaction, because when the natural heat departs,\nthere supervenes heat from without which causes corruption. Therefore\nit seems that the same thing happened to Christ's body.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 1), Christ willed to be buried\nin order to furnish men with the hope of rising likewise from the\ngrave. Consequently, He sought likewise to return to dust so as to\ngive to them who have returned to dust the hope of rising from the\ndust.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 15:10): \"Nor wilt Thou suffer\nThy holy one to see corruption\": and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii)\nexpounds this of the corruption which comes of dissolving into\nelements.\n\n_I answer that,_ It was not fitting for Christ's body to putrefy, or\nin any way be reduced to dust, since the putrefaction of any body\ncomes of that body's infirmity of nature, which can no longer hold\nthe body together. But as was said above (Q. 50, A. 1, ad 2),\nChrist's death ought not to come from weakness of nature, lest it\nmight not be believed to be voluntary: and therefore He willed to\ndie, not from sickness, but from suffering inflicted on Him, to which\nHe gave Himself up willingly. And therefore, lest His death might be\nascribed to infirmity of nature, Christ did not wish His body to\nputrefy in any way or dissolve no matter how; but for the\nmanifestation of His Divine power He willed that His body should\ncontinue incorrupt. Hence Chrysostom says (Cont. Jud. et Gent. quod\n'Christus sit Deus') that \"with other men, especially with such as\nhave wrought strenuously, their deeds shine forth in their lifetime;\nbut as soon as they die, their deeds go with them. But it is quite\nthe contrary with Christ: because previous to the cross all is\nsadness and weakness, but as soon as He is crucified, everything\ncomes to light, in order that you may learn it was not an ordinary\nman that was crucified.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Since Christ was not subject to sin, neither was He\nprone to die or to return to dust. Yet of His own will He endured\ndeath for our salvation, for the reasons alleged above (Q. 51, A. 1).\nBut had His body putrefied or dissolved, this fact would have been\ndetrimental to man's salvation, for it would not have seemed credible\nthat the Divine power was in Him. Hence it is on His behalf that it\nis written (Ps. 19:10): \"What profit is there in my blood, whilst I\ngo down to corruption?\" as if He were to say: \"If My body corrupt,\nthe profit of the blood shed will be lost.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's body was a subject of corruption according to\nthe condition of its passible nature, but not as to the deserving\ncause of putrefaction, which is sin: but the Divine power preserved\nChrist's body from putrefying, just as it raised it up from death.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ rose from the tomb by Divine power, which is not\nnarrowed within bounds. Consequently, His rising from the grave was a\nsufficient argument to prove that men are to be raised up by Divine\npower, not only from their graves, but also from any dust whatever.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 51, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Was in the Tomb Only One Day and Two Nights?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was not in the tomb during\nonly one day and two nights; because He said (Matt. 12:40): \"As Jonas\nwas in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the\nSon of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.\"\nBut He was in the heart of the earth while He was in the grave.\nTherefore He was not in the tomb for only one day and two nights.\n\nObj. 2: Gregory says in a Paschal Homily (Hom. xxi): \"As Samson\ncarried off the gates of Gaza during the night, even so Christ rose\nin the night, taking away the gates of hell.\" But after rising He was\nnot in the tomb. Therefore He was not two whole nights in the grave.\n\nObj. 3: Further, light prevailed over darkness by Christ's death. But\nnight belongs to darkness, and day to light. Therefore it was more\nfitting for Christ's body to be in the tomb for two days and a night,\nrather than conversely.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. iv): \"There were\nthirty-six hours from the evening of His burial to the dawn of the\nresurrection, that is, a whole night with a whole day, and a whole\nnight.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The very time during which Christ remained in the\ntomb shows forth the effect of His death. For it was said above (Q.\n50, A. 6) that by Christ's death we were delivered from a twofold\ndeath, namely, from the death of the soul and of the body: and this\nis signified by the two nights during which He remained in the tomb.\nBut since His death did not come of sin, but was endured from\ncharity, it has not the semblance of night, but of day: consequently\nit is denoted by the whole day during which Christ was in the\nsepulchre. And so it was fitting for Christ to be in the sepulchre\nduring one day and two nights.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): \"Some men,\nignorant of Scriptural language, wished to compute as night those\nthree hours, from the sixth to the ninth hour, during which the sun\nwas darkened, and as day those other three hours during which it was\nrestored to the earth, that is, from the ninth hour until its\nsetting: for the coming night of the Sabbath follows, and if this be\nreckoned with its day, there will be already two nights and two days.\nNow after the Sabbath there follows the night of the first day of the\nSabbath, that is, of the dawning Sunday, on which the Lord rose. Even\nso, the reckoning of the three days and three nights will not stand.\nIt remains then to find the solution in the customary usage of speech\nof the Scriptures, whereby the whole is understood from the part\": so\nthat we are able to take a day and a night as one natural day. And so\nthe first day is computed from its ending, during which Christ died\nand was buried on the Friday; while the second day is an entire day\nwith twenty-four hours of night and day; while the night following\nbelongs to the third day. \"For as the primitive days were computed\nfrom light to night on account of man's future fall, so these days\nare computed from the darkness to the daylight on account of man's\nrestoration\" (De Trin. iv).\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. iv; cf. De Consens. Evang.\niii), Christ rose with the dawn, when light appears in part, and\nstill some part of the darkness of the night remains. Hence it is\nsaid of the women that \"when it was yet dark\" they came \"to the\nsepulchre\" (John 20:1). Therefore, in consequence of this darkness,\nGregory says (Hom. xxi) that Christ rose in the middle of the night,\nnot that night is divided into two equal parts, but during the night\nitself: for the expression \"early\" can be taken as partly night and\npartly day, from its fittingness with both.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The light prevailed so far in Christ's death (which is\ndenoted by the one day) that it dispelled the darkness of the two\nnights, that is, of our twofold death, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 52\n\nOF CHRIST'S DESCENT INTO HELL\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider Christ's descent into hell; concerning which\nthere are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it was fitting for Christ to descend into hell?\n\n(2) Into which hell did He descend?\n\n(3) Whether He was entirely in hell?\n\n(4) Whether He made any stay there?\n\n(5) Whether He delivered the Holy Fathers from hell?\n\n(6) Whether He delivered the lost from hell?\n\n(7) Whether He delivered the children who died in original sin?\n\n(8) Whether He delivered men from Purgatory?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting for Christ to Descend into Hell?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to\ndescend into hell, because Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod. cliv.): \"Nor\ncould I find anywhere in the Scriptures hell mentioned as something\ngood.\" But Christ's soul did not descend into any evil place, for\nneither do the souls of the just. Therefore it does not seem fitting\nfor Christ's soul to descend into hell.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it cannot belong to Christ to descend into hell\naccording to His Divine Nature, which is altogether immovable; but\nonly according to His assumed nature. But that which Christ did or\nsuffered in His assumed nature is ordained for man's salvation: and\nto secure this it does not seem necessary for Christ to descend into\nhell, since He delivered us from both guilt and penalty by His\nPassion which He endured in this world, as stated above (Q. 49, AA.\n1, 3). Consequently, it was not fitting that Christ should descend\ninto hell.\n\nObj. 3: Further, by Christ's death His soul was separated from His\nbody, and this was laid in the sepulchre, as stated above (Q. 51).\nBut it seems that He descended into hell, not according to His soul\nonly, because seemingly the soul, being incorporeal, cannot be a\nsubject of local motion; for this belongs to bodies, as is proved in\n_Phys._ vi, text. 32; while descent implies corporeal motion.\nTherefore it was not fitting for Christ to descend into hell.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Creed: \"He descended into hell\":\nand the Apostle says (Eph. 4:9): \"Now that He ascended, what is it,\nbut because He also descended first into the lower parts of the\nearth?\" And a gloss adds: \"that is--into hell.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting for Christ to descend into hell.\nFirst of all, because He came to bear our penalty in order to free us\nfrom penalty, according to Isa. 53:4: \"Surely He hath borne our\ninfirmities and carried our sorrows.\" But through sin man had\nincurred not only the death of the body, but also descent into hell.\nConsequently since it was fitting for Christ to die in order to\ndeliver us from death, so it was fitting for Him to descend into hell\nin order to deliver us also from going down into hell. Hence it is\nwritten (Osee 13:14): \"O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will\nbe thy bite.\" Secondly, because it was fitting when the devil was\noverthrown by the Passion that Christ should deliver the captives\ndetained in hell, according to Zech. 9:11: \"Thou also by the blood of\nThy Testament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit.\" And it\nis written (Col. 2:15): \"Despoiling the principalities and powers, He\nhath exposed them confidently.\" Thirdly, that as He showed forth His\npower on earth by living and dying, so also He might manifest it in\nhell, by visiting it and enlightening it. Accordingly it is written\n(Ps. 23:7): \"Lift up your gates, O ye princes,\" which the gloss thus\ninterprets: \"that is--Ye princes of hell, take away your power,\nwhereby hitherto you held men fast in hell\"; and so \"at the name of\nJesus every knee should bow,\" not only \"of them that are in heaven,\"\nbut likewise \"of them that are in hell,\" as is said in Phil. 2:10.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The name of hell stands for an evil of penalty, and not\nfor an evil of guilt. Hence it was becoming that Christ should\ndescend into hell, not as liable to punishment Himself, but to\ndeliver them who were.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's Passion was a kind of universal cause of men's\nsalvation, both of the living and of the dead. But a general cause is\napplied to particular effects by means of something special. Hence,\nas the power of the Passion is applied to the living through the\nsacraments which make us like unto Christ's Passion, so likewise it\nis applied to the dead through His descent into hell. On which\naccount it is written (Zech. 9:11) that \"He sent forth prisoners out\nof the pit, in the blood of His testament,\" that is, by the power of\nHis Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's soul descended into hell not by the same kind\nof motion as that whereby bodies are moved, but by that kind whereby\nthe angels are moved, as was said in the First Part (Q. 53, A. 1).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Went Down into the Hell of the Lost?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ went down into the hell of the\nlost, because it is said by the mouth of Divine Wisdom (Ecclus.\n24:45): \"I will penetrate to all the lower parts of the earth.\" But\nthe hell of the lost is computed among the lower parts of the earth\naccording to Ps. 62:10: \"They shall go into the lower parts of the\nearth.\" Therefore Christ who is the Wisdom of God, went down even\ninto the hell of the lost.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Peter says (Acts 2:24) that \"God hath raised up\nChrist, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that\nHe should be holden by it.\" But there are no sorrows in the hell of\nthe Fathers, nor in the hell of the children, since they are not\npunished with sensible pain on account of any actual sin, but only\nwith the pain of loss on account of original sin. Therefore Christ\nwent down into the hell of the lost, or else into Purgatory, where\nmen are tormented with sensible pain on account of actual sins.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (1 Pet. 3:19) that \"Christ coming in\nspirit preached to those spirits that were in prison, which had some\ntime been incredulous\": and this is understood of Christ's descent\ninto hell, as Athanasius says (Ep. ad Epict.). For he says that\n\"Christ's body was laid in the sepulchre when He went to preach to\nthose spirits who were in bondage, as Peter said.\" But it is clear\nthe unbelievers were in the hell of the lost. Therefore Christ went\ndown into the hell of the lost.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv): \"If the sacred\nScriptures had said that Christ came into Abraham's bosom, without\nnaming hell or its woes, I wonder whether any person would dare to\nassert that He descended into hell. But since evident testimonies\nmention hell and its sorrows, there is no reason for believing that\nChrist went there except to deliver men from the same woes.\" But the\nplace of woes is the hell of the lost. Therefore Christ descended\ninto the hell of the lost.\n\nObj. 5: Further, as Augustine says in a sermon upon the Resurrection:\nChrist descending into hell \"set free all the just who were held in\nthe bonds of original sin.\" But among them was Job, who says of\nhimself (Job 17:16): \"All that I have shall go down into the deepest\npit.\" Therefore Christ descended into the deepest pit.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Regarding the hell of the lost it is written (Job\n10:21): \"Before I go, and return no more, to a land that is dark and\ncovered with the mist of death.\" Now there is no \"fellowship of light\nwith darkness,\" according to 2 Cor. 6:14. Therefore Christ, who is\n\"the light,\" did not descend into the hell of the lost.\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be in a place in two ways. First\nof all, through its effect, and in this way Christ descended into\neach of the hells, but in different manner. For going down into the\nhell of the lost He wrought this effect, that by descending thither\nHe put them to shame for their unbelief and wickedness: but to them\nwho were detained in Purgatory He gave hope of attaining to glory:\nwhile upon the holy Fathers detained in hell solely on account of\noriginal sin, He shed the light of glory everlasting.\n\nIn another way a thing is said to be in a place through its essence:\nand in this way Christ's soul descended only into that part of hell\nwherein the just were detained. so that He visited them \"in place,\"\naccording to His soul, whom He visited \"interiorly by grace,\"\naccording to His Godhead. Accordingly, while remaining in one part of\nhell, He wrought this effect in a measure in every part of hell, just\nas while suffering in one part of the earth He delivered the whole\nworld by His Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, penetrated to all the\nlower parts of the earth, not passing through them locally with His\nsoul, but by spreading the effects of His power in a measure to them\nall: yet so that He enlightened only the just: because the text\nquoted continues: \"And I will enlighten all that hope in the Lord.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Sorrow is twofold: one is the suffering of pain which\nmen endure for actual sin, according to Ps. 17:6: \"The sorrows of\nhell encompassed me.\" Another sorrow comes of hoped-for glory being\ndeferred, according to Prov. 13:12: \"Hope that is deferred afflicteth\nthe soul\": and such was the sorrow which the holy Fathers suffered in\nhell, and Augustine refers to it in a sermon on the Passion, saying\nthat \"they besought Christ with tearful entreaty.\" Now by descending\ninto hell Christ took away both sorrows, yet in different ways: for\nHe did away with the sorrows of pains by preserving souls from them,\njust as a physician is said to free a man from sickness by warding it\noff by means of physic. Likewise He removed the sorrows caused by\nglory deferred, by bestowing glory.\n\nReply Obj. 3: These words of Peter are referred by some to Christ's\ndescent into hell: and they explain it in this sense: \"Christ\npreached to them who formerly were unbelievers, and who were shut up\nin prison\"--that is, in hell--\"in spirit\"--that is, by His soul.\nHence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): \"As He evangelized them who\nare upon the earth, so did He those who were in hell\"; not in order\nto convert unbelievers unto belief, but to put them to shame for\ntheir unbelief, since preaching cannot be understood otherwise than\nas the open manifesting of His Godhead, which was laid bare before\nthem in the lower regions by His descending in power into hell.\n\nAugustine, however, furnishes a better exposition of the text in his\nEpistle to Evodius quoted above, namely, that the preaching is not to\nbe referred to Christ's descent into hell, but to the operation of\nHis Godhead, to which He gave effect from the beginning of the world.\nConsequently, the sense is, that \"to those (spirits) that were in\nprison\"--that is, living in the mortal body, which is, as it were,\nthe soul's prison-house--\"by the spirit\" of His Godhead \"He came and\npreached\" by internal inspirations, and from without by the\nadmonitions spoken by the righteous: to those, I say, He preached\n\"which had been some time incredulous,\" i.e. not believing in the\npreaching of Noe, \"when they waited for the patience of God,\" whereby\nthe chastisement of the Deluge was put off: accordingly (Peter) adds:\n\"In the days of Noe, when the Ark was being built.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: The expression \"Abraham's bosom\" may be taken in two\nsenses. First of all, as implying that restfulness, existing there,\nfrom sensible pain; so that in this sense it cannot be called hell,\nnor are there any sorrows there. In another way it can be taken as\nimplying the privation of longed-for glory: in this sense it has the\ncharacter of hell and sorrow. Consequently, that rest of the blessed\nis now called Abraham's bosom, yet it is not styled hell, nor are\nsorrows said to be now in Abraham's bosom.\n\nReply Obj. 5: As Gregory says (Moral. xiii): \"Even the higher regions\nof hell he calls the deepest hell . . . For if relatively to the\nheight of heaven this darksome air is infernal, then relatively to\nthe height of this same air the earth lying beneath can be considered\nas infernal and deep. And again in comparison with the height of the\nsame earth, those parts of hell which are higher than the other\ninfernal mansions, may in this way be designated as the deepest hell.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Whole Christ Was in Hell?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the whole Christ was not in hell. For\nChrist's body is one of His parts. But His body was not in hell.\nTherefore, the whole Christ was not in hell.\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing can be termed whole when its parts are\nsevered. But the soul and body, which are the parts of human nature,\nwere separated at His death, as stated above (Q. 50, AA. 3, 4), and\nit was after death that He descended into hell. Therefore the whole\n(Christ) could not be in hell.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the whole of a thing is said to be in a place when\nno part of it is outside such place. But there were parts of Christ\noutside hell; for instance, His body was in the grave, and His\nGodhead everywhere. Therefore the whole Christ was not in hell.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Symbolo iii): \"The whole Son is\nwith the Father, the whole Son in heaven, on earth, in the Virgin's\nwomb, on the Cross, in hell, in paradise, into which He brought the\nrobber.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It is evident from what was said in the First Part\n(Q. 31, A. 2, ad 4), the masculine gender is referred to the\nhypostasis or person, while the neuter belongs to the nature. Now in\nthe death of Christ, although the soul was separated from the body,\nyet neither was separated from the Person of the Son of God, as\nstated above (Q. 50, A. 2). Consequently, it must be affirmed that\nduring the three days of Christ's death the whole Christ was in the\ntomb, because the whole Person was there through the body united with\nHim, and likewise He was entirely in hell, because the whole Person\nof Christ was there by reason of the soul united with Him, and the\nwhole Christ was then everywhere by reason of the Divine Nature.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The body which was then in the grave is not a part of\nthe uncreated Person, but of the assumed nature. Consequently, the\nfact of Christ's body not being in hell does not prevent the whole\nChrist from being there: but proves that not everything appertaining\nto human nature was there.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The whole human nature is made up of the united soul\nand body; not so the Divine Person. Consequently when death severed\nthe union of the soul with the body, the whole Christ remained, but\nHis whole human nature did not remain.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's Person is whole in each single place, but not\nwholly, because it is not circumscribed by any place: indeed, all\nplaces put together could not comprise His immensity; rather is it\nHis immensity that embraces all things. But it happens in those\nthings which are in a place corporeally and circumscriptively, that\nif a whole be in some place, then no part of it is outside that\nplace. But this is not the case with God. Hence Augustine says (De\nSymbolo iii): \"It is not according to times or places that we say\nthat the whole Christ is everywhere, as if He were at one time whole\nin one place, at another time whole in another: but as being whole\nalways and everywhere.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Made Any Stay in Hell?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not make any stay in hell.\nFor Christ went down into hell to deliver men from thence. But He\naccomplished this deliverance at once by His descent, for, according\nto Ecclus. 11:23: \"It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make\nthe poor man rich.\" Consequently He does not seem to have tarried in\nhell.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says in a sermon on the Passion (clx) that\n\"of a sudden at our Lord and Saviour's bidding all 'the bars of iron\nwere burst'\" (Cf. Isa. 45:2). Hence on behalf of the angels\naccompanying Christ it is written (Ps. 23:7, 9): \"Lift up your gates,\nO ye princes.\" Now Christ descended thither in order to break the\nbolts of hell. Therefore He did not make any stay in hell.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is related (Luke 23:43) that our Lord while\nhanging on the cross said to the thief: \"This day thou shalt be with\nMe in paradise\": from which it is evident that Christ was in paradise\non that very day. But He was not there with His body, for that was in\nthe grave. Therefore He was there with the soul which had gone down\ninto hell: and consequently it appears that He made no stay in hell.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Peter says (Acts 2:24): \"Whom God hath raised up,\nhaving loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that He\nshould be held by it.\" Therefore it seems that He remained in hell\nuntil the hour of the Resurrection.\n\n_I answer that,_ As Christ, in order to take our penalties upon\nHimself, willed His body to be laid in the tomb, so likewise He\nwilled His soul to descend into hell. But the body lay in the tomb\nfor a day and two nights, so as to demonstrate the truth of His\ndeath. Consequently, it is to be believed that His soul was in hell,\nin order that it might be brought back out of hell simultaneously\nwith His body from the tomb.\n\nReply Obj. 1: When Christ descended into hell He delivered the saints\nwho were there, not by leading them out at once from the confines of\nhell, but by enlightening them with the light of glory in hell\nitself. Nevertheless it was fitting that His soul should abide in\nhell as long as His body remained in the tomb.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By the expression \"bars of hell\" are understood the\nobstacles which kept the holy Fathers from quitting hell, through the\nguilt of our first parent's sin; and these bars Christ burst asunder\nby the power of His Passion on descending into hell: nevertheless He\nchose to remain in hell for some time, for the reason stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Our Lord's expression is not to be understood of the\nearthly corporeal paradise, but of a spiritual one, in which all are\nsaid to be who enjoy the Divine glory. Accordingly, the thief\ndescended locally into hell with Christ, because it was said to him:\n\"This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise\"; still as to reward he\nwas in paradise, because he enjoyed Christ's Godhead just as the\nother saints did.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Christ Descending into Hell Delivered the Holy Fathers from\nThence?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ descending into hell did not\ndeliver the holy Fathers from thence. For Augustine (Epist. ad Evod.\nclxiv) says: \"I have not yet discovered what Christ descending into\nhell bestowed upon those righteous ones who were in Abraham's bosom,\nfrom whom I fail to see that He ever departed according to the\nbeatific presence of His Godhead.\" But had He delivered them, He\nwould have bestowed much upon them. Therefore it does not appear that\nChrist delivered the holy Fathers from hell.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no one is detained in hell except on account of sin.\nBut during life the holy Fathers were justified from sin through\nfaith in Christ. Consequently they did not need to be delivered from\nhell on Christ's descent thither.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if you remove the cause, you remove the effect. But\nthat Christ went down into hell was due to sin which was taken away\nby the Passion, as stated above (Q. 49, A. 1). Consequently, the holy\nFathers were not delivered on Christ's descent into hell.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in the sermon on the Passion\nalready quoted that when Christ descended into hell \"He broke down\nthe gate and 'iron bars' of hell, setting at liberty all the\nrighteous who were held fast through original sin.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 4, ad 2), when Christ descended\ninto hell He worked through the power of His Passion. But through\nChrist's Passion the human race was delivered not only from sin, but\nalso from the debt of its penalty, as stated above (Q. 49, AA. 1, 3).\nNow men were held fast by the debt of punishment in two ways: first\nof all for actual sin which each had committed personally: secondly,\nfor the sin of the whole human race, which each one in his origin\ncontracts from our first parent, as stated in Rom. 5 of which sin the\npenalty is the death of the body as well as exclusion from glory, as\nis evident from Gen. 2 and 3: because God cast out man from paradise\nafter sin, having beforehand threatened him with death should he sin.\nConsequently, when Christ descended into hell, by the power of His\nPassion He delivered the saints from the penalty whereby they were\nexcluded from the life of glory, so as to be unable to see God in His\nEssence, wherein man's beatitude lies, as stated in the Second Part\n(I-II, Q. 3, A. 8). But the holy Fathers were detained in hell for\nthe reason, that, owing to our first parent's sin, the approach to\nthe life of glory was not opened. And so when Christ descended into\nhell He delivered the holy Fathers from thence. And this is what is\nwritten Zech. 9:11: \"Thou also by the blood of Thy testament hast\nsent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit, wherein is no water.\" And\n(Col. 2:15) it is written that \"despoiling the principalities and\npowers,\" i.e. \"of hell, by taking out Isaac and Jacob, and the other\njust souls,\" \"He led them,\" i.e. \"He brought them far from this\nkingdom of darkness into heaven,\" as the gloss explains.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Augustine is speaking there against such as maintained\nthat the righteous of old were subject to penal sufferings before\nChrist's descent into hell. Hence shortly before the passage quoted\nhe says: \"Some add that this benefit was also bestowed upon the\nsaints of old, that on the Lord's coming into hell they were freed\nfrom their sufferings. But I fail to see how Abraham, into whose\nbosom the poor man was received, was ever in such sufferings.\"\nConsequently, when he afterwards adds that \"he had not yet discovered\nwhat Christ's descent into hell had brought to the righteous of old,\"\nthis must be understood as to their being freed from penal\nsufferings. Yet Christ bestowed something upon them as to their\nattaining glory: and in consequence He dispelled the suffering which\nthey endured through their glory being delayed: still they had great\njoy from the very hope thereof, according to John 8:56: \"Abraham your\nfather rejoiced that he might see my day.\" And therefore he adds: \"I\nfail to see that He ever departed, according to the beatific presence\nof His Godhead,\" that is, inasmuch as even before Christ's coming\nthey were happy in hope, although not yet fully happy in fact.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The holy Fathers while yet living were delivered from\noriginal as well as actual sin through faith in Christ; also from the\npenalty of actual sins, but not from the penalty of original sin,\nwhereby they were excluded from glory, since the price of man's\nredemption was not yet paid: just as the faithful are now delivered\nby baptism from the penalty of actual sins, and from the penalty of\noriginal sin as to exclusion from glory, yet still remain bound by\nthe penalty of original sin as to the necessity of dying in the body\nbecause they are renewed in the spirit, but not yet in the flesh,\naccording to Rom. 8:10: \"The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but\nthe spirit liveth, because of justification.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Directly Christ died His soul went down into hell, and\nbestowed the fruits of His Passion on the saints detained there;\nalthough they did not go out as long as Christ remained in hell,\nbecause His presence was part of the fulness of their glory.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Christ Delivered Any of the Lost from Hell?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did deliver some of the lost\nfrom hell, because it is written (Isa. 24:22): \"And they shall be\ngathered together as in the gathering of one bundle into the pit, end\nthey shall be shut up there in prison: and after many days they shall\nbe visited.\" But there he is speaking of the lost, who \"had adored\nthe host of heaven,\" according to Jerome's commentary. Consequently\nit seems that even the lost were visited at Christ's descent into\nhell; and this seems to imply their deliverance.\n\nObj. 2: Further, on Zech. 9:11: \"Thou also by the blood of Thy\ntestament hast sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no\nwater,\" the gloss observes: \"Thou hast delivered them who were held\nbound in prisons, where no mercy refreshed them, which that rich man\nprayed for.\" But only the lost are shut up in merciless prisons.\nTherefore Christ did deliver some from the hell of the lost.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's power was not less in hell than in this\nworld, because He worked in every place by the power of His Godhead.\nBut in this world He delivered some persons of every state.\nTherefore, in hell also, He delivered some from the state of the lost.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Osee 13:14): \"O death, I will be\nthy death; O hell, I will be thy bite\": upon which the gloss says:\n\"By leading forth the elect, and leaving there the reprobate.\" But\nonly the reprobate are in the hell of the lost. Therefore, by\nChrist's descent into hell none were delivered from the hell of the\nlost.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), when Christ descended into\nhell He worked by the power of His Passion. Consequently, His descent\ninto hell brought the fruits of deliverance to them only who were\nunited to His Passion through faith quickened by charity, whereby\nsins are taken away. Now those detained in the hell of the lost\neither had no faith in Christ's Passion, as infidels; or if they had\nfaith, they had no conformity with the charity of the suffering\nChrist: hence they could not be cleansed from their sins. And on this\naccount Christ's descent into hell brought them no deliverance from\nthe debt of punishment in hell.\n\nReply Obj. 1: When Christ descended into hell, all who were in any\npart of hell were visited in some respect: some to their consolation\nand deliverance, others, namely, the lost, to their shame and\nconfusion. Accordingly the passage continues: \"And the moon shall\nblush, and the sun be put to shame,\" etc.\n\nThis can also be referred to the visitation which will come upon them\nin the Day of Judgment, not for their deliverance, but for their yet\ngreater confusion, according to Sophon. i, 12: \"I will visit upon the\nmen that are settled on their lees.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: When the gloss says \"where no mercy refreshed them,\"\nthis is to be understood of the refreshing of full deliverance,\nbecause the holy Fathers could not be delivered from this prison of\nhell before Christ's coming.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It was not due to any lack of power on Christ's part\nthat some were not delivered from every state in hell, as out of\nevery state among men in this world; but it was owing to the very\ndifferent condition of each state. For, so long as men live here\nbelow, they can be converted to faith and charity, because in this\nlife men are not confirmed either in good or in evil, as they are\nafter quitting this life.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Children Who Died in Original Sin Were Delivered by\nChrist?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the children who died in original sin\nwere delivered from hell by Christ's descending thither. For, like\nthe holy Fathers, the children were kept in hell simply because of\noriginal sin. But the holy Fathers were delivered from hell, as\nstated above (A. 5). Therefore the children were similarly delivered\nfrom hell by Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15): \"If by the offense of\none, many died; much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace\nof one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.\" But the children\nwho die with none but original sin are detained in hell owing to\ntheir first parent's sin. Therefore, much more were they delivered\nfrom hell through the grace of Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Baptism works in virtue of Christ's Passion, so\nalso does Christ's descent into hell, as is clear from what has been\nsaid (A. 4, ad 2, AA. 5, 6). But through Baptism children are\ndelivered from original sin and hell. Therefore, they were similarly\ndelivered by Christ's descent into hell.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 3:25): \"God hath proposed\nChrist to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.\" But the\nchildren who had died with only original sin were in no wise sharers\nof faith in Christ. Therefore, they did not receive the fruits of\nChrist's propitiation, so as to be delivered by Him from hell.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 6), Christ's descent into hell\nhad its effect of deliverance on them only who through faith and\ncharity were united to Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof Christ's\ndescent into hell was one of deliverance. But the children who had\ndied in original sin were in no way united to Christ's Passion by\nfaith and love: for, not having the use of free will, they could have\nno faith of their own; nor were they cleansed from original sin\neither by their parents' faith or by any sacrament of faith.\nConsequently, Christ's descent into hell did not deliver the children\nfrom thence. And furthermore, the holy Fathers were delivered from\nhell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no\none can come except through grace; according to Rom. 6:23: \"The grace\nof God is life everlasting.\" Therefore, since children dying in\noriginal sin had no grace, they were not delivered from hell.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The holy Fathers, although still held bound by the debt\nof original sin, in so far as it touches human nature, were\nnevertheless delivered from all stain of sin by faith in Christ:\nconsequently, they were capable of that deliverance which Christ\nbrought by descending into hell. But the same cannot be said of the\nchildren, as is evident from what was said above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: When the Apostle says that the grace of God \"hath\nabounded unto many,\" the word \"many\" [*The Vulgate reads 'plures,'\ni.e. 'many more'] is to be taken, not comparatively, as if more were\nsaved by Christ's grace than lost by Adam's sin: but absolutely, as\nif he said that the grace of the one Christ abounded unto many, just\nas Adam's sin was contracted by many. But as Adam's sin was\ncontracted by those only who descended seminally from him according\nto the flesh, so Christ's grace reached those only who became His\nmembers by spiritual regeneration: which does not apply to children\ndying in original sin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Baptism is applied to men in this life, in which man's\nstate can be changed from sin into grace: but Christ's descent into\nhell was vouchsafed to the souls after this life when they are no\nlonger capable of the said change. And consequently by baptism\nchildren are delivered from original sin and from hell, but not by\nChrist's descent into hell.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 52, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Christ by His Descent into Hell Delivered Souls from\nPurgatory?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ by His descent into hell\ndelivered souls from Purgatory--for Augustine says (Ep. ad Evod.\nclxiv): \"Because evident testimonies speak of hell and its pains,\nthere is no reason for believing that the Saviour came thither except\nto rescue men from those same pains: but I still wish to know whether\nit was all whom He found there, or some whom He deemed worthy of such\na benefit. Yet I do not doubt that Christ went into hell, and granted\nthis favor to them who were suffering from its pains.\" But, as stated\nabove (A. 6), He did not confer the benefit of deliverance upon the\nlost: and there are no others in a state of penal suffering except\nthose in Purgatory. Consequently Christ delivered souls from\nPurgatory.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the very presence of Christ's soul had no less\neffect than His sacraments have. But souls are delivered from\nPurgatory by the sacraments, especially by the sacrament of the\nEucharist, as shall be shown later (Suppl., Q. 71, A. 9). Therefore\nmuch more were souls delivered from Purgatory by the presence of\nChrist descending into hell.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Poenit. ix), those whom Christ\nhealed in this life He healed completely. Also, our Lord says (John\n7:23): \"I have healed the whole man on the sabbath-day.\" But Christ\ndelivered them who were in Purgatory from the punishment of the pain\nof loss, whereby they were excluded from glory. Therefore, He also\ndelivered them from the punishment of Purgatory.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xiii): \"Since our Creator and\nRedeemer, penetrating the bars of hell, brought out from thence the\nsouls of the elect, He does not permit us to go thither, from whence\nHe has already by descending set others free.\" But He permits us to\ngo to Purgatory. Therefore, by descending into hell, He did not\ndeliver souls from Purgatory.\n\n_I answer that,_ As we have stated more than once (A. 4, ad 2, AA. 5,\n6, 7), Christ's descent into hell was one of deliverance in virtue of\nHis Passion. Now Christ's Passion had a virtue which was neither\ntemporal nor transitory, but everlasting, according to Heb. 10:14:\n\"For by one oblation He hath perfected for ever them that are\nsanctified.\" And so it is evident that Christ's Passion had no\ngreater efficacy then than it has now. Consequently, they who were\nsuch as those who are now in Purgatory, were not set free from\nPurgatory by Christ's descent into hell. But if any were found such\nas are now set free from Purgatory by virtue of Christ's Passion,\nthen there was nothing to hinder them from being delivered from\nPurgatory by Christ's descent into hell.\n\nReply Obj. 1: From this passage of Augustine it cannot be concluded\nthat all who were in Purgatory were delivered from it, but that such\na benefit was bestowed upon some persons, that is to say, upon such\nas were already cleansed sufficiently, or who in life, by their faith\nand devotion towards Christ's death, so merited, that when He\ndescended, they were delivered from the temporal punishment of\nPurgatory.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's power operates in the sacraments by way of\nhealing and expiation. Consequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist\ndelivers men from Purgatory inasmuch as it is a satisfactory\nsacrifice for sin. But Christ's descent into hell was not\nsatisfactory; yet it operated in virtue of the Passion, which was\nsatisfactory, as stated above (Q. 48, A. 2), but satisfactory in\ngeneral, since its virtue had to be applied to each individual by\nsomething specially personal (Q. 49, A. 1, ad 4, 5). Consequently, it\ndoes not follow of necessity that all were delivered from Purgatory\nby Christ's descent into hell.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Those defects from which Christ altogether delivered\nmen in this world were purely personal, and concerned the individual;\nwhereas exclusion from God's glory was a general defect and common to\nall human nature. Consequently, there was nothing to prevent those\ndetained in Purgatory being delivered by Christ from their privation\nof glory, but not from the debt of punishment in Purgatory which\npertains to personal defect. Just as on the other hand, the holy\nFathers before Christ's coming were delivered from their personal\ndefects, but not from the common defect, as was stated above (A. 7,\nad 1; Q. 49, A. 5, ad 1).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 53\n\nOF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider those things that concern Christ's\nExaltation; and we shall deal with (1) His Resurrection; (2) His\nAscension; (3) His sitting at the right hand of God the Father;\n(4) His Judiciary Power. Under the first heading there is a fourfold\nconsideration: (1) Christ's Resurrection in itself; (2) the quality\nof the Person rising; (3) the manifestation of the Resurrection;\n(4) its causality. Concerning the first there are four points of\ninquiry:\n\n(1) The necessity of His Resurrection;\n\n(2) The time of the Resurrection;\n\n(3) Its order;\n\n(4) Its cause.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Necessary for Christ to Rise Again?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to\nrise again. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): \"Resurrection is\nthe rising again of an animate being, which was disintegrated and\nfallen.\" But Christ did not fall by sinning, nor was His body\ndissolved, as is manifest from what was stated above (Q. 51, A. 3).\nTherefore, it does not properly belong to Him to rise again.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whoever rises again is promoted to a higher state,\nsince to rise is to be uplifted. But after death Christ's body\ncontinued to be united with the Godhead, hence it could not be\nuplifted to any higher condition. Therefore, it was not due to it to\nrise again.\n\nObj. 3: Further, all that befell Christ's humanity was ordained for\nour salvation. But Christ's Passion sufficed for our salvation, since\nby it we were loosed from guilt and punishment, as is clear from what\nwas said above (Q. 49, A. 1, 3). Consequently, it was not necessary\nfor Christ to rise again from the dead.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 24:46): \"It behooved Christ to\nsuffer and to rise again from the dead.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It behooved Christ to rise again, for five reasons.\nFirst of all; for the commendation of Divine Justice, to which it\nbelongs to exalt them who humble themselves for God's sake, according\nto Luke 1:52: \"He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath\nexalted the humble.\" Consequently, because Christ humbled Himself\neven to the death of the Cross, from love and obedience to God, it\nbehooved Him to be uplifted by God to a glorious resurrection; hence\nit is said in His Person (Ps. 138:2): \"Thou hast known,\" i.e.\napproved, \"my sitting down,\" i.e. My humiliation and Passion, \"and my\nrising up,\" i.e. My glorification in the resurrection; as the gloss\nexpounds.\n\nSecondly, for our instruction in the faith, since our belief in\nChrist's Godhead is confirmed by His rising again, because, according\nto 2 Cor. 13:4, \"although He was crucified through weakness, yet He\nliveth by the power of God.\" And therefore it is written (1 Cor.\n15:14): \"If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain,\nand our [Vulg.: 'your'] faith is also vain\": and (Ps. 29:10): \"What\nprofit is there in my blood?\" that is, in the shedding of My blood,\n\"while I go down,\" as by various degrees of evils, \"into corruption?\"\nAs though He were to answer: \"None. 'For if I do not at once rise\nagain but My body be corrupted, I shall preach to no one, I shall\ngain no one,'\" as the gloss expounds.\n\nThirdly, for the raising of our hope, since through seeing Christ,\nwho is our head, rise again, we hope that we likewise shall rise\nagain. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 15:12): \"Now if Christ be preached\nthat He rose from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is\nno resurrection of the dead?\" And (Job 19:25, 27): \"I know,\" that is\nwith certainty of faith, \"that my Redeemer,\" i.e. Christ, \"liveth,\"\nhaving risen from the dead; \"and\" therefore \"in the last day I shall\nrise out of the earth . . . this my hope is laid up in my bosom.\"\n\nFourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to\nRom. 6:4: \"As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the\nFather, so we also may walk in newness of life\": and further on;\n\"Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more; so do you also reckon\nthat you are dead to sin, but alive to God.\"\n\nFifthly, in order to complete the work of our salvation: because,\njust as for this reason did He endure evil things in dying that He\nmight deliver us from evil, so was He glorified in rising again in\norder to advance us towards good things; according to Rom. 4:25: \"He\nwas delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although Christ did not fall by sin, yet He fell by\ndeath, because as sin is a fall from righteousness, so death is a\nfall from life: hence the words of Mic. 7:8 can be taken as though\nspoken by Christ: \"Rejoice not thou, my enemy, over me, because I am\nfallen: I shall rise again.\" Likewise, although Christ's body was not\ndisintegrated by returning to dust, yet the separation of His soul\nand body was a kind of disintegration.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Godhead was united with Christ's flesh after death\nby personal union, but not by natural union; thus the soul is united\nwith the body as its form, so as to constitute human nature.\nConsequently, by the union of the body and soul, the body was\nuplifted to a higher condition of nature, but not to a higher\npersonal state.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's Passion wrought our salvation, properly\nspeaking, by removing evils; but the Resurrection did so as the\nbeginning and exemplar of all good things.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting for Christ to Rise Again on the Third Day?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should have risen\nagain on the third day. For the members ought to be in conformity\nwith their head. But we who are His members do not rise from death on\nthe third day, since our rising is put off until the end of the\nworld. Therefore, it seems that Christ, who is our head, should not\nhave risen on the third day, but that His Resurrection ought to have\nbeen deferred until the end of the world.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Peter said (Acts 2:24) that \"it was impossible for\nChrist to be held fast by hell\" and death. Therefore it seems that\nChrist's rising ought not to have been deferred until the third day,\nbut that He ought to have risen at once on the same day; especially\nsince the gloss quoted above (A. 1) says that \"there is no profit in\nthe shedding of Christ's blood, if He did not rise at once.\"\n\nObj. 3: The day seems to start with the rising of the sun, the\npresence of which causes the day. But Christ rose before sunrise: for\nit is related (John 20:1) that \"Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it\nwas yet dark, unto the sepulchre\": but Christ was already risen, for\nit goes on to say: \"And she saw the stone taken away from the\nsepulchre.\" Therefore Christ did not rise on the third day.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 20:19): \"They shall deliver\nHim to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and\nthe third day He shall rise again.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) Christ's Resurrection was\nnecessary for the instruction of our faith. But our faith regards\nChrist's Godhead and humanity, for it is not enough to believe the\none without the other, as is evident from what has been said (Q. 36,\nA. 4; cf. II-II, Q. 2, AA. 7, 8). Consequently, in order that our\nfaith in the truth of His Godhead might be confirmed it was necessary\nthat He should rise speedily, and that His Resurrection should not be\ndeferred until the end of the world. But to confirm our faith\nregarding the truth of His humanity and death, it was needful that\nthere should be some interval between His death and rising. For if He\nhad risen directly after death, it might seem that His death was not\ngenuine and consequently neither would His Resurrection be true. But\nto establish the truth of Christ's death, it was enough for His\nrising to be deferred until the third day, for within that time some\nsigns of life always appear in one who appears to be dead whereas he\nis alive.\n\nFurthermore, by His rising on the third day, the perfection of the\nnumber \"three\" is commended, which is \"the number of everything,\" as\nhaving \"beginning, middle, and end,\" as is said in De Coelo i. Again\nin the mystical sense we are taught that Christ by \"His one death\"\n(i.e. of the body) which was light, by reason of His righteousness,\n\"destroyed our two deaths\" (i.e. of soul and body), which are as\ndarkness on account of sin; consequently, He remained in death for\none day and two nights, as Augustine observes (De Trin. iv).\n\nAnd thereby is also signified that a third epoch began with the\nResurrection: for the first was before the Law; the second under the\nLaw; and the third under grace. Moreover the third state of the\nsaints began with the Resurrection of Christ: for, the first was\nunder figures of the Law; the second under the truth of faith; while\nthe third will be in the eternity of glory, which Christ inaugurated\nby rising again.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The head and members are likened in nature, but not in\npower; because the power of the head is more excellent than that of\nthe members. Accordingly, to show forth the excellence of Christ's\npower, it was fitting that He should rise on the third day, while the\nresurrection of the rest is put off until the end of the world.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Detention implies a certain compulsion. But Christ was\nnot held fast by any necessity of death, but was \"free among the\ndead\": and therefore He abode a while in death, not as one held fast,\nbut of His own will, just so long as He deemed necessary for the\ninstruction of our faith. And a task is said to be done \"at once\"\nwhich is performed within a short space of time.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 51, A. 4, ad 1, 2), Christ rose\nearly when the day was beginning to dawn, to denote that by His\nResurrection He brought us to the light of glory; just as He died\nwhen the day was drawing to its close, and nearing to darkness, in\norder to signify that by His death He would destroy the darkness of\nsin and its punishment. Nevertheless He is said to have risen on the\nthird day, taking day as a natural day which contains twenty-four\nhours. And as Augustine says (De Trin. iv): \"The night until the\ndawn, when the Lord's Resurrection was proclaimed, belongs to the\nthird day. Because God, who made the light to shine forth from\ndarkness, in order that by the grace of the New Testament and\npartaking of Christ's rising we might hear this--'once ye were\ndarkness, but now light in the Lord'--insinuates in a measure to us\nthat day draws its origin from night: for, as the first days are\ncomputed from light to darkness on account of man's coming fall, so\nthese days are reckoned from darkness to light owing to man's\nrestoration.\" And so it is evident that even if He had risen at\nmidnight, He could be said to have risen on the third day, taking it\nas a natural day. But now that He rose early, it can be affirmed that\nHe rose on the third day, even taking the artificial day which is\ncaused by the sun's presence, because the sun had already begun to\nbrighten the sky. Hence it is written (Mk. 16:2) that \"the women come\nto the sepulchre, the sun being now risen\"; which is not contrary to\nJohn's statement \"when it was yet dark,\" as Augustine says (De Cons.\nEvang. iii), \"because, as the day advances the more the light rises,\nthe more are the remaining shadows dispelled.\" But when Mark says\n\"'the sun being now risen,' it is not to be taken as if the sun were\nalready apparent over the horizon, but as coming presently into those\nparts.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Was the First to Rise from the Dead?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ was not the first to rise from\nthe dead, because we read in the Old Testament of some persons raised\nto life by Elias and Eliseus, according to Heb. 11:35: \"Women\nreceived their dead raised to life again\": also Christ before His\nPassion raised three dead persons to life. Therefore Christ was not\nthe first to rise from the dead.\n\nObj. 2: Further, among the other miracles which happened during the\nPassion, it is narrated (Matt. 27:52) that \"the monuments were\nopened, and many bodies of the saints who had slept rose again.\"\nTherefore Christ was not the first to rise from the dead.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Christ by His own rising is the cause of our\nresurrection, so by His grace He is the cause of our grace, according\nto John 1:16: \"Of His fulness we all have received.\" But in point of\ntime some others had grace previous to Christ--for instance all the\nfathers of the Old Testament. Therefore some others came to the\nresurrection of the body before Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 15:20): \"Christ is risen\nfrom the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep--because,\" says\nthe gloss, \"He rose first in point of time and dignity.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Resurrection is a restoring from death to life. Now\na man is snatched from death in two ways: first of all, from actual\ndeath, so that he begins in any way to live anew after being actually\ndead: in another way, so that he is not only rescued from death, but\nfrom the necessity, nay more, from the possibility of dying again.\nSuch is a true and perfect resurrection, because so long as a man\nlives, subject to the necessity of dying, death has dominion over him\nin a measure, according to Rom. 8:10: \"The body indeed is dead\nbecause of sin.\" Furthermore, what has the possibility of existence,\nis said to exist in some respect, that is, in potentiality. Thus it\nis evident that the resurrection, whereby one is rescued from actual\ndeath only, is but an imperfect one.\n\nConsequently, speaking of perfect resurrection, Christ is the first\nof them who rise, because by rising He was the first to attain life\nutterly immortal, according to Rom. 6:9: \"Christ rising from the dead\ndieth now no more.\" But by an imperfect resurrection, some others\nhave risen before Christ, so as to be a kind of figure of His\nResurrection.\n\nAnd thus the answer to the first objection is clear: because both\nthose raised from the dead in the old Testament, and those raised by\nChrist, so returned to life that they had to die again.\n\nReply Obj. 2: There are two opinions regarding them who rose with\nChrist. Some hold that they rose to life so as to die no more,\nbecause it would be a greater torment for them to die a second time\nthan not to rise at all. According to this view, as Jerome observes\non Matt. 27:52, 53, we must understand that \"they had not risen\nbefore our Lord rose.\" Hence the Evangelist says that \"coming out of\nthe tombs after His Resurrection, they came into the holy city, and\nappeared to many.\" But Augustine (Ep. ad Evod. clxiv) while giving\nthis opinion, says: \"I know that it appears some, that by the death\nof Christ the Lord the same resurrection was bestowed upon the\nrighteous as is promised to us in the end; and if they slept not\nagain by laying aside their bodies, it remains to be seen how Christ\ncan be understood to be 'the first-born of the dead,' if so many\npreceded Him unto that resurrection. Now if reply be made that this\nis said by anticipation, so that the monuments be understood to have\nbeen opened by the earthquake while Christ was still hanging on the\ncross, but that the bodies of the just did not rise then but after He\nhad risen, the difficulty still arises--how is it that Peter asserts\nthat it was predicted not of David but of Christ, that His body would\nnot see corruption, since David's tomb was in their midst; and thus\nhe did not convince them, if David's body was no longer there; for\neven if he had risen soon after his death, and his flesh had not seen\ncorruption, his tomb might nevertheless remain. Now it seems hard\nthat David from whose seed Christ is descended, was not in that\nrising of the just, if an eternal rising was conferred upon them.\nAlso that saying in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:40) regarding the\nancient just would be hard to explain, 'that they should not be\nperfected without us,' if they were already established in that\nincorruption of the resurrection which is promised at the end when we\nshall be made perfect\": so that Augustine would seem to think that\nthey rose to die again. In this sense Jerome also in commenting on\nMatthew (27:52, 53) says: \"As Lazarus rose, so also many of the\nbodies of the saints rose, that they might bear witness to the risen\nChrist.\" Nevertheless in a sermon for the Assumption [*Ep. ix ad\nPaul. et Eustoch.; among the supposititious works ascribed to St.\nJerome] he seems to leave the matter doubtful. But Augustine's\nreasons seem to be much more cogent.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As everything preceding Christ's coming was preparatory\nfor Christ, so is grace a disposition for glory. Consequently, it\nbehooved all things appertaining to glory, whether they regard the\nsoul, as the perfect fruition of God, or whether they regard the\nbody, as the glorious resurrection, to be first in Christ as the\nauthor of glory: but that grace should be first in those that were\nordained unto Christ.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 53, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Was the Cause of His Own Resurrection?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ was not the cause of His own\nResurrection. For whoever is raised up by another is not the cause of\nhis own rising. But Christ was raised up by another, according to\nActs 2:24: \"Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of\nhell\": and Rom. 8:11: \"He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead,\nshall quicken also your mortal bodies.\" Therefore Christ is not the\ncause of His own Resurrection.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no one is said to merit, or ask from another, that\nof which he is himself the cause. But Christ by His Passion merited\nthe Resurrection, as Augustine says (Tract. civ in Joan.): \"The\nlowliness of the Passion is the meritorious cause of the glory of the\nResurrection.\" Moreover He asked the Father that He might be raised\nup again, according to Ps. 40:11: \"But thou, O Lord, have mercy on\nme, and raise me up again.\" Therefore He was not the cause of His\nrising again.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Damascene proves (De Fide Orth. iv), it is not\nthe soul that rises again, but the body, which is stricken by death.\nBut the body could not unite the soul with itself, since the soul is\nnobler. Therefore what rose in Christ could not be the cause of His\nResurrection.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 10:18): \"No one taketh My soul\nfrom Me, but I lay it down, and I take it up again.\" But to rise is\nnothing else than to take the soul up again. Consequently, it appears\nthat Christ rose again of His own power.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 50, AA. 2, 3) in consequence of\ndeath Christ's Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His\nflesh. Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ\ncan be considered in two respects: first, in respect of His Godhead;\nsecondly, in respect of His created nature. Therefore, according to\nthe virtue of the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the\nsoul which it had laid aside, and the soul took back again the body\nwhich it had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And\nthis is precisely what is written (2 Cor. 13:4): \"For although He was\ncrucified through\" our \"weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God.\"\nBut if we consider the body and soul of the dead Christ according to\nthe power of created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it\nwas necessary for Christ to be raised up by God.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of\nthe Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually\nconsequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the\nFather, and by His own power.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ by praying besought and merited His\nResurrection, as man and not as God.\n\nReply Obj. 3: According to its created nature Christ's body is not\nmore powerful than His soul; yet according to its Divine power it is\nmore powerful. Again the soul by reason of the Godhead united to it\nis more powerful than the body in respect of its created nature.\nConsequently, it was by the Divine power that the body and soul\nmutually resumed each other, but not by the power of their created\nnature.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 54\n\nOF THE QUALITY OF CHRIST RISING AGAIN\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the quality of the rising Christ, which\npresents four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ had a true body after His Resurrection?\n\n(2) Whether He rose with His complete body?\n\n(3) Whether His was a glorified body?\n\n(4) Of the scars which showed in His body.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Had a True Body After His Resurrection?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not have a true body after\nHis Resurrection. For a true body cannot be in the same place at the\nsame time with another body. But after the Resurrection Christ's body\nwas with another at the same time in the same place: since He entered\namong the disciples \"the doors being shut,\" as is related in John\n20:26. Therefore it seems that Christ did not have a true body after\nHis Resurrection.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a true body does not vanish from the beholder's\nsight unless perchance it be corrupted. But Christ's body \"vanished\nout of the sight\" of the disciples as they gazed upon Him, as is\nrelated in Luke 24:31. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not have a\ntrue body after His Resurrection.\n\nObj. 3: Further, every true body has its determinate shape. But\nChrist's body appeared before the disciples \"in another shape,\" as is\nevident from Mk. 15:12. Therefore it seems that Christ did not\npossess a true body after His Resurrection.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 24:37) that when Christ\nappeared to His disciples \"they being troubled and frightened,\nsupposed that they saw a spirit,\" as if He had not a true but an\nimaginary body: but to remove their fears He presently added: \"Handle\nand see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to\nhave.\" Consequently, He had not an imaginary but a true body.\n\n_I answer that,_ As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that is said\nto rise, which fell. But Christ's body fell by death; namely,\ninasmuch as the soul which was its formal perfection was separated\nfrom it. Hence, in order for it to be a true resurrection, it was\nnecessary for the same body of Christ to be once more united with the\nsame soul. And since the truth of the body's nature is from its form\nit follows that Christ's body after His Resurrection was a true body,\nand of the same nature as it was before. But had His been an\nimaginary body, then His Resurrection would not have been true, but\napparent.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's body after His Resurrection, not by miracle\nbut from its glorified condition, as some say, entered in among the\ndisciples while the doors were shut, thus existing with another body\nin the same place. But whether a glorified body can have this from\nsome hidden property, so as to be with another body at the same time\nin the same place, will be discussed later (Suppl., Q. 83, A. 4) when\nthe common resurrection will be dealt with. For the present let it\nsuffice to say that it was not from any property within the body, but\nby virtue of the Godhead united to it, that this body, although a\ntrue one, entered in among the disciples while the doors were shut.\nAccordingly Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (ccxlvii) that some\nmen argue in this fashion: \"If it were a body; if what rose from the\nsepulchre were what hung upon the tree, how could it enter through\nclosed doors?\" And he answers: \"If you understand how, it is no\nmiracle: where reason fails, faith abounds.\" And (Tract. cxxi super\nJoan.) he says: \"Closed doors were no obstacle to the substance of a\nBody wherein was the Godhead; for truly He could enter in by doors\nnot open, in whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate.\"\nAnd Gregory says the same in a homily for the octave of Easter (xxvi\nin Evang.).\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 53, A. 3), Christ rose to the\nimmortal life of glory. But such is the disposition of a glorified\nbody that it is spiritual, i.e. subject to the spirit, as the Apostle\nsays (1 Cor. 15:44). Now in order for the body to be entirely subject\nto the spirit, it is necessary for the body's every action to be\nsubject to the will of the spirit. Again, that an object be seen is\ndue to the action of the visible object upon the sight, as the\nPhilosopher shows (De Anima ii). Consequently, whoever has a\nglorified body has it in his power to be seen when he so wishes, and\nnot to be seen when he does not wish it. Moreover Christ had this not\nonly from the condition of His glorified body, but also from the\npower of His Godhead, by which power it may happen that even bodies\nnot glorified are miraculously unseen: as was by a miracle bestowed\non the blessed Bartholomew, that \"if he wished he could be seen, and\nnot be seen if he did not wish it\" [*Apocryphal Historia Apost. viii,\n2]. Christ, then, is said to have vanished from the eyes of the\ndisciples, not as though He were corrupted or dissolved into\ninvisible elements; but because He ceased, of His own will, to be\nseen by them, either while He was present or while He was departing\nby the gift of agility.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Severianus [*Peter Chrysologus: Serm. lxxxii] says\nin a sermon for Easter: \"Let no one suppose that Christ changed His\nfeatures at the Resurrection.\" This is to be understood of the\noutline of His members; since there was nothing out of keeping or\ndeformed in the body of Christ which was conceived of the Holy Ghost,\nthat had to be righted at the Resurrection. Nevertheless He received\nthe glory of clarity in the Resurrection: accordingly the same writer\nadds: \"but the semblance is changed, when, ceasing to be mortal, it\nbecomes immortal; so that it acquired the glory of countenance,\nwithout losing the substance of the countenance.\" Yet He did not come\nto those disciples in glorified appearance; but, as it lay in His\npower for His body to be seen or not, so it was within His power to\npresent to the eyes of the beholders His form either glorified or not\nglorified, or partly glorified and partly not, or in any fashion\nwhatsoever. Still it requires but a slight difference for anyone to\nseem to appear another shape.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Rose Glorified?\n\n[*Some editions give this article as the third, following the order\nof the introduction to the question. But it is evident from the first\nsentence of the body of A. 3 (A. 2 in the aforesaid editions), that\nthe order of the Leonine edition is correct.]\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ's body did not rise glorified. For\nglorified bodies shine, according to Matt. 13:43: \"Then shall the\njust shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.\" But shining\nbodies are seen under the aspect of light, but not of color.\nTherefore, since Christ's body was beheld under the aspect of color,\nas it had been hitherto, it seems that it was not a glorified one.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a glorified body is incorruptible. But Christ's body\nseems not to have been incorruptible; because it was palpable, as He\nHimself says in Luke 24:39: \"Handle, and see.\" Now Gregory says (Hom.\nin Evang. xxvi) that \"what is handled must be corruptible, and that\nwhich is incorruptible cannot be handled.\" Consequently, Christ's\nbody was not glorified.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a glorified body is not animal, but spiritual, as is\nclear from 1 Cor. 15. But after the Resurrection Christ's body seems\nto have been animal, since He ate and drank with His disciples, as we\nread in the closing chapters of Luke and John. Therefore, it seems\nthat Christ's body was not glorified.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Phil. 3:21): \"He will reform the\nbody of our lowness, made like to the body of His glory.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ's was a glorified body in His Resurrection,\nand this is evident from three reasons. First of all, because His\nResurrection was the exemplar and the cause of ours, as is stated in\n1 Cor. 15:43. But in the resurrection the saints will have glorified\nbodies, as is written in the same place: \"It is sown in dishonor, it\nshall rise in glory.\" Hence, since the cause is mightier than the\neffect, and the exemplar than the exemplate; much more glorious,\nthen, was the body of Christ in His Resurrection. Secondly, because\nHe merited the glory of His Resurrection by the lowliness of His\nPassion. Hence He said (John 12:27): \"Now is My soul troubled,\" which\nrefers to the Passion; and later He adds: \"Father, glorify Thy name,\"\nwhereby He asks for the glory of the Resurrection. Thirdly, because\nas stated above (Q. 34, A. 4), Christ's soul was glorified from the\ninstant of His conception by perfect fruition of the Godhead. But, as\nstated above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2), it was owing to the Divine economy\nthat the glory did not pass from His soul to His body, in order that\nby the Passion He might accomplish the mystery of our redemption.\nConsequently, when this mystery of Christ's Passion and death was\nfinished, straightway the soul communicated its glory to the risen\nbody in the Resurrection; and so that body was made glorious.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Whatever is received within a subject is received\naccording to the subject's capacity. Therefore, since glory flows\nfrom the soul into the body, it follows that, as Augustine says (Ep.\nad Dioscor. cxviii), the brightness or splendor of a glorified body\nis after the manner of natural color in the human body; just as\nvariously colored glass derives its splendor from the sun's radiance,\naccording to the mode of the color. But as it lies within the power\nof a glorified man whether his body be seen or not, as stated above\n(A. 1, ad 2), so is it in his power whether its splendor be seen or\nnot. Accordingly it can be seen in its color without its brightness.\nAnd it was in this way that Christ's body appeared to the disciples\nafter the Resurrection.\n\nReply Obj. 2: We say that a body can be handled not only because of\nits resistance, but also on account of its density. But from rarity\nand density follow weight and lightness, heat and cold, and similar\ncontraries, which are the principles of corruption in elementary\nbodies. Consequently, a body that can be handled by human touch is\nnaturally corruptible. But if there be a body that resists touch, and\nyet is not disposed according to the qualities mentioned, which are\nthe proper objects of human touch, such as a heavenly body, then such\nbody cannot be said to be handled. But Christ's body after the\nResurrection was truly made up of elements, and had tangible\nqualities such as the nature of a human body requires, and therefore\nit could naturally be handled; and if it had nothing beyond the\nnature of a human body, it would likewise be corruptible. But it had\nsomething else which made it incorruptible, and this was not the\nnature of a heavenly body, as some maintain, and into which we shall\nmake fuller inquiry later (Suppl., Q. 82, A. 1), but it was glory\nflowing from a beatified soul: because, as Augustine says (Ep. ad\nDioscor. cxviii): \"God made the soul of such powerful nature, that\nfrom its fullest beatitude the fulness of health overflows into the\nbody, that is, the vigor of incorruption.\" And therefore Gregory says\n(Hom. in Evang. xxvi): \"Christ's body is shown to be of the same\nnature, but of different glory, after the Resurrection.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiii): \"After the\nResurrection, our Saviour in spiritual but true flesh partook of meat\nwith the disciples, not from need of food, but because it lay in His\npower.\" For as Bede says on Luke 24:41: \"The thirsty earth sucks in\nthe water, and the sun's burning ray absorbs it; the former from\nneed, the latter by its power.\" Hence after the Resurrection He ate,\n\"not as needing food, but in order thus to show the nature of His\nrisen body.\" Nor does it follow that His was an animal body that\nstands in need of food.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Rose Again Entire?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's body did not rise entire.\nFor flesh and blood belong to the integrity of the body: whereas\nChrist seems not to have had both, for it is written (1 Cor. 15:50):\n\"Flesh and blood can not possess the kingdom of God.\" But Christ rose\nin the glory of the kingdom of God. Therefore it seems that He did\nnot have flesh and blood.\n\nObj. 2: Further, blood is one of the four humors. Consequently, if\nChrist had blood, with equal reason He also had the other humors,\nfrom which corruption is caused in animal bodies. It would follow,\nthen, that Christ's body was corruptible, which is unseemly.\nTherefore Christ did not have flesh and blood.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the body of Christ which rose, ascended to heaven.\nBut some of His blood is kept as relics in various churches.\nTherefore Christ's body did not rise with the integrity of all its\nparts.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Luke 24:39) while addressing His\ndisciples after the Resurrection: \"A spirit hath not flesh and bones\nas you see Me to have.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), Christ's body in the\nResurrection was \"of the same nature, but differed in glory.\"\nAccordingly, whatever goes with the nature of a human body, was\nentirely in the body of Christ when He rose again. Now it is clear\nthat flesh, bones, blood, and other such things, are of the very\nnature of the human body. Consequently, all these things were in\nChrist's body when He rose again; and this also integrally, without\nany diminution; otherwise it would not have been a complete\nresurrection, if whatever was lost by death had not been restored.\nHence our Lord assured His faithful ones by saying (Matt. 10:30):\n\"The very hairs of your head are all numbered\": and (Luke 21:18): \"A\nhair of your head shall not perish.\"\n\nBut to say that Christ's body had neither flesh, nor bones, nor the\nother natural parts of a human body, belongs to the error of\nEutyches, Bishop of Constantinople, who maintained that \"our body in\nthat glory of the resurrection will be impalpable, and more subtle\nthan wind and air: and that our Lord, after the hearts of the\ndisciples who handled Him were confirmed, brought back to subtlety\nwhatever could be handled in Him\" [*St. Gregory, Moral. in Job\n14:56]. Now Gregory condemns this in the same book, because Christ's\nbody was not changed after the Resurrection, according to Rom. 6:9:\n\"Christ rising from the dead, dieth now no more.\" Accordingly, the\nvery man who had said these things, himself retracted them at his\ndeath. For, if it be unbecoming for Christ to take a body of another\nnature in His conception, a heavenly one for instance, as Valentine\nasserted, it is much more unbecoming for Him at His Resurrection to\nresume a body of another nature, because in His Resurrection He\nresumed unto an everlasting life, the body which in His conception He\nhad assumed to a mortal life.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the\nnature of flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and\nblood, as Gregory says [*St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56], or else\nfor the corruption of flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad\nConsent., De Resur. Carn.), \"there will be neither corruption there,\nnor mortality of flesh and blood.\" Therefore flesh according to its\nsubstance possesses the kingdom of God, according to Luke 24:39: \"A\nspirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have.\" But flesh,\nif understood as to its corruption, will not possess it; hence it is\nstraightway added in the words of the Apostle: \"Neither shall\ncorruption possess incorruption.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says in the same book: \"Perchance by\nreason of the blood some keener critic will press us and say; If the\nblood was\" in the body of Christ when He rose, \"why not the rheum?\"\nthat is, the phlegm; \"why not also the yellow gall?\" that is, the\ngall proper; \"and why not the black gall?\" that is, the bile, \"with\nwhich four humors the body is tempered, as medical science bears\nwitness. But whatever anyone may add, let him take heed not to add\ncorruption, lest he corrupt the health and purity of his own faith;\nbecause Divine power is equal to taking away such qualities as it\nwills from the visible and tractable body, while allowing others to\nremain, so that there be no defilement,\" i.e. of corruption, \"though\nthe features be there; motion without weariness, the power to eat,\nwithout need of food.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: All the blood which flowed from Christ's body,\nbelonging as it does to the integrity of human nature, rose again\nwith His body: and the same reason holds good for all the particles\nwhich belong to the truth and integrity of human nature. But the\nblood preserved as relics in some churches did not flow from Christ's\nside, but is said to have flowed from some maltreated image of Christ.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 54, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Ought to Have Risen with Its Scars?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's body ought not to have risen\nwith its scars. For it is written (1 Cor. 15:52): \"The dead shall\nrise incorrupt.\" But scars and wounds imply corruption and defect.\nTherefore it was not fitting for Christ, the author of the\nresurrection, to rise again with scars.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's body rose entire, as stated above (A. 3).\nBut open scars are opposed to bodily integrity, since they interfere\nwith the continuity of the tissue. It does not therefore seem fitting\nfor the open wounds to remain in Christ's body; although the traces\nof the wounds might remain, which would satisfy the beholder; thus it\nwas that Thomas believed, to whom it was said: \"Because thou hast\nseen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed\" (John 20:29).\n\nObj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that \"some things\nare truly said of Christ after the Resurrection, which He did not\nhave from nature but from special dispensation, such as the scars, in\norder to make it sure that it was the body which had suffered that\nrose again.\" Now when the cause ceases, the effect ceases. Therefore\nit seems that when the disciples were assured of the Resurrection, He\nbore the scars no longer. But it ill became the unchangeableness of\nHis glory that He should assume anything which was not to remain in\nHim for ever. Consequently, it seems that He ought not at His\nResurrection to have resumed a body with scars.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said to Thomas (John 20:27): \"Put in thy\nfinger hither, and see My hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put\nit into My side, and be not faithless but believing.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection\nto resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's\nown glory. For Bede says on Luke 24:40 that He kept His scars not\nfrom inability to heal them, \"but to wear them as an everlasting\ntrophy of His victory.\" Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii):\n\"Perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs\nthe traces of the wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because\nit will not be a deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind\nof beauty will shine in them, in the body, though not of the body.\"\nSecondly, to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to \"the faith in\nHis Resurrection\" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Thirdly, \"that when He\npleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death\nHe endured for us\" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Fourthly, \"that He may\nconvince those redeemed in His blood, how mercifully they have been\nhelped, as He exposes before them the traces of the same death\"\n(Bede, on Luke 24:40). Lastly, \"that in the Judgment-day He may\nupbraid them with their just condemnation\" (Bede, on Luke 24:40).\nHence, as Augustine says (De Symb. ii): \"Christ knew why He kept the\nscars in His body. For, as He showed them to Thomas who would not\nbelieve except he handled and saw them, so will He show His wounds to\nHis enemies, so that He who is the Truth may convict them, saying:\n'Behold the man whom you crucified; see the wounds you inflicted;\nrecognize the side you pierced, since it was opened by you and for\nyou, yet you would not enter.'\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The scars that remained in Christ's body belong neither\nto corruption nor defect, but to the greater increase of glory,\ninasmuch as they are the trophies of His power; and a special\ncomeliness will appear in the places scarred by the wounds.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although those openings of the wounds break the\ncontinuity of the tissue, still the greater beauty of glory\ncompensates for all this, so that the body is not less entire, but\nmore perfected. Thomas, however, not only saw, but handled the\nwounds, because as Pope Leo [*Cf. Append. Opp. August., Serm. clxii]\nsays: \"It sufficed for his personal faith for him to have seen what\nhe saw; but it was on our behalf that he touched what he beheld.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ willed the scars of His wounds to remain on His\nbody, not only to confirm the faith of His disciples, but for other\nreasons also. From these it seems that those scars will always remain\non His body; because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resurr.\nCarn.): \"I believe our Lord's body to be in heaven, such as it was\nwhen He ascended into heaven.\" And Gregory (Moral. xiv) says that \"if\naught could be changed in Christ's body after His Resurrection,\ncontrary to Paul's truthful teaching, then the Lord after His\nResurrection returned to death; and what fool would dare to say this,\nsave he that denies the true resurrection of the flesh?\" Accordingly,\nit is evident that the scars which Christ showed on His body after\nHis Resurrection, have never since been removed from His body.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 55\n\nOF THE MANIFESTATION OF THE RESURRECTION\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the manifestation of the Resurrection:\nconcerning which there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ's Resurrection ought to have been manifested to\nall men or only to some special individuals?\n\n(2) Whether it was fitting that they should see Him rise?\n\n(3) Whether He ought to have lived with the disciples after the\nResurrection?\n\n(4) Whether it was fitting for Him to appeal to the disciples \"in\nanother shape\"?\n\n(5) Whether He ought to have demonstrated the Resurrection by proofs?\n\n(6) Of the cogency of those proofs.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ's Resurrection Ought to Have Been Manifested to All?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Resurrection ought to have\nbeen manifested to all. For just as a public penalty is due for\npublic sin, according to 1 Tim. 5:20: \"Them that sin reprove before\nall,\" so is a public reward due for public merit. But, as Augustine\nsays (Tract. civ in Joan.), \"the glory of the Resurrection is the\nreward of the humility of the Passion.\" Therefore, since Christ's\nPassion was manifested to all while He suffered in public, it seems\nthat the glory of the Resurrection ought to have been manifested to\nall.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as Christ's Passion is ordained for our salvation,\nso also is His Resurrection, according to Rom. 4:25: \"He rose again\nfor our justification.\" But what belongs to the public weal ought to\nbe manifested to all. Therefore Christ's Resurrection ought to have\nbeen manifested to all, and not to some specially.\n\nObj. 3: Further, they to whom it was manifested were witnesses of the\nResurrection: hence it is said (Acts 3:15): \"Whom God hath raised\nfrom the dead, of which we are witnesses.\" Now they bore witness by\npreaching in public: and this is unbecoming in women, according to 1\nCor. 14:34: \"Let women keep silence in the churches\": and 1 Tim.\n2:12: \"I suffer not a woman to teach.\" Therefore, it does not seem\nbecoming for Christ's Resurrection to be manifested first of all to\nthe women and afterwards to mankind in general.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Acts 10:40): \"Him God raised up the\nthird day, and gave Him to be made manifest, not to all the people,\nbut to witnesses preordained by God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Some things come to our knowledge by nature's common\nlaw, others by special favor of grace, as things divinely revealed.\nNow, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv), the divinely established law\nof such things is that they be revealed immediately by God to higher\npersons, through whom they are imparted to others, as is evident in\nthe ordering of the heavenly spirits. But such things as concern\nfuture glory are beyond the common ken of mankind, according to Isa.\n64:4: \"The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou\nhast prepared for them that wait for Thee.\" Consequently, such things\nare not known by man except through Divine revelation, as the Apostle\nsays (1 Cor. 2:10): \"God hath revealed them to us by His spirit.\"\nSince, then, Christ rose by a glorious Resurrection, consequently His\nResurrection was not manifested to everyone, but to some, by whose\ntestimony it could be brought to the knowledge of others.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's Passion was consummated in a body that still\nhad a passible nature, which is known to all by general laws:\nconsequently His Passion could be directly manifested to all. But the\nResurrection was accomplished \"through the glory of the Father,\" as\nthe Apostle says (Rom. 6:4). Therefore it was manifested directly to\nsome, but not to all.\n\nBut that a public penance is imposed upon public sinners, is to be\nunderstood of the punishment of this present life. And in like manner\npublic merits should be rewarded in public, in order that others may\nbe stirred to emulation. But the punishments and rewards of the\nfuture life are not publicly manifested to all, but to those\nspecially who are preordained thereto by God.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Just as Christ's Resurrection is for the common\nsalvation of all, so it came to the knowledge of all; yet not so that\nit was directly manifested to all, but only to some, through whose\ntestimony it could be brought to the knowledge of all.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A woman is not to be allowed to teach publicly in\nchurch; but she may be permitted to give familiar instruction to some\nprivately. And therefore as Ambrose says on Luke 24:22, \"a woman is\nsent to them who are of her household,\" but not to the people to bear\nwitness to the Resurrection. But Christ appeared to the woman first,\nfor this reason, that as a woman was the first to bring the source of\ndeath to man, so she might be the first to announce the dawn of\nChrist's glorious Resurrection. Hence Cyril says on John 20:17:\n\"Woman who formerly was the minister of death, is the first to see\nand proclaim the adorable mystery of the Resurrection: thus womankind\nhas procured absolution from ignominy, and removal of the curse.\"\nHereby, moreover, it is shown, so far as the state of glory is\nconcerned, that the female sex shall suffer no hurt; but if women\nburn with greater charity, they shall also attain greater glory from\nthe Divine vision: because the women whose love for our Lord was more\npersistent--so much so that \"when even the disciples withdrew\" from\nthe sepulchre \"they did not depart\" [*Gregory, Hom. xxv in\nEvang.]--were the first to see Him rising in glory.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting That the Disciples Should See Him Rise Again?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem fitting that the disciples should have\nseen Him rise again, because it was their office to bear witness to\nthe Resurrection, according to Acts 4:33: \"With great power did the\napostles give testimony to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our\nLord.\" But the surest witness of all is an eye-witness. Therefore it\nwould have been fitting for them to see the very Resurrection of\nChrist.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in order to have the certainty of faith the\ndisciples saw Christ ascend into heaven, according to Acts 1:9:\n\"While they looked on, He was raised up.\" But it was also necessary\nfor them to have faith in the Resurrection. Therefore it seems that\nChrist ought to have risen in sight of the disciples.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the raising of Lazarus was a sign of Christ's coming\nResurrection. But the Lord raised up Lazarus in sight of the\ndisciples. Consequently, it seems that Christ ought to have risen in\nsight of the disciples.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 16:9): The Lord \"rising early\nthe first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen.\" Now Mary\nMagdalen did not see Him rise; but, while searching for Him in the\nsepulchre, she heard from the angel: \"He is risen, He is not here.\"\nTherefore no one saw Him rise again.\n\n_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1): \"Those things that\nare of God, are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of\nGod].\" Now the divinely established order is this, that things above\nmen's ken are revealed to them by angels, as Dionysius says (Coel.\nHier. iv). But Christ on rising did not return to the familiar manner\nof life, but to a kind of immortal and God-like condition, according\nto Rom. 6:10: \"For in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.\" And\ntherefore it was fitting for Christ's Resurrection not to be\nwitnessed by men directly, but to be proclaimed to them by angels.\nAccordingly, Hilary (Comment. Matth. cap. ult.) says: \"An angel is\ntherefore the first herald of the Resurrection, that it might be\ndeclared out of obedience to the Father's will.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The apostles were able to testify to the Resurrection\neven by sight, because from the testimony of their own eyes they saw\nChrist alive, whom they had known to be dead. But just as man comes\nfrom the hearing of faith to the beatific vision, so did men come to\nthe sight of the risen Christ through the message already received\nfrom angels.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's Ascension as to its term wherefrom, was not\nabove men's common knowledge, but only as to its term whereunto.\nConsequently, the disciples were able to behold Christ's Ascension as\nto the term wherefrom, that is, according as He was uplifted from the\nearth; but they did not behold Him as to the term whereunto, because\nthey did not see how He was received into heaven. But Christ's\nResurrection transcended common knowledge as to the term wherefrom,\naccording as His soul returned from hell and His body from the closed\nsepulchre; and likewise as to the term whereunto, according as He\nattained to the life of glory. Consequently, the Resurrection ought\nnot to be accomplished so as to be seen by man.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Lazarus was raised so that he returned to the same life\nas before, which life is not beyond man's common ken. Consequently,\nthere is no parity.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Ought to Have Lived Constantly with His Disciples\nAfter the Resurrection?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ ought to have lived constantly\nwith His Disciples, because He appeared to them after His\nResurrection in order to confirm their faith in the Resurrection, and\nto bring them comfort in their disturbed state, according to John\n20:20: \"The disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.\" But they\nwould have been more assured and consoled had He constantly shown\nthem His presence. Therefore it seems that He ought to have lived\nconstantly with them.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ rising from the dead did not at once ascend\nto heaven, but after forty days, as is narrated in Acts 1:3. But\nmeanwhile He could have been in no more suitable place than where the\ndisciples were met together. Therefore it seems that He ought to have\nlived with them continually.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii), we read\nhow Christ appeared five times on the very day of His Resurrection:\nfirst \"to the women at the sepulchre; secondly to the same on the way\nfrom the sepulchre; thirdly to Peter; fourthly to the two disciples\ngoing to the town; fifthly to several of them in Jerusalem when\nThomas was not present.\" Therefore it also seems that He ought to\nhave appeared several times on the other days before the Ascension.\n\nObj. 4: Further, our Lord had said to them before the Passion (Matt.\n26:32): \"But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into\nGalilee\"; moreover an angel and our Lord Himself repeated the same to\nthe women after the Resurrection: nevertheless He was seen by them in\nJerusalem on the very day of the Resurrection, as stated above (Obj.\n3); also on the eighth day, as we read in John 20:26. It seems,\ntherefore, that He did not live with the disciples in a fitting way\nafter the Resurrection.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 20:26) that \"after eight days\"\nChrist appeared to the disciples. Therefore He did not live\nconstantly with them.\n\n_I answer that,_ Concerning the Resurrection two things had to be\nmanifested to the disciples, namely, the truth of the Resurrection,\nand the glory of Him who rose. Now in order to manifest the truth of\nthe Resurrection, it sufficed for Him to appear several times before\nthem, to speak familiarly to them, to eat and drink, and let them\ntouch Him. But in order to manifest the glory of the risen Christ, He\nwas not desirous of living with them constantly as He had done\nbefore, lest it might seem that He rose unto the same life as before.\nHence (Luke 24:44) He said to them: \"These are the words which I\nspoke to you, while I was yet with you.\" For He was there with them\nby His bodily presence, but hitherto He had been with them not merely\nby His bodily presence, but also in mortal semblance. Hence Bede in\nexplaining those words of Luke, \"while I was with you,\" says: \"that\nis, while I was still in mortal flesh, in which you are yet: for He\nhad then risen in the same flesh, but was not in the same state of\nmortality as they.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's frequent appearing served to assure the\ndisciples of the truth of the Resurrection; but continual intercourse\nmight have led them into the error of believing that He had risen to\nthe same life as was His before. Yet by His constant presence He\npromised them comfort in another life, according to John 16:22: \"I\nwill see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy no man\nshall take from you.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: That Christ did not stay continually with the disciples\nwas not because He deemed it more expedient for Him to be elsewhere:\nbut because He judged it to be more suitable for the apostles'\ninstruction that He should not abide continually with them, for the\nreason given above. But it is quite unknown in what places He was\nbodily present in the meantime, since Scripture is silent, and His\ndominion is in every place (Cf. Ps. 102:22).\n\nReply Obj. 3: He appeared oftener on the first day, because the\ndisciples were to be admonished by many proofs to accept the faith in\nHis Resurrection from the very outset: but after they had once\naccepted it, they had no further need of being instructed by so many\napparitions. Accordingly one reads in the Gospel that after the first\nday He appeared again only five times. For, as Augustine says (De\nConsens. Evang. iii), after the first five apparitions \"He came again\na sixth time when Thomas saw Him; a seventh time was by the sea of\nTiberias at the capture of the fishes; the eighth was on the mountain\nof Galilee, according to Matthew; the ninth occasion is expressed by\nMark, 'at length when they were at table,' because no more were they\ngoing to eat with Him upon earth; the tenth was on the very day, when\nno longer upon the earth, but uplifted into the cloud, He was\nascending into heaven. But, as John admits, not all things were\nwritten down. And He visited them frequently before He went up to\nheaven,\" in order to comfort them. Hence it is written (1 Cor. 15:6,\n7) that \"He was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once . . .\nafter that He was seen by James\"; of which apparitions no mention is\nmade in the Gospels.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Chrysostom in explaining Matt. 26:32--\"after I shall be\nrisen again, I will go before you into Galilee,\" says (Hom. lxxxiii\nin Matth.), \"He goes not to some far off region in order to appear to\nthem, but among His own people, and in those very places\" in which\nfor the most part they had lived with Him; \"in order that they might\nthereby believe that He who was crucified was the same as He who rose\nagain.\" And on this account \"He said that He would go into Galilee,\nthat they might be delivered from fear of the Jews.\"\n\nConsequently, as Ambrose says (Expos. in Luc.), \"The Lord had sent\nword to the disciples that they were to see Him in Galilee; yet He\nshowed Himself first to them when they were assembled together in the\nroom out of fear. (Nor is there any breaking of a promise here, but\nrather a hastened fulfilling out of kindness)\" [*Cf. Catena Aurea in\nLuc. xxiv, 36]: \"afterwards, however, when their minds were\ncomforted, they went into Galilee. Nor is there any reason to prevent\nus from supposing that there were few in the room, and many more on\nthe mountain.\" For, as Eusebius [*Of Caesarea; Cf. Migne, P. G.,\nxxii, 1003] says, \"Two Evangelists, Luke and John, write that He\nappeared in Jerusalem to the eleven only; but the other two said that\nan angel and our Saviour commanded not merely the eleven, but all the\ndisciples and brethren, to go into Galilee. Paul makes mention of\nthem when he says (1 Cor. 15:6): 'Then He appeared to more then five\nhundred brethren at once.'\" The truer solution, however, is this,\nthat while they were in hiding in Jerusalem He appeared to them at\nfirst in order to comfort them; but in Galilee it was not secretly,\nnor once or twice, that He made Himself known to them with great\npower, \"showing Himself to them alive after His Passion, by many\nproofs,\" as Luke says (Acts 1:3). Or as Augustine writes (De Consens.\nEvang. iii): \"What was said by the angel and by our Lord--that He\nwould 'go before them into Galilee,' must be taken prophetically. For\nif we take Galilee as meaning 'a passing,' we must understand that\nthey were going to pass from the people of Israel to the Gentiles,\nwho would not believe in the preaching of the apostles unless He\nprepared the way for them in men's hearts: and this is signified by\nthe words 'He shall go before you into Galilee.' But if by Galilee we\nunderstand 'revelation,' we are to understand this as applying to Him\nnot in the form of a servant, but in that form wherein He is equal to\nthe Father, and which He has promised to them that love Him. Although\nHe has gone before us in this sense, He has not abandoned us.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Appeared to the Disciples \"in Another\nShape\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ ought not to have appeared to\nthe disciples \"in another shape.\" For a thing cannot appear in very\ntruth other than it is. But there was only one shape in Christ.\nTherefore if He appeared under another, it was not a true but a false\napparition. Now this is not at all fitting, because as Augustine says\n(QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 14): \"If He deceives He is not the Truth; yet\nChrist is the Truth.\" Consequently, it seems that Christ ought not to\nhave appeared to the disciples \"in another shape.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing can appear in another shape than the one it\nhas, except the beholder's eyes be captivated by some illusions. But\nsince such illusions are brought about by magical arts, they are\nunbecoming in Christ, according to what is written (2 Cor. 6:15):\n\"What concord hath Christ with Belial?\" Therefore it seems that\nChrist ought not to have appeared in another shape.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as our faith receives its surety from\nScripture, so were the disciples assured of their faith in the\nResurrection by Christ appearing to them. But, as Augustine says in\nan Epistle to Jerome (xxviii), if but one untruth be admitted into\nthe Sacred Scripture, the whole authority of the Scriptures is\nweakened. Consequently, if Christ appeared to the disciples, in but\none apparition, otherwise than He was, then whatever they saw in\nChrist after the Resurrection will be of less import, which is not\nfitting. Therefore He ought not to have appeared in another shape.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Mk. 16:12): \"After that He appeared\nin another shape to two of them walking, as they were going into the\ncountry.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 2), Christ's Resurrection\nwas to be manifested to men in the same way as Divine things are\nrevealed. But Divine things are revealed to men in various ways,\naccording as they are variously disposed. For, those who have minds\nwell disposed, perceive Divine things rightly, whereas those not so\ndisposed perceive them with a certain confusion of doubt or error:\n\"for, the sensual men perceiveth not those things that are of the\nSpirit of God,\" as is said in 1 Cor. 2:14. Consequently, after His\nResurrection Christ appeared in His own shape to some who were well\ndisposed to belief, while He appeared in another shape to them who\nseemed to be already growing tepid in their faith: hence these said\n(Luke 24:21): \"We hoped that it was He that should have redeemed\nIsrael.\" Hence Gregory says (Hom. xxiii in Evang.), that \"He showed\nHimself to them in body such as He was in their minds: for, because\nHe was as yet a stranger to faith in their hearts, He made pretense\nof going on farther,\" that is, as if He were a stranger.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii), \"not everything\nof which we make pretense is a falsehood; but when what we pretend\nhas no meaning then is it a falsehood. But when our pretense has some\nsignification, it is not a lie, but a figure of the truth; otherwise\neverything said figuratively by wise and holy men, or even by our\nLord Himself, would be set down as a falsehood, because it is not\ncustomary to take such expressions in the literal sense. And deeds,\nlike words, are feigned without falsehood, in order to denote\nsomething else.\" And so it happened here, as has been said.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): \"Our Lord\ncould change His flesh so that His shape really was other than they\nwere accustomed to behold; for, before His Passion He was\ntransfigured on the mountain, so that His face shone like the sun.\nBut it did not happen thus now.\" For not without reason do we\n\"understand this hindrance in their eyes to have been of Satan's\ndoing, lest Jesus might be recognized.\" Hence Luke says (24:16) that\n\"their eyes were held, that they should not know Him.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Such an argument would prove, if they had not been\nbrought back from the sight of a strange shape to that of Christ's\ntrue countenance. For, as Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii):\n\"The permission was granted by Christ,\" namely, that their eyes\nshould be held fast in the aforesaid way, \"until the Sacrament of the\nbread; that when they had shared in the unity of His body, the\nenemy's hindrance may be understood to have been taken away, so that\nChrist might be recognized.\" Hence he goes on to say that \"'their\neyes were opened, and they knew Him'; not that they were hitherto\nwalking with their eyes shut; but there was something in them whereby\nthey were not permitted to recognize what they saw. This could be\ncaused by the darkness or by some kind of humor.\"\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Christ Should Have Demonstrated the Truth of His Resurrection\nby Proofs?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have demonstrated\nthe truth of His Resurrection by proofs. For Ambrose says (De Fide,\nad Gratian. i): \"Let there be no proofs where faith is required.\" But\nfaith is required regarding the Resurrection. Therefore proofs are\nout of place there.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxvi): \"Faith has no merit where\nhuman reason supplies the test.\" But it was no part of Christ's\noffice to void the merit of faith. Consequently, it was not for Him\nto confirm the Resurrection by proofs.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ came into the world in order that men might\nattain beatitude through Him, according to John 10:10: \"I am come\nthat they may have life, and may have it more abundantly.\" But\nsupplying proofs seems to be a hindrance in the way of man's\nbeatitude; because our Lord Himself said (John 20:29): \"Blessed are\nthey that have not seen, and have believed.\" Consequently, it seems\nthat Christ ought not to manifest His Resurrection by any proofs.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is related in Acts 1:3, that Christ appeared to\nHis disciples \"for forty days by many proofs, speaking of the Kingdom\nof God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The word \"proof\" is susceptible of a twofold\nmeaning: sometimes it is employed to designate any sort \"of reason in\nconfirmation of what is a matter of doubt\" [*Tully, _Topic._ ii]: and\nsometimes it means a sensible sign employed to manifest the truth;\nthus also Aristotle occasionally uses the term in his works [*Cf.\nPrior. Anal. ii; Rhetor. i]. Taking \"proof\" in the first sense,\nChrist did not demonstrate His Resurrection to the disciples by\nproofs, because such argumentative proof would have to be grounded on\nsome principles: and if these were not known to the disciples,\nnothing would thereby be demonstrated to them, because nothing can be\nknown from the unknown. And if such principles were known to them,\nthey would not go beyond human reason, and consequently would not be\nefficacious for establishing faith in the Resurrection, which is\nbeyond human reason, since principles must be assumed which are of\nthe same order, according to 1 Poster. But it was from the authority\nof the Sacred Scriptures that He proved to them the truth of His\nResurrection, which authority is the basis of faith, when He said:\n\"All things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and\nin the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me\": as is set forth\nLuke 24:44.\n\nBut if the term \"proof\" be taken in the second sense, then Christ is\nsaid to have demonstrated His Resurrection by proofs, inasmuch as by\nmost evident signs He showed that He was truly risen. Hence where our\nversion has \"by many proofs,\" the Greek text, instead of proof has\n_tekmerion_, i.e. \"an evident sign affording positive proof\" [*Cf.\nPrior. Anal. ii]. Now Christ showed these signs of the Resurrection\nto His disciples, for two reasons. First, because their hearts were\nnot disposed so as to accept readily the faith in the Resurrection.\nHence He says Himself (Luke 24:25): \"O foolish and slow of heart to\nbelieve\": and (Mk. 16:14): \"He upbraided them with their incredulity\nand hardness of heart.\" Secondly, that their testimony might be\nrendered more efficacious through the signs shown them, according to\n1 John 1:1, 3: \"That which we have seen, and have heard, and our\nhands have handled . . . we declare.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Ambrose is speaking there of proofs drawn from human\nreason, which are useless for demonstrating things of faith, as was\nshown above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The merit of faith arises from this, that at God's\nbidding man believes what he does not see. Accordingly, only that\nreason debars merit of faith which enables one to see by knowledge\nwhat is proposed for belief: and this is demonstrative argument. But\nChrist did not make use of any such argument for demonstrating His\nResurrection.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated already (ad 2), the merit of beatitude, which\ncomes of faith, is not entirely excluded except a man refuse to\nbelieve [whatever he does not see]. But for a man to believe from\nvisible signs the things he does not see, does not entirely deprive\nhim of faith nor of the merit of faith: just as Thomas, to whom it\nwas said (John 20:29): \"'Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast\nbelieved,' saw one thing and believed another\" [*Gregory, Hom. xxvi]:\nthe wounds were what he saw, God was the object of His belief. But\nhis is the more perfect faith who does not require such helps for\nbelief. Hence, to put to shame the faith of some men, our Lord said\n(John 4:48): \"Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not.\"\nFrom this one can learn how they who are so ready to believe God,\neven without beholding signs, are blessed in comparison with them who\ndo not believe except they see the like.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 55, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Proofs Which Christ Made Use of Manifested Sufficiently\nthe Truth of His Resurrection?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the proofs which Christ made use of\ndid not sufficiently manifest the truth of His Resurrection. For\nafter the Resurrection Christ showed nothing to His disciples which\nangels appearing to men did not or could not show; because angels\nhave frequently shown themselves to men under human aspect, have\nspoken and lived with them, and eaten with them, just as if they were\ntruly men, as is evident from Genesis 18, of the angels whom Abraham\nentertained, and in the Book of Tobias, of the angel who \"conducted\"\nhim \"and brought\" him back. Nevertheless, angels have not true bodies\nnaturally united to them; which is required for a resurrection.\nConsequently, the signs which Christ showed His disciples were not\nsufficient for manifesting His Resurrection.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ rose again gloriously, that is, having a\nhuman nature with glory. But some of the things which Christ showed\nto His disciples seem contrary to human nature, as for instance, that\n\"He vanished out of their sight,\" and entered in among them \"when the\ndoors were shut\": and some other things seem contrary to glory, as\nfor instance, that He ate and drank, and bore the scars of His\nwounds. Consequently, it seems that those proofs were neither\nsufficient nor fitting for establishing faith in the Resurrection.\n\nObj. 3: Further, after the Resurrection Christ's body was such that\nit ought not to be touched by mortal man; hence He said to Magdalen\n(John 20:17): \"Do not touch Me; for I am not yet ascended to My\nFather.\" Consequently, it was not fitting for manifesting the truth\nof His Resurrection, that He should permit Himself to be handled by\nHis disciples.\n\nObj. 4: Further, clarity seems to be the principal of the qualities\nof a glorified body: yet He gave no sign thereof in His Resurrection.\nTherefore it seems that those proofs were insufficient for showing\nthe quality of Christ's Resurrection.\n\nObj. 5: [*This objection is wanting in the older codices, and in the\ntext of the Leonine edition, which, however, gives it in a note as\ntaken from one of the more recent codices of the Vatican.]\n\nFurther, the angels introduced as witnesses for the Resurrection seem\ninsufficient from the want of agreement on the part of the\nEvangelists. Because in Matthew's account the angel is described as\nsitting upon the stone rolled back, while Mark states that he was\nseen after the women had entered the tomb; and again, whereas these\nmention one angel, John says that there were two sitting, and Luke\nsays that there were two standing. Consequently, the arguments for\nthe Resurrection do not seem to agree.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, \"ordereth all\nthings sweetly\" and in a fitting manner, according to Wis. 8:1.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ manifested His Resurrection in two ways:\nnamely, by testimony; and by proof or sign: and each manifestation\nwas sufficient in its own class. For in order to manifest His\nResurrection He made use of a double testimony, neither of which can\nbe rebutted. The first of these was the angels' testimony, who\nannounced the Resurrection to the women, as is seen in all the\nEvangelists: the other was the testimony of the Scriptures, which He\nset before them to show the truth of the Resurrection, as is narrated\nin the last chapter of Luke.\n\nAgain, the proofs were sufficient for showing that the Resurrection\nwas both true and glorious. That it was a true Resurrection He shows\nfirst on the part of the body; and this He shows in three respects;\nfirst of all, that it was a true and solid body, and not phantastic\nor rarefied, like the air. And He establishes this by offering His\nbody to be handled; hence He says in the last chapter of Luke (39):\n\"Handle and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me\nto have.\" Secondly, He shows that it was a human body, by presenting\nHis true features for them to behold. Thirdly, He shows that it was\nidentically the same body which He had before, by showing them the\nscars of the wounds; hence, as we read in the last chapter of Luke\n(39) he said to them: \"See My hands and feet, that it is I Myself.\"\n\nSecondly, He showed them the truth of His Resurrection on the part of\nHis soul reunited with His body: and He showed this by the works of\nthe threefold life. First of all, in the operations of the nutritive\nlife, by eating and drinking with His disciples, as we read in the\nlast chapter of Luke. Secondly, in the works of the sensitive life,\nby replying to His disciples' questions, and by greeting them when\nthey were in His presence, showing thereby that He both saw and\nheard; thirdly, in the works of the intellective life by their\nconversing with Him, and discoursing on the Scriptures. And, in order\nthat nothing might be wanting to make the manifestation complete, He\nalso showed that He had the Divine Nature, by working the miracle of\nthe draught of fishes, and further by ascending into heaven while\nthey were beholding Him: because, according to John 3:13: \"No man\nhath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son\nof Man who is in heaven.\"\n\nHe also showed His disciples the glory of His Resurrection by\nentering in among them when the doors were closed: as Gregory says\n(Hom. xxvi in Evang.): \"Our Lord allowed them to handle His flesh\nwhich He had brought through closed doors, to show that His body was\nof the same nature but of different glory.\" It likewise was part of\nthe property of glory that \"He vanished suddenly from their eyes,\" as\nrelated in the last chapter of Luke; because thereby it was shown\nthat it lay in His power to be seen or not seen; and this belongs to\na glorified body, as stated above (Q. 54, A. 1, ad 2, A. 2, ad 1).\n\nReply Obj. 1: Each separate argument would not suffice of itself for\nshowing perfectly Christ's Resurrection, yet all taken collectively\nestablish it completely, especially owing to the testimonies of the\nScriptures, the sayings of the angels, and even Christ's own\nassertion supported by miracles. As to the angels who appeared, they\ndid not say they were men, as Christ asserted that He was truly a\nman. Moreover, the manner of eating was different in Christ and the\nangels: for since the bodies assumed by the angels were neither\nliving nor animated, there was no true eating, although the food was\nreally masticated and passed into the interior of the assumed body:\nhence the angels said to Tobias (12:18, 19): \"When I was with\nyou . . . I seemed indeed to eat and drink with you; but I use an\ninvisible meat.\" But since Christ's body was truly animated, His\neating was genuine. For, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xiii),\n\"it is not the power but the need of eating that shall be taken away\nfrom the bodies of them who rise again.\" Hence Bede says on Luke\n24:41: \"Christ ate because He could, not because He needed.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As was observed above, some proofs were employed by\nChrist to prove the truth of His human nature, and others to show\nforth His glory in rising again. But the condition of human nature,\nas considered in itself, namely, as to its present state, is opposite\nto the condition of glory, as is said in 1 Cor. 15:43: \"It is sown in\nweakness, it shall rise in power.\" Consequently, the proofs brought\nforward for showing the condition of glory, seem to be in opposition\nto nature, not absolutely, but according to the present state, and\nconversely. Hence Gregory says (Hom. xxvi in Evang.): \"The Lord\nmanifested two wonders, which are mutually contrary according to\nhuman reason, when after the Resurrection He showed His body as\nincorruptible and at the same time palpable.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Tract. cxxi super Joan.), \"these\nwords of our Lord, 'Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My\nFather,'\" show \"that in that woman there is a figure of the Church of\nthe Gentiles, which did not believe in Christ until He was ascended\nto the Father. Or Jesus would have men to believe in Him, i.e. to\ntouch Him spiritually, as being Himself one with the Father. For to\nthat man's innermost perceptions He is, in some sort, ascended unto\nthe Father, who has become so far proficient in Him, as to recognize\nin Him the equal with the Father . . . whereas she as yet believed in\nHim but carnally, since she wept for Him as for a man.\" But when one\nreads elsewhere of Mary having touched Him, when with the other\nwomen, she \"'came up and took hold of His feet,' that matters\nlittle,\" as Severianus says [*Chrysologus, Serm. lxxvi], \"for, the\nfirst act relates to figure, the other to sex; the former is of\nDivine grace, the latter of human nature.\" Or as Chrysostom says\n(Hom. lxxxvi in Joan.): \"This woman wanted to converse with Christ\njust as before the Passion, and out of joy was thinking of nothing\ngreat, although Christ's flesh had become much nobler by rising\nagain.\" And therefore He said: \"I have not yet ascended to My\nFather\"; as if to say: \"Do not suppose I am leading an earthly life;\nfor if you see Me upon earth, it is because I have not yet ascended\nto My Father, but I am going to ascend shortly.\" Hence He goes on to\nsay: \"I ascend to My Father, and to your Father.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: As Augustine says _ad Orosium_ (Dial. lxv, Qq.): \"Our\nLord rose in clarified flesh; yet He did not wish to appear before\nthe disciples in that condition of clarity, because their eyes could\nnot gaze upon that brilliancy. For if before He died for us and rose\nagain the disciples could not look upon Him when He was transfigured\nupon the mountain, how much less were they able to gaze upon Him when\nour Lord's flesh was glorified.\" It must also be borne in mind that\nafter His Resurrection our Lord wished especially to show that He was\nthe same as had died; which the manifestation of His brightness would\nhave hindered considerably: because change of features shows more\nthan anything else the difference in the person seen: and this is\nbecause sight specially judges of the common sensibles, among which\nis one and many, or the same and different. But before the Passion,\nlest His disciples might despise its weakness, Christ meant to show\nthem the glory of His majesty; and this the brightness of the body\nspecially indicates. Consequently, before the Passion He showed the\ndisciples His glory by brightness, but after the Resurrection by\nother tokens.\n\nReply Obj. 5: As Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. iii): \"We can\nunderstand one angel to have been seen by the women, according to\nboth Matthew and Mark, if we take them as having entered the\nsepulchre, that is, into some sort of walled enclosure, and that\nthere they saw an angel sitting upon the stone which was rolled back\nfrom the monument, as Matthew says; and that this is Mark's\nexpression--'sitting on the right side'; afterwards when they scanned\nthe spot where the Lord's body had lain, they beheld two angels, who\nwere at first seated, as John says, and who afterwards rose so as to\nbe seen standing, as Luke relates.\"\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 56\n\nOF THE CAUSALITY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION\n(In Two Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the causality of Christ's Resurrection,\nconcerning which there are two points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ's Resurrection is the cause of our resurrection?\n\n(2) Whether it is the cause of our justification?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 56, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ's Resurrection Is the Cause of the Resurrection of Our\nBodies?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Resurrection is not the\ncause of the resurrection of our bodies, because, given a sufficient\ncause, the effect must follow of necessity. If, then, Christ's\nResurrection be the sufficient cause of the resurrection of our\nbodies, then all the dead should have risen again as soon as He rose.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Divine justice is the cause of the resurrection of\nthe dead, so that the body may be rewarded or punished together with\nthe soul, since they shared in merit or sin, as Dionysius says\n(Eccles. Hier. vii) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv). But God's\njustice must necessarily be accomplished, even if Christ had not\nrisen. Therefore the dead would rise again even though Christ did\nnot. Consequently Christ's Resurrection is not the cause of the\nresurrection of our bodies.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if Christ's Resurrection be the cause of the\nresurrection of our bodies, it would be either the exemplar, or the\nefficient, or the meritorious cause. Now it is not the exemplar\ncause; because it is God who will bring about the resurrection of our\nbodies, according to John 5:21: \"The Father raiseth up the dead\": and\nGod has no need to look at any exemplar cause outside Himself. In\nlike manner it is not the efficient cause; because an efficient cause\nacts only through contact, whether spiritual or corporeal. Now it is\nevident that Christ's Resurrection has no corporeal contact with the\ndead who shall rise again, owing to distance of time and place; and\nsimilarly it has no spiritual contact, which is through faith and\ncharity, because even unbelievers and sinners shall rise again. Nor\nagain is it the meritorious cause, because when Christ rose He was no\nlonger a wayfarer, and consequently not in a state of merit.\nTherefore, Christ's Resurrection does not appear to be in any way the\ncause of ours.\n\nObj. 4: Further, since death is the privation of life, then to\ndestroy death seems to be nothing else than to bring life back again;\nand this is resurrection. But \"by dying, Christ destroyed our death\"\n[*Preface of Mass in Paschal Time]. Consequently, Christ's death, not\nHis Resurrection, is the cause of our resurrection.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on 1 Cor. 15:12: \"Now if Christ be preached, that\nHe rose again from the dead,\" the gloss says: \"Who is the efficient\ncause of our resurrection.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated in 2 Metaphysics, text 4: \"Whatever is\nfirst in any order, is the cause of all that come after it.\" But\nChrist's Resurrection was the first in the order of our resurrection,\nas is evident from what was said above (Q. 53, A. 3). Hence Christ's\nResurrection must be the cause of ours: and this is what the Apostle\nsays (1 Cor. 15:20, 21): \"Christ is risen from the dead, the\nfirst-fruits of them that sleep; for by a man came death, and by a\nman the resurrection of the dead.\"\n\nAnd this is reasonable. Because the principle of human life-giving is\nthe Word of God, of whom it is said (Ps. 35:10): \"With Thee is the\nfountain of life\": hence He Himself says (John 5:21): \"As the Father\nraiseth up the dead, and giveth life; so the Son also giveth life to\nwhom He will.\" Now the divinely established natural order is that\nevery cause operates first upon what is nearest to it, and through it\nupon others which are more remote; just as fire first heats the\nnearest air, and through it it heats bodies that are further off: and\nGod Himself first enlightens those substances which are closer to\nHim, and through them others that are more remote, as Dionysius says\n(Coel. Hier. xiii). Consequently, the Word of God first bestows\nimmortal life upon that body which is naturally united with Himself,\nand through it works the resurrection in all other bodies.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As was stated above, Christ's Resurrection is the cause\nof ours through the power of the united Word, who operates according\nto His will. And consequently, it is not necessary for the effect to\nfollow at once, but according as the Word of God disposes, namely,\nthat first of all we be conformed to the suffering and dying Christ\nin this suffering and mortal life; and afterwards may come to share\nin the likeness of His Resurrection.\n\nReply Obj. 2: God's justice is the first cause of our resurrection,\nwhereas Christ's Resurrection is the secondary, and as it were the\ninstrumental cause. But although the power of the principal cause is\nnot restricted to one instrument determinately, nevertheless since it\nworks through this instrument, such instrument causes the effect. So,\nthen, the Divine justice in itself is not tied down to Christ's\nResurrection as a means of bringing about our resurrection: because\nGod could deliver us in some other way than through Christ's Passion\nand Resurrection, as already stated (Q. 46, A. 2). But having once\ndecreed to deliver us in this way, it is evident that Christ's\nResurrection is the cause of ours.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Properly speaking, Christ's Resurrection is not the\nmeritorious cause, but the efficient and exemplar cause of our\nresurrection. It is the efficient cause, inasmuch as Christ's\nhumanity, according to which He rose again, is as it were the\ninstrument of His Godhead, and works by Its power, as stated above\n(Q. 13, AA. 2, 3). And therefore, just as all other things which\nChrist did and endured in His humanity are profitable to our\nsalvation through the power of the Godhead, as already stated (Q. 48,\nA. 6), so also is Christ's Resurrection the efficient cause of ours,\nthrough the Divine power whose office it is to quicken the dead; and\nthis power by its presence is in touch with all places and times; and\nsuch virtual contact suffices for its efficiency. And since, as was\nstated above (ad 2), the primary cause of human resurrection is the\nDivine justice, from which Christ has \"the power of passing judgment,\nbecause He is the Son of Man\" (John 5:27); the efficient power of His\nResurrection extends to the good and wicked alike, who are subject to\nHis judgment.\n\nBut just as the Resurrection of Christ's body, through its personal\nunion with the Word, is first in point of time, so also is it first\nin dignity and perfection; as the gloss says on 1 Cor. 15:20, 23. But\nwhatever is most perfect is always the exemplar, which the less\nperfect copies according to its mode; consequently Christ's\nResurrection is the exemplar of ours. And this is necessary, not on\nthe part of Him who rose again, who needs no exemplar, but on the\npart of them who are raised up, who must be likened to that\nResurrection, according to Phil. 3:21: \"He will reform the body of\nour lowness, made like to the body of His glory.\" Now although the\nefficiency of Christ's Resurrection extends to the resurrection of\nthe good and wicked alike, still its exemplarity extends properly\nonly to the just, who are made conformable with His Sonship,\naccording to Rom. 8:29.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Considered on the part of their efficiency, which is\ndependent on the Divine power, both Christ's death and His\nResurrection are the cause both of the destruction of death and of\nthe renewal of life: but considered as exemplar causes, Christ's\ndeath--by which He withdrew from mortal life--is the cause of the\ndestruction of our death; while His Resurrection, whereby He\ninaugurated immortal life, is the cause of the repairing of our life.\nBut Christ's Passion is furthermore a meritorious cause, as stated\nabove (Q. 48, A. 1).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 56, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ's Resurrection Is the Cause of the Resurrection of\nSouls?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Resurrection is not the\ncause of the resurrection of souls, because Augustine says (Tract.\nxxiii super Joan.) that \"bodies rise by His human dispensation, but\nsouls rise by the Substance of God.\" But Christ's Resurrection does\nnot belong to God's Substance, but to the dispensation of His\nhumanity. Therefore, although Christ's Resurrection is the cause of\nbodies rising, nevertheless it does not seem to be the cause of the\nresurrection of souls.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a body does not act upon a spirit. But the\nResurrection belongs to His body, which death laid low. Therefore His\nResurrection is not the cause of the resurrection of souls.\n\nObj. 3: Further, since Christ's Resurrection is the cause why bodies\nrise again, the bodies of all men shall rise again, according to 1\nCor. 15:51: \"We shall all indeed rise again.\" But the souls of all\nwill not rise again, because according to Matt. 25:46: \"some shall go\ninto everlasting punishment.\" Therefore Christ's Resurrection is not\nthe cause of the resurrection of souls.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the resurrection of souls comes of the forgiveness\nof sins. But this was effected by Christ's Passion, according to\nApoc. 1:5: \"He washed us from our sins in His own blood.\"\nConsequently, Christ's Passion even more than His Resurrection is the\ncause of the resurrection of souls.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 4:25): \"He rose again for\nour justification,\" which is nothing else than the resurrection of\nsouls: and on Ps. 29:6: \"In the evening weeping shall have place,\"\nthe gloss says, \"Christ's Resurrection is the cause of ours, both of\nthe soul at present, and of the body in the future.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above, Christ's Resurrection works in\nvirtue of the Godhead; now this virtue extends not only to the\nresurrection of bodies, but also to that of souls: for it comes of\nGod that the soul lives by grace, and that the body lives by the\nsoul. Consequently, Christ's Resurrection has instrumentally an\neffective power not only with regard to the resurrection of bodies,\nbut also with respect to the resurrection of souls. In like fashion\nit is an exemplar cause with regard to the resurrection of souls,\nbecause even in our souls we must be conformed with the rising\nChrist: as the Apostle says (Rom. 6:4-11) \"Christ is risen from the\ndead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of\nlife\": and as He, \"rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, so\nlet us reckon that we (Vulg.: 'you')\" are dead to sin, that we may\n\"live together with Him.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Augustine says that the resurrection of souls is\nwrought by God's Substance, as to participation, because souls become\ngood and just by sharing in the Divine goodness, but not by sharing\nin anything created. Accordingly, after saying that souls rise by the\nDivine Substance, he adds: the soul is beatified by a participation\nwith God, and not by a participation with a holy soul. But our bodies\nare made glorious by sharing in the glory of Christ's body.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The efficacy of Christ's Resurrection reaches souls not\nfrom any special virtue of His risen body, but from the virtue of the\nGodhead personally united with it.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The resurrection of souls pertains to merit, which is\nthe effect of justification; but the resurrection of bodies is\nordained for punishment or reward, which are the effects of Him who\njudges. Now it belongs to Christ, not to justify all men, but to\njudge them: and therefore He raises up all as to their bodies, but\nnot as to their souls.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Two things concur in the justification of souls,\nnamely, forgiveness of sin and newness of life through grace.\nConsequently, as to efficacy, which comes of the Divine power, the\nPassion as well as the Resurrection of Christ is the cause of\njustification as to both the above. But as to exemplarity, properly\nspeaking Christ's Passion and death are the cause of the forgiveness\nof guilt, by which forgiveness we die unto sin: whereas Christ's\nResurrection is the cause of newness of life, which comes through\ngrace or justice: consequently, the Apostle says (Rom. 4:25) that \"He\nwas delivered up,\" i.e. to death, \"for our sins,\" i.e. to take them\naway, \"and rose again for our justification.\" But Christ's Passion\nwas also a meritorious cause, as stated above (A. 1, ad 4; Q. 48,\nA. 1).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 57\n\nOF THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider Christ's Ascension: concerning which there\nare six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it belonged for Christ to ascend into heaven?\n\n(2) According to which nature did it become Him to ascend?\n\n(3) Whether He ascended by His own power?\n\n(4) Whether He ascended above all the corporeal heavens?\n\n(5) Whether He ascended above all spiritual creatures?\n\n(6) Of the effect of the Ascension.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Was Fitting for Christ to Ascend into Heaven?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting for Christ to\nascend into heaven. For the Philosopher says (De Coelo ii) that\n\"things which are in a state of perfection possess their good without\nmovement.\" But Christ was in a state of perfection, since He is the\nSovereign Good in respect of His Divine Nature, and sovereignly\nglorified in respect of His human nature. Consequently, He has His\ngood without movement. But ascension is movement. Therefore it was\nnot fitting for Christ to ascend.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whatever is moved, is moved on account of something\nbetter. But it was no better thing for Christ to be in heaven than\nupon earth, because He gained nothing either in soul or in body by\nbeing in heaven. Therefore it seems that Christ should not have\nascended into heaven.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Son of God took human flesh for our salvation.\nBut it would have been more beneficial for men if He had tarried\nalways with us upon earth; thus He said to His disciples (Luke\n17:22): \"The days will come when you shall desire to see one day of\nthe Son of man; and you shall not see it.\" Therefore it seems\nunfitting for Christ to have ascended into heaven.\n\nObj. 4: Further, as Gregory says (Moral. xiv), Christ's body was in\nno way changed after the Resurrection. But He did not ascend into\nheaven immediately after rising again, for He said after the\nResurrection (John 20:17): \"I am not yet ascended to My Father.\"\nTherefore it seems that neither should He have ascended after forty\ndays.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Are the words of our Lord (John 20:17): \"I ascend\nto My Father and to your Father.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The place ought to be in keeping with what is\ncontained therein. Now by His Resurrection Christ entered upon an\nimmortal and incorruptible life. But whereas our dwelling-place is\none of generation and corruption, the heavenly place is one of\nincorruption. And consequently it was not fitting that Christ should\nremain upon earth after the Resurrection; but it was fitting that He\nshould ascend to heaven.\n\nReply Obj. 1: That which is best and possesses its good without\nmovement is God Himself, because He is utterly unchangeable,\naccording to Malachi 3:6: \"I am the Lord, and I change not.\" But\nevery creature is changeable in some respect, as is evident from\nAugustine (Gen. ad lit. viii). And since the nature assumed by the\nSon of God remained a creature, as is clear from what was said above\n(Q. 2, A. 7; Q. 16, AA. 8, 10; Q. 20, A. 1), it is not unbecoming\nif some movement be attributed to it.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By ascending into heaven Christ acquired no addition to\nHis essential glory either in body or in soul: nevertheless He did\nacquire something as to the fittingness of place, which pertains to\nthe well-being of glory: not that His body acquired anything from a\nheavenly body by way of perfection or preservation; but merely out of\na certain fittingness. Now this in a measure belonged to His glory;\nand He had a certain kind of joy from such fittingness, not indeed\nthat He then began to derive joy from it when He ascended into\nheaven, but that He rejoiced thereat in a new way, as at a thing\ncompleted. Hence, on Ps. 15:11: \"At Thy right hand are delights even\nunto the end,\" the gloss says: \"I shall delight in sitting nigh to\nThee, when I shall be taken away from the sight of men.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although Christ's bodily presence was withdrawn from\nthe faithful by the Ascension, still the presence of His Godhead is\never with the faithful, as He Himself says (Matt. 28:20): \"Behold, I\nam with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.\" For,\n\"by ascending into heaven He did not abandon those whom He adopted,\"\nas Pope Leo says (De Resurrec., Serm. ii). But Christ's Ascension\ninto heaven, whereby He withdrew His bodily presence from us, was\nmore profitable for us than His bodily presence would have been.\n\nFirst of all, in order to increase our faith, which is of things\nunseen. Hence our Lord said (John 26) that the Holy Ghost shall come\nand \"convince the world . . . of justice,\" that is, of the justice\n\"of those that believe,\" as Augustine says (Tract. xcv super Joan.):\n\"For even to put the faithful beside the unbeliever is to put the\nunbeliever to shame\"; wherefore he goes on to say (10): \"'Because I\ngo to the Father; and you shall see Me no longer'\"--\"For 'blessed are\nthey that see not, yet believe.' Hence it is of our justice that the\nworld is reproved: because 'you will believe in Me whom you shall not\nsee.'\"\n\nSecondly, to uplift our hope: hence He says (John 14:3): \"If I shall\ngo, and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will take you\nto Myself; that where I am, you also may be.\" For by placing in\nheaven the human nature which He assumed, Christ gave us the hope of\ngoing thither; since \"wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the\neagles also be gathered together,\" as is written in Matt. 24:28.\nHence it is written likewise (Mic. 2:13): \"He shall go up that shall\nopen the way before them.\"\n\nThirdly, in order to direct the fervor of our charity to heavenly\nthings. Hence the Apostle says (Col. 3:1, 2): \"Seek the things that\nare above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Mind the\nthings that are above, not the things that are upon the earth\": for\nas is said (Matt. 6:21): \"Where thy treasure is, there is thy heart\nalso.\" And since the Holy Ghost is love drawing us up to heavenly\nthings, therefore our Lord said to His disciples (John 16:7): \"It is\nexpedient to you that I go; for if I go not, the Paraclete will not\ncome to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.\" On which words\nAugustine says (Tract. xciv super Joan.): \"Ye cannot receive the\nSpirit, so long as ye persist in knowing Christ according to the\nflesh. But when Christ withdrew in body, not only the Holy Ghost, but\nboth Father and Son were present with them spiritually.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Although a heavenly place befitted Christ when He rose\nto immortal life, nevertheless He delayed the Ascension in order to\nconfirm the truth of His Resurrection. Hence it is written (Acts\n1:3), that \"He showed Himself alive after His Passion, by many\nproofs, for forty days appearing to them\": upon which the gloss says\nthat \"because He was dead for forty hours, during forty days He\nestablished the fact of His being alive again. Or the forty days may\nbe understood as a figure of this world, wherein Christ dwells in His\nChurch: inasmuch as man is made out of the four elements, and is\ncautioned not to transgress the Decalogue.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ's Ascension into Heaven Belonged to Him According to\nHis Divine Nature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Ascension into heaven\nbelonged to Him according to His Divine Nature. For, it is written\n(Ps. 46:6): \"God is ascended with jubilee\": and (Deut. 33:26): \"He\nthat is mounted upon the heaven is thy helper.\" But these words were\nspoken of God even before Christ's Incarnation. Therefore it belongs\nto Christ to ascend into heaven as God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it belongs to the same person to ascend into heaven\nas to descend from heaven, according to John 3:13: \"No man hath\nascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven\": and Eph.\n4:10: \"He that descended is the same also that ascended.\" But Christ\ncame down from heaven not as man, but as God: because previously His\nNature in heaven was not human, but Divine. Therefore it seems that\nChrist ascended into heaven as God.\n\nObj. 3: Further, by His Ascension Christ ascended to the Father. But\nit was not as man that He rose to equality with the Father; for in\nthis respect He says: \"He is greater than I,\" as is said in John\n14:28. Therefore it seems that Christ ascended as God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on Eph. 4:10: \"That He ascended, what is it, but\nbecause He also descended,\" a gloss says: \"It is clear that He\ndescended and ascended according to His humanity.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The expression \"according to\" can denote two things;\nthe condition of the one who ascends, and the cause of his ascension.\nWhen taken to express the condition of the one ascending, the\nAscension in no wise belongs to Christ according to the condition of\nHis Divine Nature; both because there is nothing higher than the\nDivine Nature to which He can ascend; and because ascension is local\nmotion, a thing not in keeping with the Divine Nature, which is\nimmovable and outside all place. Yet the Ascension is in keeping with\nChrist according to His human nature, which is limited by place, and\ncan be the subject of motion. In this sense, then, we can say that\nChrist ascended into heaven as man, but not as God.\n\nBut if the phrase \"according to\" denote the cause of the Ascension,\nsince Christ ascended into heaven in virtue of His Godhead, and not\nin virtue of His human nature, then it must be said that Christ\nascended into heaven not as man, but as God. Hence Augustine says in\na sermon on the Ascension: \"It was our doing that the Son of man hung\nupon the cross; but it was His own doing that He ascended.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: These utterances were spoken prophetically of God who\nwas one day to become incarnate. Still it can be said that although\nto ascend does not belong to the Divine Nature properly, yet it can\nmetaphorically; as, for instance, it is said \"to ascend in the heart\nof man\" (cf. Ps. 83:6), when his heart submits and humbles itself\nbefore God: and in the same way God is said to ascend metaphorically\nwith regard to every creature, since He subjects it to Himself.\n\nReply Obj. 2: He who ascended is the same as He who descended. For\nAugustine says (De Symb. iv): \"Who is it that descends? The God-Man.\nWho is it that ascends? The self-same God-Man.\" Nevertheless a\ntwofold descent is attributed to Christ; one, whereby He is said to\nhave descended from heaven, which is attributed to the God-Man\naccording as He is God: for He is not to be understood as having\ndescended by any local movement, but as having \"emptied Himself,\"\nsince \"when He was in the form of God He took the form of a servant.\"\nFor just as He is said to be emptied, not by losing His fulness, but\nbecause He took our littleness upon Himself, so likewise He is said\nto have descended from heaven, not that He deserted heaven, but\nbecause He assumed human nature in unity of person.\n\nAnd there is another descent whereby He descended \"into the lower\nregions of the earth,\" as is written Eph. 4:9; and this is local\ndescent: hence this belongs to Christ according to the condition of\nhuman nature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ is said to ascend to the Father, inasmuch as He\nascends to sit on the right hand of the Father; and this is befitting\nChrist in a measure according to His Divine Nature, and in a measure\naccording to His human nature, as will be said later (Q. 58, A. 3).\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Ascended by His Own Power?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not ascend by His own\npower, because it is written (Mk. 16:19) that \"the Lord Jesus, after\nHe had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven\"; and (Acts 1:9) that,\n\"while they looked on, He was raised up, and a cloud received Him out\nof their sight.\" But what is taken up, and lifted up, appears to be\nmoved by another. Consequently, it was not by His own power, but by\nanother's that Christ was taken up into heaven.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's was an earthly body, like to ours. But it\nis contrary to the nature of an earthly body to be borne upwards.\nMoreover, what is moved contrary to its nature is nowise moved by its\nown power. Therefore Christ did not ascend to heaven by His own power.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's own power is Divine. But this motion does\nnot seem to have been Divine, because, whereas the Divine power is\ninfinite, such motion would be instantaneous; consequently, He would\nnot have been uplifted to heaven \"while\" the disciples \"looked on,\"\nas is stated in Acts 1:9. Therefore, it seems that Christ did not\nascend to heaven by His own power.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 63:1): \"This beautiful one in\nhis robe, walking in the greatness of his strength.\" Also Gregory\nsays in a Homily on the Ascension (xxix): \"It is to be noted that we\nread of Elias having ascended in a chariot, that it might be shown\nthat one who was mere man needed another's help. But we do not read\nof our Saviour being lifted up either in a chariot or by angels,\nbecause He who had made all things was taken up above all things by\nHis own power.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There is a twofold nature in Christ, to wit, the\nDivine and the human. Hence His own power can be accepted according\nto both. Likewise a twofold power can be accepted regarding His human\nnature: one is natural, flowing from the principles of nature; and it\nis quite evident that Christ did not ascend into heaven by such power\nas this. The other is the power of glory, which is in Christ's human\nnature; and it was according to this that He ascended to heaven.\n\nNow there are some who endeavor to assign the cause of this power to\nthe nature of the fifth essence. This, as they say, is light, which\nthey make out to be of the composition of the human body, and by\nwhich they contend that contrary elements are reconciled; so that in\nthe state of this mortality, elemental nature is predominant in human\nbodies: so that, according to the nature of this predominating\nelement the human body is borne downwards by its own power: but in\nthe condition of glory the heavenly nature will predominate, by whose\ntendency and power Christ's body and the bodies of the saints are\nlifted up to heaven. But we have already treated of this opinion in\nthe First Part (Q. 76, A. 7), and shall deal with it more fully in\ntreating of the general resurrection (Suppl., Q. 84, A. 1).\n\nSetting this opinion aside, others assign as the cause of this power\nthe glorified soul itself, from whose overflow the body will be\nglorified, as Augustine writes to Dioscorus (Ep. cxviii). For the\nglorified body will be so submissive to the glorified soul, that, as\nAugustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii), \"wheresoever the spirit listeth,\nthither the body will be on the instant; nor will the spirit desire\nanything unbecoming to the soul or the body.\" Now it is befitting the\nglorified and immortal body for it to be in a heavenly place, as\nstated above (A. 1). Consequently, Christ's body ascended into heaven\nby the power of His soul willing it. But as the body is made glorious\nby participation with the soul, even so, as Augustine says (Tract.\nxxiii in Joan.), \"the soul is beatified by participating in God.\"\nConsequently, the Divine power is the first source of the ascent into\nheaven. Therefore Christ ascended into heaven by His own power, first\nof all by His Divine power, and secondly by the power of His\nglorified soul moving His body at will.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Christ is said to have risen by His own power,\nthough He was raised to life by the power of the Father, since the\nFather's power is the same as the Son's; so also Christ ascended into\nheaven by His own power, and yet was raised up and taken up to heaven\nby the Father.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This argument proves that Christ did not ascend into\nheaven by His own power, i.e. that which is natural to human nature:\nyet He did ascend by His own power, i.e. His Divine power, as well as\nby His own power, i.e. the power of His beatified soul. And although\nto mount upwards is contrary to the nature of a human body in its\npresent condition, in which the body is not entirely dominated by the\nsoul, still it will not be unnatural or forced in a glorified body,\nwhose entire nature is utterly under the control of the spirit.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although the Divine power be infinite, and operate\ninfinitely, so far as the worker is concerned, still the effect\nthereof is received in things according to their capacity, and as God\ndisposes. Now a body is incapable of being moved locally in an\ninstant, because it must be commensurate with space, according to the\ndivision of which time is reckoned, as is proved in Physics vi.\nConsequently, it is not necessary for a body moved by God to be moved\ninstantaneously, but with such speed as God disposes.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Ascended Above All the Heavens?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not ascend above all the\nheavens, for it is written (Ps. 10:5): \"The Lord is in His holy\ntemple, the Lord's throne is in heaven.\" But what is in heaven is not\nabove heaven. Therefore Christ did not ascend above all the heavens.\n\nObj. 2: [*This objection with its solution is omitted in the Leonine\nedition as not being in the original manuscript.]\n\nFurther, there is no place above the heavens, as is proved in _De\nCoelo_ i. But every body must occupy a place. Therefore Christ's body\ndid not ascend above all the heavens.\n\nObj. 3: Further, two bodies cannot occupy the same place. Since,\nthen, there is no passing from place to place except through the\nmiddle space, it seems that Christ could not have ascended above all\nthe heavens unless heaven were divided; which is impossible.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it is narrated (Acts 1:9) that \"a cloud received Him\nout of their sight.\" But clouds cannot be uplifted beyond heaven.\nConsequently, Christ did not ascend above all the heavens.\n\nObj. 5: Further, we believe that Christ will dwell for ever in the\nplace whither He has ascended. But what is against nature cannot last\nfor ever, because what is according to nature is more prevalent and\nof more frequent occurrence. Therefore, since it is contrary to\nnature for an earthly body to be above heaven, it seems that Christ's\nbody did not ascend above heaven.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 4:10): \"He ascended above all\nthe heavens that He might fill all things.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The more fully anything corporeal shares in the\nDivine goodness, the higher its place in the corporeal order, which\nis order of place. Hence we see that the more formal bodies are\nnaturally the higher, as is clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv; De\nCoelo ii), since it is by its form that every body partakes of the\nDivine Essence, as is shown in Physics i. But through glory the body\nderives a greater share in the Divine goodness than any other natural\nbody does through its natural form; while among other glorious bodies\nit is manifest that Christ's body shines with greater glory. Hence it\nwas most fitting for it to be set above all bodies. Thus it is that\non Eph. 4:8: \"Ascending on high,\" the gloss says: \"in place and\ndignity.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: God's seat is said to be in heaven, not as though\nheaven contained Him, but rather because it is contained by Him.\nHence it is not necessary for any part of heaven to be higher, but\nfor Him to be above all the heavens; according to Ps. 8:2: \"For Thy\nmagnificence is elevated above the heavens, O God!\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: [*Omitted in Leonine edition; see Obj.[2]]\n\nA place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container\nhas the formality of first place, and such is the first heaven.\nTherefore bodies need in themselves to be in a place, in so far as\nthey are contained by a heavenly body. But glorified bodies, Christ's\nespecially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they\ndraw nothing from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul.\nSo there is nothing to prevent Christ's body from being beyond the\ncontaining radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing\nplace. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since\nthere is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of\na body, but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ. So\nwhen Aristotle proves (De Coelo ii) that there is no body beyond\nheaven, this must be understood of bodies which are in a state of\npure nature, as is seen from the proofs.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although it is not of the nature of a body for it to be\nin the same place with another body, yet God can bring it about\nmiraculously that a body be with another in the same place, as Christ\ndid when He went forth from the Virgin's sealed womb, also when He\nentered among the disciples through closed doors, as Gregory says\n(Hom. xxvi). Therefore Christ's body can be in the same place with\nanother body, not through some inherent property in the body, but\nthrough the assistance and operation of the Divine power.\n\nReply Obj. 4: That cloud afforded no support as a vehicle to the\nascending Christ: but it appeared as a sign of the Godhead, just as\nGod's glory appeared to Israel in a cloud over the Tabernacle (Ex.\n40:32; Num. 9:15).\n\nReply Obj. 5: A glorified body has the power to be in heaven or above\nheaven, not from its natural principles, but from the beatified soul,\nfrom which it derives its glory: and just as the upward motion of a\nglorified body is not violent, so neither is its rest violent:\nconsequently, there is nothing to prevent it from being everlasting.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Ascended Above Every Spiritual Creature?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's body did not ascend above\nevery spiritual creature. For no fitting comparison can be made\nbetween things which have no common ratio. But place is not\npredicated in the same ratio of bodies and of spiritual creatures, as\nis evident from what was said in the First Part (Q. 8, A. 2, ad 1, 2;\nQ. 52, A. 1). Therefore it seems that Christ's body cannot be said to\nhave ascended above every spiritual creature.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. lv) that a spirit\nalways takes precedence over a body. But the higher place is due to\nthe higher things. Therefore it does not seem that Christ ascended\nabove every spiritual creature.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in every place a body exists, since there is no such\nthing as a vacuum in nature. Therefore if no body obtains a higher\nplace than a spirit in the order of natural bodies, then there will\nbe no place above every spiritual creature. Consequently, Christ's\nbody could not ascend above every spiritual creature.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 1:21): \"God set Him above all\nprincipality, and Power, and every name that is named, not only in\nthis world, but also in that which is to come.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The more exalted place is due to the nobler subject,\nwhether it be a place according to bodily contact, as regards bodies,\nor whether it be by way of spiritual contact, as regards spiritual\nsubstances; thus a heavenly place which is the highest of places is\nbecomingly due to spiritual substances, since they are highest in the\norder of substances. But although Christ's body is beneath spiritual\nsubstances, if we weigh the conditions of its corporeal nature,\nnevertheless it surpasses all spiritual substances in dignity, when\nwe call to mind its dignity of union whereby it is united personally\nwith God. Consequently, owing to this very fittingness, a higher\nplace is due to it above every spiritual creature. Hence Gregory says\nin a Homily on the Ascension (xxix in Evang.) that \"He who had made\nall things, was by His own power raised up above all things.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although a place is differently attributed to corporeal\nand spiritual substances, still in either case this remains in\ncommon, that the higher place is assigned to the worthier.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This argument holds good of Christ's body according to\nthe conditions of its corporeal nature, but not according to its\nformality of union.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This comparison may be considered either on the part of\nthe places; and thus there is no place so high as to exceed the\ndignity of a spiritual substance: in this sense the objection runs.\nOr it may be considered on the part of the dignity of the things to\nwhich a place is attributed: and in this way it is due to the body of\nChrist to be above spiritual creatures.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 57, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Christ's Ascension Is the Cause of Our Salvation?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's Ascension is not the cause\nof our salvation. For, Christ was the cause of our salvation in so\nfar as He merited it. But He merited nothing for us by His Ascension,\nbecause His Ascension belongs to the reward of His exaltation: and\nthe same thing is not both merit and reward, just as neither are a\nroad and its terminus the same. Therefore it seems that Christ's\nAscension is not the cause of our salvation.\n\nObj. 2: Further, if Christ's Ascension be the cause of our salvation,\nit seems that this is principally due to the fact that His Ascension\nis the cause of ours. But this was bestowed upon us by His Passion,\nfor it is written (Heb. 10:19): \"We have [Vulg.: 'Having'] confidence\nin the entering into the holies by\" His \"blood.\" Therefore it seems\nthat Christ's Ascension was not the cause of our salvation.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the salvation which Christ bestows is an everlasting\none, according to Isa. 51:6: \"My salvation shall be for ever.\" But\nChrist did not ascend into heaven to remain there eternally; for it\nis written (Acts 1:11): \"He shall so come as you have seen Him going,\ninto heaven.\" Besides, we read of Him showing Himself to many holy\npeople on earth after He went up to heaven, to Paul, for instance\n(Acts 9). Consequently, it seems that Christ's Ascension is not the\ncause of our salvation.\n\n_On the contrary,_ He Himself said (John 16:7): \"It is expedient to\nyou that I go\"; i.e. that I should leave you and ascend into heaven.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation in\ntwo ways: first of all, on our part; secondly, on His.\n\nOn our part, in so far as by the Ascension our souls are uplifted to\nHim; because, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3), His Ascension fosters,\nfirst, faith; secondly, hope; thirdly, charity. Fourthly, our\nreverence for Him is thereby increased, since we no longer deem Him\nan earthly man, but the God of heaven; thus the Apostle says (2 Cor.\n5:16): \"If we have known Christ according to the flesh--'that is, as\nmortal, whereby we reputed Him as a mere man,'\" as the gloss\ninterprets the words--\"but now we know Him so no longer.\"\n\nOn His part, in regard to those things which, in ascending, He did\nfor our salvation. First, He prepared the way for our ascent into\nheaven, according to His own saying (John 14:2): \"I go to prepare a\nplace for you,\" and the words of Micheas (2:13), \"He shall go up that\nshall open the way before them.\" For since He is our Head the members\nmust follow whither the Head has gone: hence He said (John 14:3):\n\"That where I am, you also may be.\" In sign whereof He took to heaven\nthe souls of the saints delivered from hell, according to Ps. 67:19\n(Cf. Eph. 4:8): \"Ascending on high, He led captivity captive,\"\nbecause He took with Him to heaven those who had been held captives\nby the devil--to heaven, as to a place strange to human nature.\ncaptives in deed of a happy taking, since they were acquired by His\nvictory.\n\nSecondly, because as the high-priest under the Old Testament entered\nthe holy place to stand before God for the people, so also Christ\nentered heaven \"to make intercession for us,\" as is said in Heb.\n7:25. Because the very showing of Himself in the human nature which\nHe took with Him to heaven is a pleading for us, so that for the very\nreason that God so exalted human nature in Christ, He may take pity\non them for whom the Son of God took human nature. Thirdly, that\nbeing established in His heavenly seat as God and Lord, He might send\ndown gifts upon men, according to Eph. 4:10: \"He ascended above all\nthe heavens, that He might fill all things,\" that is, \"with His\ngifts,\"    according to the gloss.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation by way\nnot of merit, but of efficiency, as was stated above regarding His\nResurrection (Q. 56, A. 1, ad 3, 4).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's Passion is the cause of our ascending to\nheaven, properly speaking, by removing the hindrance which is sin,\nand also by way of merit: whereas Christ's Ascension is the direct\ncause of our ascension, as by beginning it in Him who is our Head,\nwith whom the members must be united.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ by once ascending into heaven acquired for\nHimself and for us in perpetuity the right and worthiness of a\nheavenly dwelling-place; which worthiness suffers in no way, if, from\nsome special dispensation, He sometimes comes down in body to earth;\neither in order to show Himself to the whole world, as at the\njudgment; or else to show Himself particularly to some individual,\ne.g. in Paul's case, as we read in Acts 9. And lest any man may think\nthat Christ was not bodily present when this occurred, the contrary\nis shown from what the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 14:8, to confirm faith\nin the Resurrection: \"Last of all He was seen also by me, as by one\nborn out of due time\": which vision would not confirm the truth of\nthe Resurrection except he had beheld Christ's very body.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 58\n\nOF CHRIST'S SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider Christ's sitting at the right hand of the\nFather, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father?\n\n(2) Whether this belongs to Him according to the Divine Nature?\n\n(3) Whether it belongs to Him according to His human nature?\n\n(4) Whether it is something proper to Christ?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 58, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Is Fitting That Christ Should Sit at the Right Hand of God\nthe Father?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should sit at the\nright hand of God the Father. For right and left are differences of\nbodily position. But nothing corporeal can be applied to God, since\n\"God is a spirit,\" as we read in John 4:24. Therefore it seems that\nChrist does not sit at the right hand of the Father.\n\nObj. 2: Further, if anyone sits at another's right hand, then the\nlatter is seated on his left. Consequently, if Christ sits at the\nright hand of the Father, it follows that the Father is seated on the\nleft of the Son; which is unseemly.\n\nObj. 3: Further, sitting and standing savor of opposition. But\nStephen (Acts 7:55) said: \"Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the\nSon of man standing on the right hand of God.\" Therefore it seems\nthat Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written in the last chapter of Mark (16:19):\n\"The Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven,\nand sitteth on the right hand of God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The word \"sitting\" may have a twofold meaning;\nnamely, \"abiding\" as in Luke 24:49: \"Sit [Douay: 'Stay'] you in the\ncity\": and royal or judiciary \"power,\" as in Prov. 20:8: \"The king,\nthat sitteth on the throne of judgment, scattereth away all evil with\nhis look.\" Now in either sense it belongs to Christ to sit at the\nFather's right hand. First of all inasmuch as He abides eternally\nunchangeable in the Father's bliss, which is termed His right hand,\naccording to Ps. 15:11: \"At Thy right hand are delights even to the\nend.\" Hence Augustine says (De Symb. i): \"'Sitteth at the right hand\nof the Father': To sit means to dwell, just as we say of any man: 'He\nsat in that country for three years': Believe, then, that Christ\ndwells so at the right hand of the Father: for He is happy, and the\nFather's right hand is the name for His bliss.\" Secondly, Christ is\nsaid to sit at the right hand of the Father inasmuch as He reigns\ntogether with the Father, and has judiciary power from Him; just as\nhe who sits at the king's right hand helps him in ruling and judging.\nHence Augustine says (De Symb. ii): \"By the expression 'right hand,'\nunderstand the power which this Man, chosen of God, received, that He\nmight come to judge, who before had come to be judged.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): \"We do not speak\nof the Father's right hand as of a place, for how can a place be\ndesignated by His right hand, who Himself is beyond all place? Right\nand left belong to things definable by limit. But we style, as the\nFather's right hand, the glory and honor of the Godhead.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The argument holds good if sitting at the right hand be\ntaken corporeally. Hence Augustine says (De Symb. i): \"If we accept\nit in a carnal sense that Christ sits at the Father's right hand,\nthen the Father will be on the left. But there\"--that is, in eternal\nbliss, \"it is all right hand, since no misery is there.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Gregory says in a Homily on the Ascension (Hom. xxix\nin Evang.), \"it is the judge's place to sit, while to stand is the\nplace of the combatant or helper. Consequently, Stephen in his toil\nof combat saw Him standing whom He had as his helper. But Mark\ndescribes Him as seated after the Ascension, because after the glory\nof His Ascension He will at the end be seen as judge.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 58, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Belongs to Christ As God to Sit at the Right Hand of the\nFather?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as God\nto sit at the right hand of the Father. For, as God, Christ is the\nFather's right hand. But it does not appear to be the same thing to\nbe the right hand of anyone and to sit on his right hand. Therefore,\nas God, Christ does not sit at the right hand of the Father.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in the last chapter of Mark (16:19) it is said that\n\"the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right\nhand of God.\" But it was not as God that Christ was taken up to\nheaven. Therefore neither does He, as God, sit at the right hand of\nGod.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ as God is the equal of the Father and of the\nHoly Ghost. Consequently, if Christ sits as God at the right hand of\nthe Father, with equal reason the Holy Ghost sits at the right hand\nof the Father and of the Son, and the Father Himself on the right\nhand of the Son; which no one is found to say.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): that \"what we\nstyle as the Father's right hand, is the glory and honor of the\nGodhead, wherein the Son of God existed before ages as God and as\nconsubstantial with the Father.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As may be gathered from what has been said (A. 1)\nthree things can be understood under the expression \"right hand.\"\nFirst of all, as Damascene takes it, \"the glory of the Godhead\":\nsecondly, according to Augustine \"the beatitude of the Father\":\nthirdly, according to the same authority, \"judiciary power.\" Now as\nwe observed (A. 1) \"sitting\" denotes either abiding, or royal or\njudiciary dignity. Hence, to sit on the right hand of the Father is\nnothing else than to share in the glory of the Godhead with the\nFather, and to possess beatitude and judiciary power, and that\nunchangeably and royally. But this belongs to the Son as God. Hence\nit is manifest that Christ as God sits at the right hand of the\nFather; yet so that this preposition \"at,\" which is a transitive one,\nimplies merely personal distinction and order of origin, but not\ndegree of nature or dignity, for there is no such thing in the Divine\nPersons, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 42, AA. 3, 4).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Son of God is called the Father's \"right hand\" by\nappropriation, just as He is called the \"Power\" of the Father (1 Cor.\n1:24). But \"right hand of the Father,\" in its three meanings given\nabove, is something common to the three Persons.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ as man is exalted to Divine honor; and this is\nsignified in the aforesaid sitting; nevertheless such honor belongs\nto Him as God, not through any assumption, but through His origin\nfrom eternity.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In no way can it be said that the Father is seated at\nthe right hand of the Son or of the Holy Ghost; because the Son and\nthe Holy Ghost derive their origin from the Father, and not\nconversely. The Holy Ghost, however, can be said properly to sit at\nthe right hand of the Father or of the Son, in the aforesaid sense,\nalthough by a kind of appropriation it is attributed to the Son, to\nwhom equality is appropriated; thus Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ.\ni) that \"in the Father there is unity, in the Son equality, in the\nHoly Ghost the connection of unity with equality.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 58, Art. 3]\n\nWhether It Belongs to Christ As Man to Sit at the Right Hand of the\nFather?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it does not belong to Christ as man\nto sit at the right hand of the Father, because, as Damascene says\n(De Fide Orth. iv): \"What we call the Father's right hand is the\nglory and honor of the Godhead.\" But the glory and honor of the\nGodhead do not belong to Christ as man. Consequently, it seems that\nChrist as man does not sit at the right hand of the Father.\n\nObj. 2: Further, to sit on the ruler's right hand seems to exclude\nsubjection, because one so sitting seems in a measure to be reigning\nwith him. But Christ as man is \"subject unto\" the Father, as is said\nin 1 Cor. 15:28. Therefore it seems that Christ as man does not sit\nat the Father's right hand.\n\nObj. 3: Further, on Rom. 8:34: \"Who is at the right hand of God,\" the\ngloss adds: \"that is, equal to the Father in that honor, whereby God\nis the Father: or, on the right hand of the Father, that is, in the\nmightier gifts of God.\" And on Heb. 1:3: \"sitteth on the right hand\nof the majesty on high,\" the gloss adds, \"that is, in equality with\nthe Father over all things, both in place and dignity.\" But equality\nwith God does not belong to Christ as man; for in this respect Christ\nHimself says (John 14:28): \"The Father is greater than I.\"\nConsequently, it appears unseemly for Christ as man to sit on the\nFather's right hand.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Symb. ii): \"By the expression\n'right hand' understand the power which this Man, chosen of God,\nreceived, that He might come as judge, who before had come to be\njudged.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), by the expression \"right\nhand\" is understood either the glory of His Godhead, or His eternal\nbeatitude, or His judicial and royal power. Now this preposition \"at\"\nsignifies a kind of approach to the right hand; thus denoting\nsomething in common, and yet with a distinction, as already observed\n(De Symb. ii). And this can be in three ways: first of all, by\nsomething common in nature, and a distinction in person; and thus\nChrist as the Son of God, sits at the right hand of the Father,\nbecause He has the same Nature as the Father: hence these things\nbelong to the Son essentially, just as to the Father; and this is to\nbe in equality with the Father. Secondly, according to the grace of\nunion, which, on the contrary, implies distinction of nature, and\nunity of person. According to this, Christ as man is the Son of God,\nand consequently sits at the Father's right hand; yet so that the\nexpression \"as\" does not denote condition of nature, but unity of\nsuppositum, as explained above (Q. 16, AA. 10, 11). Thirdly, the said\napproach can be understood according to habitual grace, which is more\nfully in Christ than in all other creatures, so much so that human\nnature in Christ is more blessed than all other creatures, and\npossesses over all other creatures royal and judiciary power.\n\nSo, then, if \"as\" denote condition of nature, then Christ, as God,\nsits \"at the Father's right hand,\" that is, \"in equality with the\nFather\"; but as man, He sits \"at the right hand of the Father,\" that\nis, \"in the Father's mightier gifts beyond all other creatures,\" that\nis to say, \"in greater beatitude,\" and \"exercising judiciary power.\"\nBut if \"as\" denote unity of person, thus again as man, He sits at the\nFather's right hand \"as to equality of honor,\" inasmuch as with the\nsame honor we venerate the Son of God with His assumed nature, as was\nsaid above (Q. 25, A. 1).\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's humanity according to the conditions of His\nnature has not the glory or honor of the Godhead, which it has\nnevertheless by reason of the Person with whom it is united. Hence\nDamascene adds in the passage quoted: \"In which,\" that is, in the\nglory of the Godhead, \"the Son of God existing before ages, as God\nand consubstantial with the Father, sits in His conglorified flesh;\nfor, under one adoration the one hypostasis, together with His flesh,\nis adored by every creature.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ as man is subject to the Father, if \"as\" denote\nthe condition of nature: in which respect it does not belong to Him\nas man to sit at the Father's right hand, by reason of their mutual\nequality. But it does thus belong to Him to sit at the right hand of\nthe Father, according as is thereby denoted the excellence of\nbeatitude and His judiciary power over every creature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It does not belong to Christ's human nature to be in\nequality with the Father, but only to the Person who assumed it; but\nit does belong even to the assumed human nature to share in God's\nmightier gifts, in so far as it implies exaltation above other\ncreatures.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 58, Art. 4]\n\nWhether It Is Proper to Christ to Sit at the Right Hand of the Father?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that it is not proper to Christ to sit at\nthe right hand of the Father, because the Apostle says (Eph. 2:4, 6):\n\"God . . . hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together\nin the heavenly places through Christ Jesus.\" But to be raised up is\nnot proper to Christ. Therefore for like reason neither is it proper\nto Him to sit \"on the right hand\" of God \"on high\" (Heb. 1:3).\n\nObj. 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Symb. i): \"For Christ to sit\nat the right hand of the Father, is to dwell in His beatitude.\" But\nmany more share in this. Therefore it does not appear to be proper to\nChrist to sit at the right hand of the Father.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ Himself says (Apoc. 3:21): \"To him that shall\novercome, I will give to sit with Me in My throne: as I also have\novercome, and am set down with My Father in His throne.\" But it is by\nsitting on His Father's throne that Christ is seated at His right\nhand. Therefore others who overcome likewise, sit at the Father's\nright hand.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the Lord says (Matt. 20:23): \"To sit on My right or\nleft hand, is not Mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is\nprepared by My Father.\" But no purpose would be served by saying\nthis, unless it was prepared for some. Consequently, to sit at the\nright hand is not proper to Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 1:13): \"To which of the angels\nsaid He at any time: Sit thou on My right hand, i.e. 'in My mightier\ngifts,'\" or \"'as my equal in the Godhead'\"? [*The comment is from the\ngloss of Peter Lombard] as if to answer: \"To none.\" But angels are\nhigher than other creatures. Therefore, much less does it belong to\nanyone save Christ to sit at the Father's right hand.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), Christ is said to sit at the\nFather's right hand inasmuch as He is on equality with the Father in\nrespect of His Divine Nature, while in respect of His humanity, He\nexcels all creatures in the possession of Divine gifts. But each of\nthese belongs exclusively to Christ. Consequently, it belongs to no\none else, angel or man, but to Christ alone, to sit at the right hand\nof the Father.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Since Christ is our Head, then what was bestowed on\nChrist is bestowed on us through Him. And on this account, since He\nis already raised up, the Apostle says that God has, so to speak,\n\"raised us up together with Him,\" still we ourselves are not raised\nup yet, but are to be raised up, according to Rom. 8:11: \"He who\nraised up Jesus from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal\nbodies\": and after the same manner of speech the Apostle adds that\n\"He has made us to sit together with Him, in the heavenly places\";\nnamely, for the very reason that Christ our Head sits there.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Since the right hand is the Divine beatitude, then \"to\nsit on the right hand\" does not mean simply to be in beatitude, but\nto possess beatitude with a kind of dominative power, as a property\nand part of one's nature. This belongs to Christ alone, and to no\nother creature. Yet it can be said that every saint in bliss is\nplaced on God's right hand; hence it is written (Matt. 25:33): \"He\nshall set the sheep on His right hand.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: By the \"throne\" is meant the judiciary power which\nChrist has from the Father: and in this sense He is said \"to sit in\nthe Father's throne.\" But other saints have it from Christ; and in\nthis respect they are said \"to sit on Christ's throne\"; according to\nMatt. 19:28: \"You also shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the\ntwelve tribes of Israel.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: As Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in Matth.), \"that place,\"\nto wit, sitting at the right hand, \"is closed not only to all men,\nbut likewise to angels: for, Paul declares it to be the prerogative\nof Christ, saying: 'To which of the angels said He at any time: Sit\non My right hand?'\" Our Lord therefore \"replied not as though some\nwere going to sit there one day, but condescending to the\nsupplication of the questioners; since more than others they sought\nthis one thing alone, to stand nigh to Him.\" Still it can be said\nthat the sons of Zebedee sought for higher excellence in sharing His\njudiciary power; hence they did not ask to sit on the Father's right\nhand or left, but on Christ's.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 59\n\nOF CHRIST'S JUDICIARY POWER\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider Christ's judiciary power. Under this head\nthere are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether judiciary power is to be attributed to Christ?\n\n(2) Whether it belongs to Him as man?\n\n(3) Whether He acquired it by merits?\n\n(4) Whether His judiciary power is universal with regard to all men?\n\n(5) Whether besides the judgment that takes place now in time, we are\nto expect Him in the future general judgment?\n\n(6) Whether His judiciary power extends likewise to the angels?\n\nIt will be more suitable to consider the execution of the Last\nJudgment when we treat of things pertaining to the end of the world\n[*See Suppl., QQ. 88, seqq.]. For the present it will be enough to\ntouch on those points that concern Christ's dignity.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Judiciary Power Is to Be Specially Attributed to Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that judiciary power is not to be\nspecially attributed to Christ. For judgment of others seems to\nbelong to their lord; hence it is written (Rom. 14:4): \"Who art thou\nthat judgest another man's servant?\" But, it belongs to the entire\nTrinity to be Lord over creatures. Therefore judiciary power ought\nnot to be attributed specially to Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Dan. 7:9): \"The Ancient of days sat\";\nand further on (Dan. 7:10), \"the judgment sat, and the books were\nopened.\" But the Ancient of days is understood to be the Father,\nbecause as Hilary says (De Trin. ii): \"Eternity is in the Father.\"\nConsequently, judiciary power ought rather to be attributed to the\nFather than to Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it seems to belong to the same person to judge as it\ndoes to convince. But it belongs to the Holy Ghost to convince: for\nour Lord says (John 16:8): \"And when He is come,\" i.e. the Holy\nGhost, \"He will convince the world of sin, and of justice, and of\njudgment.\" Therefore judiciary power ought to be attributed to the\nHoly Ghost rather than to Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is said of Christ (Acts 10:42): \"It is He who\nwas appointed by God, to be judge of the living end of the dead.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Three things are required for passing judgment:\nfirst, the power of coercing subjects; hence it is written (Ecclus.\n7:6): \"Seek not to be made a judge unless thou have strength enough\nto extirpate iniquities.\" The second thing required is upright zeal,\nso as to pass judgment not out of hatred or malice, but from love of\njustice, according to Prov. 3:12: \"For whom the Lord loveth, He\nchasteneth: and as a father in the son He pleaseth Himself.\" Thirdly,\nwisdom is needed, upon which judgment is based, according to Ecclus.\n10:1: \"A wise judge shall judge his people.\" The first two are\nconditions for judging; but on the third the very rule of judgment is\nbased, because the standard of judgment is the law of wisdom or\ntruth, according to which the judgment is passed.\n\nNow because the Son is Wisdom begotten, and Truth proceeding from the\nFather, and His perfect Image, consequently, judiciary power is\nproperly attributed to the Son of God. Accordingly Augustine says (De\nVera Relig. xxxi): \"This is that unchangeable Truth, which is rightly\nstyled the law of all arts, and the art of the Almighty Craftsman.\nBut even as we and all rational souls judge aright of the things\nbeneath us, so does He who alone is Truth itself pass judgment on us,\nwhen we cling to Him. But the Father judges Him not, for He is the\nTruth no less than Himself. Consequently, whatever the Father judges,\nHe judges through It.\" Further on he concludes by saying: \"Therefore\nthe Father judges no man, but has given all judgment to the Son.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument proves that judiciary power is common to\nthe entire Trinity, which is quite true: still by special\nappropriation such power is attributed to the Son, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Trin. vi), eternity is attributed\nto the Father, because He is the Principle, which is implied in the\nidea of eternity. And in the same place Augustine says that the Son\nis the art of the Father. So, then, judiciary authority is attributed\nto the Father, inasmuch as He is the Principle of the Son, but the\nvery rule of judgment is attributed to the Son who is the art and\nwisdom of the Father, so that as the Father does all things through\nthe Son, inasmuch as the Son is His art, so He judges all things\nthrough the Son, inasmuch as the Son is His wisdom and truth. And\nthis is implied by Daniel, when he says in the first passage that\n\"the Ancient of days sat,\" and when he subsequently adds that the Son\nof Man \"came even to the Ancient of days, who gave Him power, and\nglory, and a kingdom\": and thereby we are given to understand that\nthe authority for judging lies with the Father, from whom the Son\nreceived the power to judge.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Tract. xcv in Joan.): \"Christ said\nthat the Holy Ghost shall convince the world of sin, as if to say 'He\nshall pour out charity upon your hearts.' For thus, when fear is\ndriven away, you shall have freedom for convincing.\" Consequently,\nthen, judgment is attributed to the Holy Ghost, not as regards the\nrule of judgment, but as regards man's desire to judge others aright.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Judiciary Power Belongs to Christ As Man?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that judiciary power does not belong to\nChrist as man. For Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi) that judgment\nis attributed to the Son inasmuch as He is the law of the first\ntruth. But this is Christ's attribute as God. Consequently, judiciary\npower does not belong to Christ as man but as God.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it belongs to judiciary power to reward the good,\njust as to punish the wicked. But eternal beatitude, which is the\nreward of good works, is bestowed by God alone: thus Augustine says\n(Tract. xxiii super Joan.) that \"the soul is made blessed by\nparticipation of God, and not by participation of a holy soul.\"\nTherefore it seems that judiciary power does not belong to Christ as\nman, but as God.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it belongs to Christ's judiciary power to judge\nsecrets of hearts, according to 1 Cor. 4:5: \"Judge not before the\ntime; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden\nthings of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the\nhearts.\" But this belongs exclusively to the Divine power, according\nto Jer. 17:9, 10: \"The heart of man is perverse and unsearchable, who\ncan know it? I am the Lord who search the heart, and prove the reins:\nwho give to every one according to his way.\" Therefore judiciary\npower does not belong to Christ as man but as God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is said (John 5:27): \"He hath given Him power\nto do judgment, because He is the Son of man.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Chrysostom (Hom. xxxix in Joan.) seems to think that\njudiciary power belongs to Christ not as man, but only as God.\nAccordingly he thus explains the passage just quoted from John: \"'He\ngave Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of man: wonder\nnot at this.' For He received judiciary power, not because He is man;\nbut because He is the Son of the ineffable God, therefore is He\njudge. But since the expressions used were greater than those\nappertaining to man, He said in explanation: 'Wonder not at this,\nbecause He is the Son of man, for He is likewise the Son of God.'\"\nAnd he proves this by the effect of the Resurrection: wherefore He\nadds: \"Because the hour cometh when the dead in their graves shall\nhear the voice of the Son of God.\"\n\nBut it must be observed that although the primary authority of\njudging rests with God, nevertheless the power to judge is committed\nto men with regard to those subject to their jurisdiction. Hence it\nis written (Deut. 1:16): \"Judge that which is just\"; and further on\n(Deut. 1:17): \"Because it is the judgment of God,\" that is to say, it\nis by His authority that you judge. Now it was said before (Q. 8, AA.\n1, 4) that Christ even in His human nature is Head of the entire\nChurch, and that God has \"put all things under His feet.\"\nConsequently, it belongs to Him, even according to His human nature,\nto exercise judiciary power. On this account, it seems that the\nauthority of Scripture quoted above must be interpreted thus: \"He\ngave Him power to do judgment, because He is the Son of Man\"; not on\naccount of the condition of His nature, for thus all men would have\nthis kind of power, as Chrysostom objects (Hom. xxxix in Joan.); but\nbecause this belongs to the grace of the Head, which Christ received\nin His human nature.\n\nNow judiciary power belongs to Christ in this way according to His\nhuman nature on three accounts. First, because of His likeness and\nkinship with men; for, as God works through intermediary causes, as\nbeing closer to the effects, so He judges men through the Man Christ,\nthat His judgment may be sweeter to men. Hence (Heb. 4:15) the\nApostle says: \"For we have not a high-priest, who cannot have\ncompassion on our infirmities; but one tempted in all things like as\nwe are, without sin. Let us go therefore with confidence to the\nthrone of His grace.\" Secondly, because at the last judgment, as\nAugustine says (Tract. xix in Joan.), \"there will be a resurrection\nof dead bodies, which God will raise up through the Son of Man\"; just\nas by \"the same Christ He raises souls,\" inasmuch as \"He is the Son\nof God.\" Thirdly, because, as Augustine observes (De Verb. Dom.,\nSerm. cxxvii): \"It was but right that those who were to be judged\nshould see their judge. But those to be judged were the good and the\nbad. It follows that the form of a servant should be shown in the\njudgment to both good and wicked, while the form of God should be\nkept for the good alone.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Judgment belongs to truth as its standard, while it\nbelongs to the man imbued with truth, according as he is as it were\none with truth, as a kind of law and \"living justice\" [*Aristotle,\n_Ethic._ v]. Hence Augustine quotes (De Verb. Dom., Serm. cxxvii)\nthe saying of 1 Cor. 2:15: \"The spiritual man judgeth all things.\"\nBut beyond all creatures Christ's soul was more closely united with\ntruth, and more full of truth; according to John 1:14: \"We saw\nHim . . . full of grace and truth.\" And according to this it belongs\nprincipally to the soul of Christ to judge all things.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It belongs to God alone to bestow beatitude upon souls\nby a participation with Himself; but it is Christ's prerogative to\nbring them to such beatitude, inasmuch as He is their Head and the\nauthor of their salvation, according to Heb. 2:10: \"Who had brought\nmany children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by\nHis Passion.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: To know and judge the secrets of hearts, of itself\nbelongs to God alone; but from the overflow of the Godhead into\nChrist's soul it belongs to Him also to know and to judge the secrets\nof hearts, as we stated above (Q. 10, A. 2), when dealing with the\nknowledge of Christ. Hence it is written (Rom. 2:16): \"In the day\nwhen God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Acquired His Judiciary Power by His Merits?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ did not acquire His judiciary\npower by His merits. For judiciary power flows from the royal\ndignity: according to Prov. 20:8: \"The king that sitteth on the\nthrone of judgment, scattereth away all evil with his look.\" But it\nwas without merits that Christ acquired royal power, for it is His\ndue as God's Only-begotten Son: thus it is written (Luke 1:32): \"The\nLord God shall give unto Him the throne of David His father, and He\nshall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.\" Therefore Christ did not\nobtain judiciary power by His merits.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 2), judiciary power is Christ's\ndue inasmuch as He is our Head. But the grace of headship does not\nbelong to Christ by reason of merit, but follows the personal union\nof the Divine and human natures: according to John 1:14, 16: \"We saw\nHis glory . . . as of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace\nand truth . . . and of His fulness we all have received\": and this\npertains to the notion of headship. Consequently, it seems that\nChrist did not have judiciary power from merits.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 2:15): \"The spiritual man\njudgeth all things.\" But a man becomes spiritual through grace, which\nis not from merits; otherwise it is \"no more grace,\" as is said in\nRom. 11:6. Therefore it seems that judiciary power belongs neither to\nChrist nor to others from any merits, but from grace alone.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Job 36:17): \"Thy cause hath been\njudged as that of the wicked, cause and judgment thou shalt recover.\"\nAnd Augustine says (Serm. cxxvii): \"The Judge shall sit, who stood\nbefore a judge; He shall condemn the truly wicked, who Himself was\nfalsely reputed wicked.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There is nothing to hinder one and the same thing\nfrom being due to some one from various causes: as the glory of the\nbody in rising was due to Christ not only as befitting His Godhead\nand His soul's glory, but likewise \"from the merit of the lowliness\nof His Passion\" [*Cf. Augustine, Tract. civ in Joan.]. And in the\nsame way it must be said that judiciary power belongs to the Man\nChrist on account of both His Divine personality, and the dignity of\nHis headship, and the fulness of His habitual grace: and yet He\nobtained it from merit, so that, in accordance with the Divine\njustice, He should be judge who fought for God's justice, and\nconquered, and was unjustly condemned. Hence He Himself says (Apoc.\n3:21): \"I have overcome and am set down in My Father's throne [Vulg.:\n'with My Father in His throne'].\" Now judiciary power is understood\nby \"throne,\" according to Ps. 9:5: \"Thou hast sat on the throne, who\njudgest justice.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument holds good of judiciary power according\nas it is due to Christ by reason of the union with the Word of God.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This argument is based on the ground of His grace as\nHead.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This argument holds good in regard to habitual grace,\nwhich perfects Christ's soul. But although judiciary power be\nChrist's due in these ways, it is not hindered from being His due\nfrom merit.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Judiciary Power Belongs to Christ with Respect to All Human\nAffairs?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that judiciary power concerning all human\naffairs does not belong to Christ. For as we read in Luke 12:13, 14,\nwhen one of the crowd said to Christ: \"Speak to my brother that he\ndivide the inheritance with me; He said to him: Man, who hath\nappointed Me judge, or divider over you?\" Consequently, He does not\nexercise judgment over all human affairs.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no one exercises judgment except over his own\nsubjects. But, according to Heb. 2:8, \"we see not as yet all things\nsubject to\" Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ has not judgment\nover all human affairs.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx) that it is part of\nDivine judgment for the good to be afflicted sometimes in this world,\nand sometimes to prosper, and in like manner the wicked. But the same\nwas the case also before the Incarnation. Consequently, not all God's\njudgments regarding human affairs are included in Christ's judiciary\npower.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is said (John 5:22): \"The Father hath given all\njudgment to the Son.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ If we speak of Christ according to His Divine\nNature, it is evident that every judgment of the Father belongs to\nthe Son; for, as the Father does all things through His Word, so He\njudges all things through His Word.\n\nBut if we speak of Christ in His human nature, thus again is it\nevident that all things are subject to His judgment. This is made\nclear if we consider first of all the relationship subsisting between\nChrist's soul and the Word of God; for, if \"the spiritual man judgeth\nall things,\" as is said in 1 Cor. 2:15, inasmuch as his soul clings\nto the Word of God, how much more Christ's soul, which is filled with\nthe truth of the Word of God, passes judgment upon all things.\n\nSecondly, the same appears from the merit of His death; because,\naccording to Rom. 14:9: \"To this end Christ died and rose again; that\nHe might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.\" And therefore\nHe has judgment over all men; and on this account the Apostle adds\n(Rom. 14:10): \"We shall all stand before the judgment seat of\nChrist\": and (Dan. 7:14) it is written that \"He gave Him power, and\nglory, and a kingdom; and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall\nserve Him.\"\n\nThirdly, the same thing is evident from comparison of human affairs\nwith the end of human salvation. For, to whomsoever the substance is\nentrusted, the accessory is likewise committed. Now all human affairs\nare ordered for the end of beatitude, which is everlasting salvation,\nto which men are admitted, or from which they are excluded by\nChrist's judgment, as is evident from Matt. 25:31, 40. Consequently,\nit is manifest that all human affairs are included in Christ's\njudiciary power.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As was said above (A. 3, Obj. 1), judiciary power goes\nwith royal dignity. Now Christ, although established king by God, did\nnot wish while living on earth to govern temporarily an earthly\nkingdom; consequently He said (John 18:36): \"My kingdom is not of\nthis world.\" In like fashion He did not wish to exercise judiciary\npower over temporal concerns, since He came to raise men to Divine\nthings. Hence Ambrose observes on this passage in Luke: \"It is well\nthat He who came down with a Divine purpose should hold Himself aloof\nfrom temporal concerns; nor does He deign to be a judge of quarrels\nand an arbiter of property, since He is judge of the quick and the\ndead, and the arbitrator of merits.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: All things are subject to Christ in respect of that\npower, which He received from the Father, over all things, according\nto Matt. 28:18: \"All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth.\"\nBut as to the exercise of this power, all things are not yet subject\nto Him: this will come to pass in the future, when He shall fulfil\nHis will regarding all things, by saving some and punishing others.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Judgments of this kind were exercised by Christ before\nHis Incarnation, inasmuch as He is the Word of God: and the soul\nunited with Him personally became a partaker of this power by the\nIncarnation.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 5]\n\nWhether After the Judgment That Takes Place in the Present Time,\nThere Remains Yet Another General Judgment?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that after the Judgment that takes place\nin the present time, there does not remain another General Judgment.\nFor a judgment serves no purpose after the final allotment of rewards\nand punishments. But rewards and punishments are allotted in this\npresent time: for our Lord said to the thief on the cross (Luke\n23:43): \"This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise\": and (Luke\n16:22) it is said that \"the rich man died and was buried in hell.\"\nTherefore it is useless to look forward to a final Judgment.\n\nObj. 2: Further, according to another (the Septuagint) version of\nNahum 1:9, \"God shall not judge the same thing a second time.\" But in\nthe present time God judges both temporal and spiritual matters.\nTherefore, it does not seem that another final judgment is to be\nexpected.\n\nObj. 3: Further, reward and punishment correspond with merit and\ndemerit. But merit and demerit bear relation to the body only in so\nfar as it is the instrument of the soul. Therefore reward or\npunishment is not due to the body save as the soul's instrument.\nTherefore no other Judgment is called for at the end (of the world)\nto requite man with reward or punishment in the body, besides that\nJudgment in which souls are now punished or rewarded.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is said in John 12:48: \"The word that I have\nspoken, the same shall judge you [Vulg.: 'him'] in the last day.\"\nTherefore there will be a Judgment at the last day besides that which\ntakes place in the present time.\n\n_I answer that,_ Judgment cannot be passed perfectly upon any\nchangeable subject before its consummation: just as judgment cannot\nbe given perfectly regarding the quality of any action before its\ncompletion in itself and in its results: because many actions appear\nto be profitable, which in their effects prove to be hurtful. And in\nthe same way perfect judgment cannot be passed upon any man before\nthe close of his life, since he can be changed in many respects from\ngood to evil, or conversely, or from good to better, or from evil to\nworse. Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:27): \"It is appointed unto men\nonce to die, and after this the Judgment.\"\n\nBut it must be observed that although man's temporal life in itself\nends with death, still it continues dependent in a measure on what\ncomes after it in the future. In one way, as it still lives on in\nmen's memories, in which sometimes, contrary to the truth, good or\nevil reputations linger on. In another way in a man's children, who\nare so to speak something of their parent, according to Ecclus. 30:4:\n\"His father is dead, and he is as if he were not dead, for he hath\nleft one behind him that is like himself.\" And yet many good men have\nwicked sons, and conversely. Thirdly, as to the result of his\nactions: just as from the deceit of Arius and other false leaders\nunbelief continues to flourish down to the close of the world; and\neven until then faith will continue to derive its progress from the\npreaching of the apostles. In a fourth way, as to the body, which is\nsometimes buried with honor and sometimes left unburied, and finally\nfalls to dust utterly. In a fifth way, as to the things upon which a\nman's heart is set, such as temporal concerns, for example, some of\nwhich quickly lapse, while others endure longer.\n\nNow all these things are submitted to the verdict of the Divine\nJudgment; and consequently, a perfect and public Judgment cannot be\nmade of all these things during the course of this present time.\nWherefore, there must be a final Judgment at the last day, in which\neverything concerning every man in every respect shall be perfectly\nand publicly judged.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Some men have held the opinion that the souls of the\nsaints shall not be rewarded in heaven, nor the souls of the lost\npunished in hell, until the Judgment-day. That this is false appears\nfrom the testimony of the Apostle (2 Cor. 5:8), where he says: \"We\nare confident and have a good will to be absent rather from the body,\nand to be present with the Lord\": that is, not to \"walk by faith\" but\n\"by sight,\" as appears from the context. But this is to see God in\nHis Essence, wherein consists \"eternal life,\" as is clear from John\n17:3. Hence it is manifest that the souls separated from bodies are\nin eternal life.\n\nConsequently, it must be maintained that after death man enters into\nan unchangeable state as to all that concerns the soul: and therefore\nthere is no need for postponing judgment as to the reward of the\nsoul. But since there are some other things pertaining to a man which\ngo on through the whole course of time, and which are not foreign to\nthe Divine judgment, all these things must be brought to judgment at\nthe end of time. For although in regard to such things a man neither\nmerits nor demerits, still in a measure they accompany his reward or\npunishment. Consequently all these things must be weighed in the\nfinal judgment.\n\nReply Obj. 2: \"God shall not judge twice the same thing,\" i.e. in the\nsame respect; but it is not unseemly for God to judge twice according\nto different respects.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although the reward or punishment of the body depends\nupon the reward or punishment of the soul, nevertheless, since the\nsoul is changeable only accidentally, on account of the body, once it\nis separated from the body it enters into an unchangeable condition,\nand receives its judgment. But the body remains subject to change\ndown to the close of time: and therefore it must receive its reward\nor punishment then, in the last Judgment.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 59, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Christ's Judiciary Power Extends to the Angels?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Christ's judiciary power does not\nextend to the angels, because the good and wicked angels alike were\njudged in the beginning of the world, when some fell through sin\nwhile others were confirmed in bliss. But those already judged have\nno need of being judged again. Therefore Christ's judiciary power\ndoes not extend to the angels.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the same person cannot be both judge and judged. But\nthe angels will come to judge with Christ, according to Matt. 25:31:\n\"When the Son of Man shall come in His majesty, and all the angels\nwith Him.\" Therefore it seems that the angels will not be judged by\nChrist.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the angels are higher than other creatures. If\nChrist, then, be judge not only of men but likewise of angels, then\nfor the same reason He will be judge of all creatures; which seems to\nbe false, since this belongs to God's providence: hence it is written\n(Job 34:13): \"What other hath He appointed over the earth? or whom\nhath He set over the world which He made?\" Therefore Christ is not\nthe judge of the angels.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 6:3): \"Know you not that\nwe shall judge angels?\" But the saints judge only by Christ's\nauthority. Therefore, much more does Christ possess judiciary power\nover the angels.\n\n_I answer that,_ The angels are subjects of Christ's judiciary power,\nnot only with regard to His Divine Nature, as He is the Word of God,\nbut also with regard to His human nature. And this is evident from\nthree considerations. First of all, from the closeness of His assumed\nnature to God; because, according to Heb. 2:16: \"For nowhere doth He\ntake hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham He taketh hold.\"\nConsequently, Christ's soul is more filled with the truth of the Word\nof God than any angel: for which reason He also enlightens the\nangels, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii), and so He has power to\njudge them. Secondly, because by the lowliness of His Passion, human\nnature in Christ merited to be exalted above the angels; so that, as\nis said in Phil. 2:10: \"In the name of Jesus every knee should bow,\nof those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.\" And\ntherefore Christ has judiciary power even over the good and wicked\nangels: in token whereof it is said in the Apocalypse (7:11) that\n\"all the angels stood round about the throne.\" Thirdly, on account of\nwhat they do for men, of whom Christ is the Head in a special manner.\nHence it is written (Heb. 1:14): \"They are [Vulg.: 'Are they not']\nall ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive\nthe inheritance of salvation (?).\" But they are submitted to Christ's\njudgment, first, as regards the dispensing of those things which are\ndone through them; which dispensing is likewise done by the Man\nChrist, to whom the angels ministered, as related (Matt. 4:11), and\nfrom whom the devils besought that they might be sent into the swine,\naccording to Matt. 8:31. Secondly, as to other accidental rewards of\nthe good angels, such as the joy which they have at the salvation of\nmen, according to Luke 15:10: \"There shall be joy before the angels\nof God upon one sinner doing penance\": and furthermore as to the\naccidental punishments of the devils wherewith they are either\ntormented here, or are shut up in hell; and this also belongs to the\nMan Christ: hence it is written (Mk. 1:24) that the devil cried out:\n\"What have we to do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? art Thou come to\ndestroy us?\" Thirdly, as to the essential reward of the good angels,\nwhich is everlasting bliss; and as to the essential punishment of the\nwicked angels, which is everlasting damnation. But this was done by\nChrist from the beginning of the world, inasmuch as He is the Word of\nGod.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument considers judgment as to the essential\nreward and chief punishment.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): \"Although the\nspiritual man judgeth all things, still he is judged by Truth\nItself.\" Consequently, although the angels judge, as being spiritual\ncreatures, still they are judged by Christ, inasmuch as He is the\nTruth.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ judges not only the angels, but also the\nadministration of all creatures. For if, as Augustine says (De Trin.\niii) the lower things are ruled by God through the higher, in a\ncertain order, it must be said that all things are ruled by Christ's\nsoul, which is above every creature. Hence the Apostle says (Heb.\n2:5): \"For God hath not subjected unto angels the world to\ncome\"--subject namely to Christ--\"of whom we speak\" [Douay: 'whereof\nwe speak'] [*The words \"subject namely to Christ\" are from a gloss].\nNor does it follow that God set another over the earth; since one and\nthe same Person is God and Man, our Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nLet what has been said of the Mystery of His Incarnation suffice for\nthe present.\n_______________________\n\nTREATISE ON THE SACRAMENTS (QQ. 60-90)\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 60\n\nWHAT IS A SACRAMENT?\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nAfter considering those things that concern the mystery of the\nincarnate Word, we must consider the sacraments of the Church which\nderive their efficacy from the Word incarnate Himself. First we shall\nconsider the sacraments in general; secondly, we shall consider\nspecially each sacrament.\n\nConcerning the first our consideration will be fivefold: (1) What is\na sacrament? (2) Of the necessity of the sacraments; (3) of the\neffects of the sacraments; (4) Of their cause; (5) Of their number.\n\nUnder the first heading there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether a sacrament is a kind of sign?\n\n(2) Whether every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament?\n\n(3) Whether a sacrament is a sign of one thing only, or of several?\n\n(4) Whether a sacrament is a sign that is something sensible?\n\n(5) Whether some determinate sensible thing is required for a\nsacrament?\n\n(6) Whether signification expressed by words is necessary for a\nsacrament?\n\n(7) Whether determinate words are required?\n\n(8) Whether anything may be added to or subtracted from these words?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 1]\n\nWhether a Sacrament Is a Kind of Sign?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign. For\nsacrament appears to be derived from \"sacring\" (_sacrando_); just as\nmedicament, from _medicando_ (healing). But this seems to be of the\nnature of a cause rather than of a sign. Therefore a sacrament is a\nkind of cause rather than a kind of sign.\n\nObj. 2: Further, sacrament seems to signify something hidden,\naccording to Tob. 12:7: \"It is good to hide the secret\n(_sacramentum_) of a king\"; and Eph. 3:9: \"What is the dispensation\nof the mystery (_sacramenti_) which hath been hidden from eternity in\nGod.\" But that which is hidden, seems foreign to the nature of a\nsign; for \"a sign is that which conveys something else to the mind,\nbesides the species which it impresses on the senses,\" as Augustine\nexplains (De Doctr. Christ. ii). Therefore it seems that a sacrament\nis not a kind of sign.\n\nObj. 3: Further, an oath is sometimes called a sacrament: for it is\nwritten in the Decretals (Caus. xxii, qu. 5): \"Children who have not\nattained the use of reason must not be obliged to swear: and whoever\nhas foresworn himself once, must no more be a witness, nor be allowed\nto take a sacrament,\" i.e. an oath. But an oath is not a kind of\nsign, therefore it seems that a sacrament is not a kind of sign.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x): \"The visible\nsacrifice is the sacrament, i.e. the sacred sign, of the invisible\nsacrifice.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ All things that are ordained to one, even in\ndifferent ways, can be denominated from it: thus, from health which\nis in an animal, not only is the animal said to be healthy through\nbeing the subject of health: but medicine also is said to be healthy\nthrough producing health; diet through preserving it; and urine,\nthrough being a sign of health. Consequently, a thing may be called a\n\"sacrament,\" either from having a certain hidden sanctity, and in\nthis sense a sacrament is a \"sacred secret\"; or from having some\nrelationship to this sanctity, which relationship may be that of a\ncause, or of a sign or of any other relation. But now we are speaking\nof sacraments in a special sense, as implying the habitude of sign:\nand in this way a sacrament is a kind of sign.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Because medicine is an efficient cause of health,\nconsequently whatever things are denominated from medicine are to be\nreferred to some first active cause: so that a medicament implies a\ncertain causality. But sanctity from which a sacrament is\ndenominated, is not there taken as an efficient cause, but rather as\na formal or a final cause. Therefore it does not follow that a\nsacrament need always imply causality.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This argument considers sacrament in the sense of a\n\"sacred secret.\" Now not only God's but also the king's, secret, is\nsaid to be sacred and to be a sacrament: because according to the\nancients, whatever it was unlawful to lay violent hands on was said\nto be holy or sacrosanct, such as the city walls, and persons of high\nrank. Consequently those secrets, whether Divine or human, which it\nis unlawful to violate by making them known to anybody whatever, are\ncalled \"sacred secrets or sacraments.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Even an oath has a certain relation to sacred things,\nin so far as it consists in calling a sacred thing to witness. And in\nthis sense it is called a sacrament: not in the sense in which we\nspeak of sacraments now; the word \"sacrament\" being thus used not\nequivocally but analogically, i.e. by reason of a different relation\nto the one thing, viz. something sacred.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Every Sign of a Holy Thing Is a Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that not every sign of a sacred thing is a\nsacrament. For all sensible creatures are signs of sacred things;\naccording to Rom. 1:20: \"The invisible things of God are clearly seen\nbeing understood by the things that are made.\" And yet all sensible\nthings cannot be called sacraments. Therefore not every sign of a\nsacred thing is a sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whatever was done under the Old Law was a figure of\nChrist Who is the \"Holy of Holies\" (Dan. 9:24), according to 1 Cor.\n10:11: \"All (these) things happened to them in figure\"; and Col.\n2:17: \"Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is\nChrist's.\" And yet not all that was done by the Fathers of the Old\nTestament, not even all the ceremonies of the Law, were sacraments,\nbut only in certain special cases, as stated in the Second Part\n(I-II, Q. 101, A. 4). Therefore it seems that not every sign of a\nsacred thing is a sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, even in the New Testament many things are done in\nsign of some sacred thing; yet they are not called sacraments; such\nas sprinkling with holy water, the consecration of an altar, and such\nlike. Therefore not every sign of a sacred thing is a sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ A definition is convertible with the thing\ndefined. Now some define a sacrament as being \"the sign of a sacred\nthing\"; moreover, this is clear from the passage quoted above (A. 1)\nfrom Augustine. Therefore it seems that every sign of a sacred thing\nis a sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ Signs are given to men, to whom it is proper to\ndiscover the unknown by means of the known. Consequently a sacrament\nproperly so called is that which is the sign of some sacred thing\npertaining to man; so that properly speaking a sacrament, as\nconsidered by us now, is defined as being the \"sign of a holy thing\nso far as it makes men holy.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Sensible creatures signify something holy, viz. Divine\nwisdom and goodness inasmuch as these are holy in themselves; but not\ninasmuch as we are made holy by them. Therefore they cannot be called\nsacraments as we understand sacraments now.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Some things pertaining to the Old Testament signified\nthe holiness of Christ considered as holy in Himself. Others\nsignified His holiness considered as the cause of our holiness; thus\nthe sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb signified Christ's Sacrifice\nwhereby we are made holy: and such like are properly styled\nsacraments of the Old Law.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Names are given to things considered in reference to\ntheir end and state of completeness. Now a disposition is not an end,\nwhereas perfection is. Consequently things that signify disposition\nto holiness are not called sacraments, and with regard to these the\nobjection is verified: only those are called sacraments which signify\nthe perfection of holiness in man.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 3]\n\nWhether a Sacrament Is a Sign of One Thing Only?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a sacrament is a sign of one thing only.\nFor that which signifies many things is an ambiguous sign, and\nconsequently occasions deception: this is clearly seen in equivocal\nwords. But all deception should be removed from the Christian\nreligion, according to Col. 2:8: \"Beware lest any man cheat you by\nphilosophy and vain deceit.\" Therefore it seems that a sacrament is\nnot a sign of several things.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as stated above (A. 2), a sacrament signifies a holy\nthing in so far as it makes man holy. But there is only one cause of\nman's holiness, viz. the blood of Christ; according to Heb. 13:12:\n\"Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered\nwithout the gate.\" Therefore it seems that a sacrament does not\nsignify several things.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it has been said above (A. 2, ad 3) that a sacrament\nsignifies properly the very end of sanctification. Now the end of\nsanctification is eternal life, according to Rom. 6:22: \"You have\nyour fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.\"\nTherefore it seems that the sacraments signify one thing only, viz.\neternal life.\n\n_On the contrary,_ In the Sacrament of the Altar, two things are\nsignified, viz. Christ's true body, and Christ's mystical body; as\nAugustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper.).\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2) a sacrament properly speaking\nis that which is ordained to signify our sanctification. In which\nthree things may be considered; viz. the very cause of our\nsanctification, which is Christ's passion; the form of our\nsanctification, which is grace and the virtues; and the ultimate end\nof our sanctification, which is eternal life. And all these are\nsignified by the sacraments. Consequently a sacrament is a sign that\nis both a reminder of the past, i.e. the passion of Christ; and an\nindication of that which is effected in us by Christ's passion, i.e.\ngrace; and a prognostic, that is, a foretelling of future glory.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Then is a sign ambiguous and the occasion of deception,\nwhen it signifies many things not ordained to one another. But when\nit signifies many things inasmuch as, through being mutually\nordained, they form one thing, then the sign is not ambiguous but\ncertain: thus this word \"man\" signifies the soul and body inasmuch as\ntogether they form the human nature. In this way a sacrament\nsignifies the three things aforesaid, inasmuch as by being in a\ncertain order they are one thing.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Since a sacrament signifies that which sanctifies, it\nmust needs signify the effect, which is implied in the sanctifying\ncause as such.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It is enough for a sacrament that it signify that\nperfection which consists in the form, nor is it necessary that it\nshould signify only that perfection which is the end.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 4]\n\nWhether a Sacrament Is Always Something Sensible?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a sacrament is not always something\nsensible. Because, according to the Philosopher (Prior. Anal. ii),\nevery effect is a sign of its cause. But just as there are some\nsensible effects, so are there some intelligible effects; thus\nscience is the effect of a demonstration. Therefore not every sign is\nsensible. Now all that is required for a sacrament is something that\nis a sign of some sacred thing, inasmuch as thereby man is\nsanctified, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore something sensible is\nnot required for a sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, sacraments belong to the kingdom of God and the\nDivine worship. But sensible things do not seem to belong to the\nDivine worship: for we are told (John 4:24) that \"God is a spirit;\nand they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth\"; and\n(Rom. 14:17) that \"the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.\"\nTherefore sensible things are not required for the sacraments.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii) that \"sensible\nthings are goods of least account, since without them man can live\naright.\" But the sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, as we\nshall show farther on (Q. 61, A. 1): so that man cannot live aright\nwithout them. Therefore sensible things are not required for the\nsacraments.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): \"The\nword is added to the element and this becomes a sacrament\"; and he is\nspeaking there of water which is a sensible element. Therefore\nsensible things are required for the sacraments.\n\n_I answer that,_ Divine wisdom provides for each thing according to\nits mode; hence it is written (Wis. 8:1) that \"she . . . ordereth all\nthings sweetly\": wherefore also we are told (Matt. 25:15) that she\n\"gave to everyone according to his proper ability.\" Now it is part of\nman's nature to acquire knowledge of the intelligible from the\nsensible. But a sign is that by means of which one attains to the\nknowledge of something else. Consequently, since the sacred things\nwhich are signified by the sacraments, are the spiritual and\nintelligible goods by means of which man is sanctified, it follows\nthat the sacramental signs consist in sensible things: just as in the\nDivine Scriptures spiritual things are set before us under the guise\nof things sensible. And hence it is that sensible things are required\nfor the sacraments; as Dionysius also proves in his book on the\nheavenly hierarchy (Coel. Hier. i).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The name and definition of a thing is taken principally\nfrom that which belongs to a thing primarily and essentially: and not\nfrom that which belongs to it through something else. Now a sensible\neffect being the primary and direct object of man's knowledge (since\nall our knowledge springs from the senses) by its very nature leads\nto the knowledge of something else: whereas intelligible effects are\nnot such as to be able to lead us to the knowledge of something else,\nexcept in so far as they are manifested by some other thing, i.e. by\ncertain sensibles. It is for this reason that the name sign is given\nprimarily and principally to things which are offered to the senses;\nhence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that a sign \"is that\nwhich conveys something else to the mind, besides the species which\nit impresses on the senses.\" But intelligible effects do not partake\nof the nature of a sign except in so far as they are pointed out by\ncertain signs. And in this way, too, certain things which are not\nsensible are termed sacraments as it were, in so far as they are\nsignified by certain sensible things, of which we shall treat further\non (Q. 63, A. 1, ad 2; A. 3, ad 2; Q. 73, A. 6; Q. 74, A. 1, ad 3).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Sensible things considered in their own nature do not\nbelong to the worship or kingdom of God: but considered only as signs\nof spiritual things in which the kingdom of God consists.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Augustine speaks there of sensible things, considered\nin their nature; but not as employed to signify spiritual things,\nwhich are the highest goods.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Determinate Things Are Required for a Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that determinate things are not required for a\nsacrament. For sensible things are required in sacraments for the\npurpose of signification, as stated above (A. 4). But nothing hinders\nthe same thing being signified by divers sensible things: thus in\nHoly Scripture God is signified metaphorically, sometimes by a stone\n(2 Kings 22:2; Zech. 3:9; 1 Cor. 10:4; Apoc. 4:3); sometimes by a\nlion (Isa. 31:4; Apoc. 5:5); sometimes by the sun (Isa. 60:19, 20;\nMal. 4:2), or by something similar. Therefore it seems that divers\nthings can be suitable to the same sacrament. Therefore determinate\nthings are not required for the sacraments.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the health of the soul is more necessary than that\nof the body. But in bodily medicines, which are ordained to the\nhealth of the body, one thing can be substituted for another which\nhappens to be wanting. Therefore much more in the sacraments, which\nare spiritual remedies ordained to the health of the soul, can one\nthing be substituted for another when this happens to be lacking.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is not fitting that the salvation of men be\nrestricted by the Divine Law: still less by the Law of Christ, Who\ncame to save all. But in the state of the Law of nature determinate\nthings were not required in the sacraments, but were put to that use\nthrough a vow, as appears from Gen. 28, where Jacob vowed that he\nwould offer to God tithes and peace-offerings. Therefore it seems\nthat man should not have been restricted, especially under the New\nLaw, to the use of any determinate thing in the sacraments.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 3:5): \"Unless a man be born\nagain of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom\nof God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ In the use of the sacraments two things may be\nconsidered, namely, the worship of God, and the sanctification of\nman: the former of which pertains to man as referred to God, and the\nlatter pertains to God in reference to man. Now it is not for anyone\nto determine that which is in the power of another, but only that\nwhich is in his own power. Since, therefore, the sanctification of\nman is in the power of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to\ndecide what things should be used for his sanctification, but this\nshould be determined by Divine institution. Therefore in the\nsacraments of the New Law, by which man is sanctified according to 1\nCor. 6:11, \"You are washed, you are sanctified,\" we must use those\nthings which are determined by Divine institution.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Though the same thing can be signified by divers signs,\nyet to determine which sign must be used belongs to the signifier.\nNow it is God Who signifies spiritual things to us by means of the\nsensible things in the sacraments, and of similitudes in the\nScriptures. And consequently, just as the Holy Ghost decides by what\nsimilitudes spiritual things are to be signified in certain passages\nof Scripture, so also must it be determined by Divine institution\nwhat things are to be employed for the purpose of signification in\nthis or that sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Sensible things are endowed with natural powers\nconducive to the health of the body: and therefore if two of them\nhave the same virtue, it matters not which we use. Yet they are\nordained unto sanctification not through any power that they possess\nnaturally, but only in virtue of the Divine institution. And\ntherefore it was necessary that God should determine the sensible\nthings to be employed in the sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), diverse\nsacraments suit different times; just as different times are\nsignified by different parts of the verb, viz. present, past, and\nfuture. Consequently, just as under the state of the Law of nature\nman was moved by inward instinct and without any outward law, to\nworship God, so also the sensible things to be employed in the\nworship of God were determined by inward instinct. But later on it\nbecame necessary for a law to be given (to man) from without: both\nbecause the Law of nature had become obscured by man's sins; and in\norder to signify more expressly the grace of Christ, by which the\nhuman race is sanctified. And hence the need for those things to be\ndeterminate, of which men have to make use in the sacraments. Nor is\nthe way of salvation narrowed thereby: because the things which need\nto be used in the sacraments, are either in everyone's possession or\ncan be had with little trouble.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Words Are Required for the Signification of the Sacraments?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that words are not required for the\nsignification of the sacraments. For Augustine says (Contra Faust.\nxix): \"What else is a corporeal sacrament but a kind of visible\nword?\" Wherefore to add words to the sensible things in the\nsacraments seems to be the same as to add words to words. But this is\nsuperfluous. Therefore words are not required besides the sensible\nthings in the sacraments.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a sacrament is some one thing, but it does not seem\npossible to make one thing of those that belong to different genera.\nSince, therefore, sensible things and words are of different genera,\nfor sensible things are the product of nature, but words, of reason;\nit seems that in the sacraments, words are not required besides\nsensible things.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the New Law succeed those of the\nOld Law: since \"the former were instituted when the latter were\nabolished,\" as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix). But no form of\nwords was required in the sacraments of the Old Law. Therefore\nneither is it required in those of the New Law.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Eph. 5:25, 26): \"Christ loved\nthe Church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify\nit, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.\" And\nAugustine says (Tract. xxx in Joan.): \"The word is added to the\nelement, and this becomes a sacrament.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The sacraments, as stated above (AA. 2, 3), are\nemployed as signs for man's sanctification. Consequently they can be\nconsidered in three ways: and in each way it is fitting for words to\nbe added to the sensible signs. For in the first place they can be\nconsidered in regard to the cause of sanctification, which is the\nWord incarnate: to Whom the sacraments have a certain conformity, in\nthat the word is joined to the sensible sign, just as in the mystery\nof the Incarnation the Word of God is united to sensible flesh.\n\nSecondly, sacraments may be considered on the part of man who is\nsanctified, and who is composed of soul and body: to whom the\nsacramental remedy is adjusted, since it touches the body through the\nsensible element, and the soul through faith in the words. Hence\nAugustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) on John 15:3, \"Now you are\nclean by reason of the word,\" etc.: \"Whence hath water this so great\nvirtue, to touch the body and wash the heart, but by the word doing\nit, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed?\"\n\nThirdly, a sacrament may be considered on the part of the sacramental\nsignification. Now Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) that \"words\nare the principal signs used by men\"; because words can be formed in\nvarious ways for the purpose of signifying various mental concepts,\nso that we are able to express our thoughts with greater distinctness\nby means of words. And therefore in order to insure the perfection of\nsacramental signification it was necessary to determine the\nsignification of the sensible things by means of certain words. For\nwater may signify both a cleansing by reason of its humidity, and\nrefreshment by reason of its being cool: but when we say, \"I baptize\nthee,\" it is clear that we use water in baptism in order to signify a\nspiritual cleansing.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The sensible elements of the sacraments are called\nwords by way of a certain likeness, in so far as they partake of a\ncertain significative power, which resides principally in the very\nwords, as stated above. Consequently it is not a superfluous\nrepetition to add words to the visible element in the sacraments;\nbecause one determines the other, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although words and other sensible things are not in the\nsame genus, considered in their natures, yet have they something in\ncommon as to the thing signified by them: which is more perfectly\ndone in words than in other things. Wherefore in the sacraments,\nwords and things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of\none thing, in so far as the signification of things is completed by\nmeans of words, as above stated. And under words are comprised also\nsensible actions, such as cleansing and anointing and such like:\nbecause they have a like signification with the things.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), the sacraments\nof things present should be different from sacraments of things to\ncome. Now the sacraments of the Old Law foretold the coming of\nChrist. Consequently they did not signify Christ so clearly as the\nsacraments of the New Law, which flow from Christ Himself, and have a\ncertain likeness to Him, as stated above. Nevertheless in the Old\nLaw, certain words were used in things pertaining to the worship of\nGod, both by the priests, who were the ministers of those sacraments,\naccording to Num. 6:23, 24: \"Thus shall you bless the children of\nIsrael, and you shall say to them: The Lord bless thee,\" etc.; and by\nthose who made use of those sacraments, according to Deut. 26:3: \"I\nprofess this day before the Lord thy God,\" etc.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 7]\n\nWhether Determinate Words Are Required in the Sacraments?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that determinate words are not required in the\nsacraments. For as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i), \"words are\nnot the same for all.\" But salvation, which is sought through the\nsacraments, is the same for all. Therefore determinate words are not\nrequired in the sacraments.\n\nObj. 2: Further, words are required in the sacraments forasmuch as\nthey are the principal means of signification, as stated above (A.\n6). But it happens that various words mean the same. Therefore\ndeterminate words are not required in the sacraments.\n\nObj. 3: Further, corruption of anything changes its species. But some\ncorrupt the pronunciation of words, and yet it is not credible that\nthe sacramental effect is hindered thereby; else unlettered men and\nstammerers, in conferring sacraments, would frequently do so\ninvalidly. Therefore it seems that determinate words are not required\nin the sacraments.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord used determinate words in consecrating\nthe sacrament of the Eucharist, when He said (Matt. 26:26): \"This is\nMy Body.\" Likewise He commanded His disciples to baptize under a form\nof determinate words, saying (Matt. 28:19): \"Go ye and teach all\nnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,\nand of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 6, ad 2), in the sacraments the\nwords are as the form, and sensible things are as the matter. Now in\nall things composed of matter and form, the determining principle is\non the part of the form, which is as it were the end and terminus of\nthe matter. Consequently for the being of a thing the need of a\ndeterminate form is prior to the need of determinate matter: for\ndeterminate matter is needed that it may be adapted to the\ndeterminate form. Since, therefore, in the sacraments determinate\nsensible things are required, which are as the sacramental matter,\nmuch more is there need in them of a determinate form of words.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.), the word\noperates in the sacraments \"not because it is spoken,\" i.e. not by\nthe outward sound of the voice, \"but because it is believed\" in\naccordance with the sense of the words which is held by faith. And\nthis sense is indeed the same for all, though the same words as to\ntheir sound be not used by all. Consequently no matter in what\nlanguage this sense is expressed, the sacrament is complete.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although it happens in every language that various\nwords signify the same thing, yet one of those words is that which\nthose who speak that language use principally and more commonly to\nsignify that particular thing: and this is the word which should be\nused for the sacramental signification. So also among sensible\nthings, that one is used for the sacramental signification which is\nmost commonly employed for the action by which the sacramental effect\nis signified: thus water is most commonly used by men for bodily\ncleansing, by which the spiritual cleansing is signified: and\ntherefore water is employed as the matter of baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If he who corrupts the pronunciation of the sacramental\nwords--does so on purpose, he does not seem to intend to do what the\nChurch intends: and thus the sacrament seems to be defective. But if\nhe do this through error or a slip of the tongue, and if he so far\nmispronounce the words as to deprive them of sense, the sacrament\nseems to be defective. This would be the case especially if the\nmispronunciation be in the beginning of a word, for instance, if one\nwere to say \"in nomine matris\" instead of \"in nomine Patris.\" If,\nhowever, the sense of the words be not entirely lost by this\nmispronunciation, the sacrament is complete. This would be the case\nprincipally if the end of a word be mispronounced; for instance, if\none were to say \"patrias et filias.\" For although the words thus\nmispronounced have no appointed meaning, yet we allow them an\naccommodated meaning corresponding to the usual forms of speech. And\nso, although the sensible sound is changed, yet the sense remains the\nsame.\n\nWhat has been said about the various mispronunciations of words,\neither at the beginning or at the end, holds forasmuch as with us a\nchange at the beginning of a word changes the meaning, whereas a\nchange at the end generally speaking does not effect such a change:\nwhereas with the Greeks the sense is changed also in the beginning of\nwords in the conjugation of verbs.\n\nNevertheless the princip[al] point to observe is the extent of the\ncorruption entailed by mispronunciation: for in either case it may be\nso little that it does not alter the sense of the words; or so great\nthat it destroys it. But it is easier for the one to happen on the\npart of the beginning of the words, and the other at the end.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 60, Art. 8]\n\nWhether It Is Lawful to Add Anything to the Words in Which the\nSacramental Form Consists?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that it is not lawful to add anything to the\nwords in which the sacramental form consists. For these sacramental\nwords are not of less importance than are the words of Holy\nScripture. But it is not lawful to add anything to, or to take\nanything from, the words of Holy Scripture: for it is written (Deut.\n4:2): \"You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither\nshall you take away from it\"; and (Apoc. 22:18, 19): \"I testify to\neveryone that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: if any\nman shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues\nwritten in this book. And if any man shall take away . . . God shall\ntake away his part out of the book of life.\" Therefore it seems that\nneither is it lawful to add anything to, or to take anything from,\nthe sacramental forms.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in the sacraments words are by way of form, as\nstated above (A. 6, ad 2; A. 7). But any addition or subtraction in\nforms changes the species, as also in numbers (Metaph. viii).\nTherefore it seems that if anything be added to or subtracted from a\nsacramental form, it will not be the same sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as the sacramental form demands a certain\nnumber of words, so does it require that these words should be\npronounced in a certain order and without interruption. If therefore,\nthe sacrament is not rendered invalid by addition or subtraction of\nwords, in like manner it seems that neither is it, if the words be\npronounced in a different order or with interruptions.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Certain words are inserted by some in the\nsacramental forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins\nbaptize under this form: \"I baptize thee in the name of the Father,\nand of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost\"; whereas the Greeks use the\nfollowing form: \"The servant of God, N . . . is baptized in the name\nof the Father,\" etc. Yet both confer the sacrament validly. Therefore\nit is lawful to add something to, or to take something from, the\nsacramental forms.\n\n_I answer that,_ With regard to all the variations that may occur in\nthe sacramental forms, two points seem to call for our attention. One\nis on the part of the person who says the words, and whose intention\nis essential to the sacrament, as will be explained further on (Q.\n64, A. 8). Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to\nperform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it\nseems that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems not to intend\nto do what the Church does.\n\nThe other point to be considered is the meaning of the words. For\nsince in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the\nsense which they convey, as stated above (A. 7, ad 1), we must see\nwhether the change of words destroys the essential sense of the\nwords: because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. Now it\nis clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be\nsuppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and\nconsequently the sacrament is invalid. Wherefore Didymus says (De\nSpir. Sanct. ii): \"If anyone attempt to baptize in such a way as to\nomit one of the aforesaid names,\" i.e. of the Father, Son, and Holy\nGhost, \"his baptism will be invalid.\" But if that which is omitted be\nnot a substantial part of the form, such an omission does not destroy\nthe essential sense of the words, nor consequently the validity of\nthe sacrament. Thus in the form of the Eucharist--\"For this is My\nBody,\" the omission of the word \"for\" does not destroy the essential\nsense of the words, nor consequently cause the sacrament to be\ninvalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin from\nnegligence or contempt.\n\nAgain, it is possible to add something that destroys the essential\nsense of the words: for instance, if one were to say: \"I baptize thee\nin the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son Who is\nless,\" with which form the Arians baptized: and consequently such an\naddition makes the sacrament invalid. But if the addition be such as\nnot to destroy the essential sense, the sacrament is not rendered\ninvalid. Nor does it matter whether this addition be made at the\nbeginning, in the middle, or at the end: For instance, if one were to\nsay, \"I baptize thee in the name of the Father Almighty, and of the\nonly Begotten Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete,\" the baptism\nwould be valid; and in like manner if one were to say, \"I baptize\nthee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost; and may the Blessed Virgin succour thee,\" the baptism would be\nvalid.\n\nPerhaps, however, if one were to say, \"I baptize thee in the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Blessed\nVirgin Mary,\" the baptism would be void; because it is written (1\nCor. 1:13): \"Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized in the\nname of Paul?\" But this is true if the intention be to baptize in the\nname of the Blessed Virgin as in the name of the Trinity, by which\nbaptism is consecrated: for such a sense would be contrary to faith,\nand would therefore render the sacrament invalid: whereas if the\naddition, \"and in the name of the Blessed Virgin\" be understood, not\nas if the name of the Blessed Virgin effected anything in baptism,\nbut as intimating that her intercession may help the person baptized\nto preserve the baptismal grace, then the sacrament is not rendered\nvoid.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It is not lawful to add anything to the words of Holy\nScripture as regards the sense; but many words are added by Doctors\nby way of explanation of the Holy Scriptures. Nevertheless, it is not\nlawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such words were\na part thereof, for this would amount to forgery. It would amount to\nthe same if anyone were to pretend that something is essential to a\nsacramental form, which is not so.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Words belong to a sacramental form by reason of the\nsense signified by them. Consequently any addition or suppression of\nwords which does not add to or take from the essential sense, does\nnot destroy the essence of the sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If the words are interrupted to such an extent that the\nintention of the speaker is interrupted, the sacramental sense is\ndestroyed, and consequently, the validity of the sacrament. But this\nis not the case if the interruption of the speaker is so slight, that\nhis intention and the sense of the words is not interrupted.\n\nThe same is to be said of a change in the order of the words. Because\nif this destroys the sense of the words, the sacrament is\ninvalidated: as happens when a negation is made to precede or follow\na word. But if the order is so changed that the sense of the words\ndoes not vary, the sacrament is not invalidated, according to the\nPhilosopher's dictum: \"Nouns and verbs mean the same though they be\ntransposed\" (Peri Herm. x).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 61\n\nOF THE NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENTS\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the necessity of the sacraments; concerning\nwhich there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether sacraments are necessary for man's salvation?\n\n(2) Whether they were necessary in the state that preceded sin?\n\n(3) Whether they were necessary in the state after sin and before\nChrist?\n\n(4) Whether they were necessary after Christ's coming?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 61, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Sacraments Are Necessary for Man's Salvation?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that sacraments are not necessary for man's\nsalvation. For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 4:8): \"Bodily exercise is\nprofitable to little.\" But the use of sacraments pertains to bodily\nexercise; because sacraments are perfected in the signification of\nsensible things and words, as stated above (Q. 60, A. 6). Therefore\nsacraments are not necessary for the salvation of man.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Apostle was told (2 Cor. 12:9): \"My grace is\nsufficient for thee.\" But it would not suffice if sacraments were\nnecessary for salvation. Therefore sacraments are not necessary for\nman's salvation.\n\nObj. 3: Further, given a sufficient cause, nothing more seems to be\nrequired for the effect. But Christ's Passion is the sufficient cause\nof our salvation; for the Apostle says (Rom. 5:10): \"If, when we were\nenemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son: much\nmore, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life.\" Therefore\nsacraments are not necessary for man's salvation.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): \"It is\nimpossible to keep men together in one religious denomination,\nwhether true or false, except they be united by means of visible\nsigns or sacraments.\" But it is necessary for salvation that men be\nunited together in the name of the one true religion. Therefore\nsacraments are necessary for man's salvation.\n\n_I answer that,_ Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for\nthree reasons. The first is taken from the condition of human nature\nwhich is such that it has to be led by things corporeal and sensible\nto things spiritual and intelligible. Now it belongs to Divine\nprovidence to provide for each one according as its condition\nrequires. Divine wisdom, therefore, fittingly provides man with means\nof salvation, in the shape of corporeal and sensible signs that are\ncalled sacraments.\n\nThe second reason is taken from the state of man who in sinning\nsubjected himself by his affections to corporeal things. Now the\nhealing remedy should be given to a man so as to reach the part\naffected by disease. Consequently it was fitting that God should\nprovide man with a spiritual medicine by means of certain corporeal\nsigns; for if man were offered spiritual things without a veil, his\nmind being taken up with the material world would be unable to apply\nitself to them.\n\nThe third reason is taken from the fact that man is prone to direct\nhis activity chiefly towards material things. Lest, therefore, it\nshould be too hard for man to be drawn away entirely from bodily\nactions, bodily exercise was offered to him in the sacraments, by\nwhich he might be trained to avoid superstitious practices,\nconsisting in the worship of demons, and all manner of harmful\naction, consisting in sinful deeds.\n\nIt follows, therefore, that through the institution of the sacraments\nman, consistently with his nature, is instructed through sensible\nthings; he is humbled, through confessing that he is subject to\ncorporeal things, seeing that he receives assistance through them:\nand he is even preserved from bodily hurt, by the healthy exercise of\nthe sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Bodily exercise, as such, is not very profitable: but\nexercise taken in the use of the sacraments is not merely bodily, but\nto a certain extent spiritual, viz. in its signification and in its\ncausality.\n\nReply Obj. 2: God's grace is a sufficient cause of man's salvation.\nBut God gives grace to man in a way which is suitable to him. Hence\nit is that man needs the sacraments that he may obtain grace.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's Passion is a sufficient cause of man's\nsalvation. But it does not follow that the sacraments are not also\nnecessary for that purpose: because they obtain their effect through\nthe power of Christ's Passion; and Christ's Passion is, so to say,\napplied to man through the sacraments according to the Apostle (Rom.\n6:3): \"All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His\ndeath.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 61, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Before Sin Sacraments Were Necessary to Man?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that before sin sacraments were necessary to\nman. For, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2) man needs sacraments that he\nmay obtain grace. But man needed grace even in the state of\ninnocence, as we stated in the First Part  (Q. 95, A. 4; cf. I-II, Q.\n109, A. 2; Q. 114, A. 2). Therefore sacraments were necessary in that\nstate also.\n\nObj. 2: Further, sacraments are suitable to man by reason of the\nconditions of human nature, as stated above (A. 1). But man's nature\nis the same before and after sin. Therefore it seems that before sin,\nman needed the sacraments.\n\nObj. 3: Further, matrimony is a sacrament, according to Eph. 5:32:\n\"This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.\"\nBut matrimony was instituted before sin, as may be seen in Gen. 2.\nTherefore sacraments were necessary to man before sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ None but the sick need remedies, according to\nMatt. 9:12: \"They that are in health need not a physician.\" Now the\nsacraments are spiritual remedies for the healing of wounds inflicted\nby sin. Therefore they were not necessary before sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ Sacraments were not necessary in the state of\ninnocence. This can be proved from the rectitude of that state, in\nwhich the higher (parts of man) ruled the lower, and nowise depended\non them: for just as the mind was subject to God, so were the lower\npowers of the soul subject to the mind, and the body to the soul. And\nit would be contrary to this order if the soul were perfected either\nin knowledge or in grace, by anything corporeal; which happens in the\nsacraments. Therefore in the state of innocence man needed no\nsacraments, whether as remedies against sin or as means of perfecting\nthe soul.\n\nReply Obj. 1: In the state of innocence man needed grace: not so that\nhe needed to obtain grace by means of sensible signs, but in a\nspiritual and invisible manner.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Man's nature is the same before and after sin, but the\nstate of his nature is not the same. Because after sin, the soul,\neven in its higher part, needs to receive something from corporeal\nthings in order that it may be perfected: whereas man had no need of\nthis in that state.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Matrimony was instituted in the state of innocence, not\nas a sacrament, but as a function of nature. Consequently, however,\nit foreshadowed something in relation to Christ and the Church: just\nas everything else foreshadowed Christ.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 61, Art. 3]\n\nWhether There Should Have Been Sacraments After Sin, Before Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that there should have been no sacraments after\nsin, before Christ. For it has been stated that the Passion of Christ\nis applied to men through the sacraments: so that Christ's Passion is\ncompared to the sacraments as cause to effect. But effect does not\nprecede cause. Therefore there should have been no sacraments before\nChrist's coming.\n\nObj. 2: Further, sacraments should be suitable to the state of the\nhuman race, as Augustine declares (Contra Faust. xix). But the state\nof the human race underwent no change after sin until it was repaired\nby Christ. Neither, therefore, should the sacraments have been\nchanged, so that besides the sacraments of the natural law, others\nshould be instituted in the law of Moses.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the nearer a thing approaches to that which is\nperfect, the more like it should it be. Now the perfection of human\nsalvation was accomplished by Christ; to Whom the sacraments of the\nOld Law were nearer than those that preceded the Law. Therefore they\nshould have borne a greater likeness to the sacraments of Christ. And\nyet the contrary is the case, since it was foretold that the\npriesthood of Christ would be \"according to the order of\nMelchisedech, and not . . . according to the order of Aaron\" (Heb.\n7:11). Therefore sacraments were unsuitably instituted before Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that \"the first\nsacraments which the Law commanded to be solemnized and observed were\nannouncements of Christ's future coming.\" But it was necessary for\nman's salvation that Christ's coming should be announced beforehand.\nTherefore it was necessary that some sacraments should be instituted\nbefore Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ Sacraments are necessary for man's salvation, in so\nfar as they are sensible signs of invisible things whereby man is\nmade holy. Now after sin no man can be made holy save through Christ,\n\"Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His\nblood, to the showing of His justice . . . that He Himself may be\njust, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ\"\n(Rom. 3:25, 26). Therefore before Christ's coming there was need for\nsome visible signs whereby man might testify to his faith in the\nfuture coming of a Saviour. And these signs are called sacraments. It\nis therefore clear that some sacraments were necessary before\nChrist's coming.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's Passion is the final cause of the old\nsacraments: for they were instituted in order to foreshadow it. Now\nthe final cause precedes not in time, but in the intention of the\nagent. Consequently, there is no reason against the existence of\nsacraments before Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The state of the human race after sin and before Christ\ncan be considered from two points of view. First, from that of faith:\nand thus it was always one and the same: since men were made\nrighteous, through faith in the future coming of Christ. Secondly,\naccording as sin was more or less intense, and knowledge concerning\nChrist more or less explicit. For as time went on sin gained a\ngreater hold on man, so much so that it clouded man's reason, the\nconsequence being that the precepts of the natural law were\ninsufficient to make man live aright, and it became necessary to have\na written code of fixed laws, and together with these certain\nsacraments of faith. For it was necessary, as time went on, that the\nknowledge of faith should be more and more unfolded, since, as\nGregory says (Hom. vi in Ezech.): \"With the advance of time there was\nan advance in the knowledge of Divine things.\" Consequently in the\nold Law there was also a need for certain fixed sacraments\nsignificative of man's faith in the future coming of Christ: which\nsacraments are compared to those that preceded the Law, as something\ndeterminate to that which is indeterminate: inasmuch as before the\nLaw it was not laid down precisely of what sacraments men were to\nmake use: whereas this was prescribed by the Law; and this was\nnecessary both on account of the overclouding of the natural law, and\nfor the clearer signification of faith.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The sacrament of Melchisedech which preceded the Law is\nmore like the Sacrament of the New Law in its matter: in so far as\n\"he offered bread and wine\" (Gen. 14:18), just as bread and wine are\noffered in the sacrifice of the New Testament. Nevertheless the\nsacraments of the Mosaic Law are more like the thing signified by the\nsacrament, i.e. the Passion of Christ: as clearly appears in the\nPaschal Lamb and such like. The reason of this was lest, if the\nsacraments retained the same appearance, it might seem to be the\ncontinuation of one and the same sacrament, where there was no\ninterruption of time.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 61, Art. 4]\n\nWhether There Was Need for Any Sacraments After Christ Came?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that there was no need for any sacraments after\nChrist came. For the figure should cease with the advent of the\ntruth. But \"grace and truth came by Jesus Christ\" (John 1:17). Since,\ntherefore, the sacraments are signs or figures of the truth, it seems\nthat there was no need for any sacraments after Christ's Passion.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the sacraments consist in certain elements, as\nstated above (Q. 60, A. 4). But the Apostle says (Gal. 4:3, 4)  that\n\"when we were children we were serving under the elements of the\nworld\": but that now \"when the fulness of time\" has \"come,\" we are no\nlonger children. Therefore it seems that we should not serve God\nunder the elements of this world, by making use of corporeal\nsacraments.\n\nObj. 3: Further, according to James 1:17 with God \"there is no\nchange, nor shadow of alteration.\" But it seems to argue some change\nin the Divine will that God should give man certain sacraments for\nhis sanctification now during the time of grace, and other sacraments\nbefore Christ's coming. Therefore it seems that other sacraments\nshould not have been instituted after Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the\nsacraments of the Old Law \"were abolished because they were\nfulfilled; and others were instituted, fewer in number, but more\nefficacious, more profitable, and of easier accomplishment.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As the ancient Fathers were saved through faith in\nChrist's future coming, so are we saved through faith in Christ's\npast birth and Passion. Now the sacraments are signs in protestation\nof the faith whereby man is justified; and signs should vary\naccording as they signify the future, the past, or the present; for\nas Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix), \"the same thing is variously\npronounced as to be done and as having been done: for instance the\nword _passurus_ (going to suffer) differs from _passus_ (having\nsuffered).\" Therefore the sacraments of the New Law, that signify\nChrist in relation to the past, must needs differ from those of the\nOld Law, that foreshadowed the future.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), the state of the New\nLaw. is between the state of the Old Law, whose figures are fulfilled\nin the New, and the state of glory, in which all truth will be openly\nand perfectly revealed. Wherefore then there will be no sacraments.\nBut now, so long as we know \"through a glass in a dark manner,\" (1\nCor. 13:12) we need sensible signs in order to reach spiritual\nthings: and this is the province of the sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Apostle calls the sacraments of the Old Law \"weak\nand needy elements\" (Gal. 4:9) because they neither contained nor\ncaused grace. Hence the Apostle says that those who used these\nsacraments served God \"under the elements of this world\": for the\nvery reason that these sacraments were nothing else than the elements\nof this world. But our sacraments both contain and cause grace:\nconsequently the comparison does not hold.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Just as the head of the house is not proved to have a\nchangeable mind, through issuing various commands to his household at\nvarious seasons, ordering things differently in winter and summer; so\nit does not follow that there is any change in God, because He\ninstituted sacraments of one kind after Christ's coming, and of\nanother kind at the time of the Law. Because the latter were suitable\nas foreshadowing grace; the former as signifying the presence of\ngrace.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 62\n\nOF THE SACRAMENTS' PRINCIPAL EFFECT, WHICH IS GRACE\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the effect of the sacraments. First of their\nprincipal effect, which is grace; secondly, of their secondary\neffect, which is a character. Concerning the first there are six\npoints of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the sacraments of the New Law are the cause of grace?\n\n(2) Whether sacramental grace confers anything in addition to the\ngrace of the virtues and gifts?\n\n(3) Whether the sacraments contain grace?\n\n(4) Whether there is any power in them for the causing of grace?\n\n(5) Whether the sacraments derive this power from Christ's Passion?\n\n(6) Whether the sacraments of the Old Law caused grace?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Sacraments Are the Cause of Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacraments are not the cause of grace.\nFor it seems that the same thing is not both sign and cause: since\nthe nature of sign appears to be more in keeping with an effect. But\na sacrament is a sign of grace. Therefore it is not its cause.\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing corporeal can act on a spiritual thing:\nsince \"the agent is more excellent than the patient,\" as Augustine\nsays (Gen. ad lit. xii). But the subject of grace is the human mind,\nwhich is something spiritual. Therefore the sacraments cannot cause\ngrace.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what is proper to God should not be ascribed to a\ncreature. But it is proper to God to cause grace, according to Ps.\n83:12: \"The Lord will give grace and glory.\" Since, therefore, the\nsacraments consist in certain words and created things, it seems that\nthey cannot cause grace.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.) that the\nbaptismal water \"touches the body and cleanses the heart.\" But the\nheart is not cleansed save through grace. Therefore it causes grace:\nand for like reason so do the other sacraments of the Church.\n\n_I answer that,_ We must needs say that in some way the sacraments of\nthe New Law cause grace. For it is evident that through the\nsacraments of the New Law man is incorporated with Christ: thus the\nApostle says of Baptism (Gal. 3:27): \"As many of you as have been\nbaptized in Christ have put on Christ.\" And man is made a member of\nChrist through grace alone.\n\nSome, however, say that they are the cause of grace not by their own\noperation, but in so far as God causes grace in the soul when the\nsacraments are employed. And they give as an example a man who on\npresenting a leaden coin, receives, by the king's command, a hundred\npounds: not as though the leaden coin, by any operation of its own,\ncaused him to be given that sum of money; this being the effect of\nthe mere will of the king. Hence Bernard says in a sermon on the\nLord's Supper: \"Just as a canon is invested by means of a book, an\nabbot by means of a crozier, a bishop by means of a ring, so by the\nvarious sacraments various kinds of grace are conferred.\" But if we\nexamine the question properly, we shall see that according to the\nabove mode the sacraments are mere signs. For the leaden coin is\nnothing but a sign of the king's command that this man should receive\nmoney. In like manner the book is a sign of the conferring of a\ncanonry. Hence, according to this opinion the sacraments of the New\nLaw would be mere signs of grace; whereas we have it on the authority\nof many saints that the sacraments of the New Law not only signify,\nbut also cause grace.\n\nWe must therefore say otherwise, that an efficient cause is twofold,\nprincipal and instrumental. The principal cause works by the power of\nits form, to which form the effect is likened; just as fire by its\nown heat makes something hot. In this way none but God can cause\ngrace: since grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of\nthe Divine Nature, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: \"He hath given us most\ngreat and precious promises; that we may be [Vulg.: 'you may be\nmade'] partakers of the Divine Nature.\" But the instrumental cause\nworks not by the power of its form, but only by the motion whereby it\nis moved by the principal agent: so that the effect is not likened to\nthe instrument but to the principal agent: for instance, the couch is\nnot like the axe, but like the art which is in the craftsman's mind.\nAnd it is thus that the sacraments of the New Law cause grace: for\nthey are instituted by God to be employed for the purpose of\nconferring grace. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix): \"All\nthese things,\" viz. pertaining to the sacraments, \"are done and pass\naway, but the power,\" viz. of God, \"which works by them, remains\never.\" Now that is, properly speaking, an instrument by which someone\nworks: wherefore it is written (Titus 3:5): \"He saved us by the laver\nof regeneration.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The principal cause cannot properly be called a sign of\nits effect, even though the latter be hidden and the cause itself\nsensible and manifest. But an instrumental cause, if manifest, can be\ncalled a sign of a hidden effect, for this reason, that it is not\nmerely a cause but also in a measure an effect in so far as it is\nmoved by the principal agent. And in this sense the sacraments of the\nNew Law are both cause and signs. Hence, too, is it that, to use the\ncommon expression, \"they effect what they signify.\" From this it is\nclear that they perfectly fulfil the conditions of a sacrament; being\nordained to something sacred, not only as a sign, but also as a cause.\n\nReply Obj. 2: An instrument has a twofold action; one is\ninstrumental, in respect of which it works not by its own power but\nby the power of the principal agent: the other is its proper action,\nwhich belongs to it in respect of its proper form: thus it belongs to\nan axe to cut asunder by reason of its sharpness, but to make a\ncouch, in so far as it is the instrument of an art. But it does not\naccomplish the instrumental action save by exercising its proper\naction: for it is by cutting that it makes a couch. In like manner\nthe corporeal sacraments by their operation, which they exercise on\nthe body that they touch, accomplish through the Divine institution\nan instrumental operation on the soul; for example, the water of\nbaptism, in respect of its proper power, cleanses the body, and\nthereby, inasmuch as it is the instrument of the Divine power,\ncleanses the soul: since from soul and body one thing is made. And\nthus it is that Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that it \"touches\nthe body and cleanses the heart.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: This argument considers that which causes grace as\nprincipal agent; for this belongs to God alone, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Sacramental Grace Confers Anything in Addition to the Grace\nof the Virtues and Gifts?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that sacramental grace confers nothing in\naddition to the grace of the virtues and gifts. For the grace of the\nvirtues and gifts perfects the soul sufficiently, both in its essence\nand in its powers; as is clear from what was said in the Second Part\n(I-II, Q. 110, AA. 3, 4). But grace is ordained to the perfecting of\nthe soul. Therefore sacramental grace cannot confer anything in\naddition to the grace of the virtues and gifts.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the soul's defects are caused by sin. But all sins\nare sufficiently removed by the grace of the virtues and gifts:\nbecause there is no sin that is not contrary to some virtue. Since,\ntherefore, sacramental grace is ordained to the removal of the soul's\ndefects, it cannot confer anything in addition to the grace of the\nvirtues and gifts.\n\nObj. 3: Further, every addition or subtraction of form varies the\nspecies (Metaph. viii). If, therefore, sacramental grace confers\nanything in addition to the grace of the virtues and gifts, it\nfollows that it is called grace equivocally: and so we are none the\nwiser when it is said that the sacraments cause grace.\n\n_On the contrary,_ If sacramental grace confers nothing in addition\nto the grace of the virtues and gifts, it is useless to confer the\nsacraments on those who have the virtues and gifts. But there is\nnothing useless in God's works. Therefore it seems that sacramental\ngrace confers something in addition to the grace of the virtues and\ngifts.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 110, AA. 3,\n4), grace, considered in itself, perfects the essence of the soul, in\nso far as it is a certain participated likeness of the Divine Nature.\nAnd just as the soul's powers flow from its essence, so from grace\nthere flow certain perfections into the powers of the soul, which are\ncalled virtues and gifts, whereby the powers are perfected in\nreference to their actions. Now the sacraments are ordained unto\ncertain special effects which are necessary in the Christian life:\nthus Baptism is ordained unto a certain spiritual regeneration, by\nwhich man dies to vice and becomes a member of Christ: which effect\nis something special in addition to the actions of the soul's powers:\nand the same holds true of the other sacraments. Consequently just as\nthe virtues and gifts confer, in addition to grace commonly so\ncalled, a certain special perfection ordained to the powers' proper\nactions, so does sacramental grace confer, over and above grace\ncommonly so called, and in addition to the virtues and gifts, a\ncertain Divine assistance in obtaining the end of the sacrament. It\nis thus that sacramental grace confers something in addition to the\ngrace of the virtues and gifts.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The grace of the virtues and gifts perfects the essence\nand powers of the soul sufficiently as regards ordinary conduct: but\nas regards certain special effects which are necessary in a Christian\nlife, sacramental grace is needed.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Vices and sins are sufficiently removed by virtues and\ngifts, as to present and future time, in so far as they prevent man\nfrom sinning. But in regard to past sins, the acts of which are\ntransitory whereas their guilt remains, man is provided with a\nspecial remedy in the sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Sacramental grace is compared to grace commonly so\ncalled, as species to genus. Wherefore just as it is not equivocal to\nuse the term \"animal\" in its generic sense, and as applied to a man,\nso neither is it equivocal to speak of grace commonly so called and\nof sacramental grace.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Sacraments of the New Law Contain Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not\ncontain grace. For it seems that what is contained is in the\ncontainer. But grace is not in the sacraments; neither as in a\nsubject, because the subject of grace is not a body but a spirit; nor\nas in a vessel, for according to _Phys._ iv, \"a vessel is a movable\nplace,\" and an accident cannot be in a place. Therefore it seems that\nthe sacraments of the New Law do not contain grace.\n\nObj. 2: Further, sacraments are instituted as means whereby men may\nobtain grace. But since grace is an accident it cannot pass from one\nsubject to another. Therefore it would be of no account if grace were\nin the sacraments.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a spiritual thing is not contained by a corporeal,\neven if it be therein; for the soul is not contained by the body;\nrather does it contain the body. Since, therefore, grace is something\nspiritual, it seems that it cannot be contained in a corporeal\nsacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Hugh of S. Victor says (De Sacram. i) that \"a\nsacrament, through its being sanctified, contains an invisible grace.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing is said to be in another in various ways; in\ntwo of which grace is said to be in the sacraments. First, as in its\nsign; for a sacrament is a sign of grace. Secondly, as in its cause;\nfor, as stated above (A. 1) a sacrament of the New Law is an\ninstrumental cause of grace. Wherefore grace is in a sacrament of the\nNew Law, not as to its specific likeness, as an effect in its\nunivocal cause; nor as to some proper and permanent form proportioned\nto such an effect, as effects in non-univocal causes, for instance,\nas things generated are in the sun; but as to a certain instrumental\npower transient and incomplete in its natural being, as will be\nexplained later on (A. 4).\n\nReply Obj. 1: Grace is said to be in a sacrament not as in its\nsubject; nor as in a vessel considered as a place, but understood as\nthe instrument of some work to be done, according to Ezech. 9:1:\n\"Everyone hath a destroying vessel [Douay: 'weapon'] in his hand.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although an accident does not pass from one subject to\nanother, nevertheless in a fashion it does pass from its cause into\nits subject through the instrument; not so that it be in each of\nthese in the same way, but in each according to its respective nature.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If a spiritual thing exist perfectly in something, it\ncontains it and is not contained by it. But, in a sacrament, grace\nhas a passing and incomplete mode of being: and consequently it is\nnot unfitting to say that the sacraments contain grace.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 4]\n\nWhether There Be in the Sacraments a Power of Causing Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that there is not in the sacraments a power of\ncausing grace. For the power of causing grace is a spiritual power.\nBut a spiritual power cannot be in a body; neither as proper to it,\nbecause power flows from a thing's essence and consequently cannot\ntranscend it; nor as derived from something else, because that which\nis received into anything follows the mode of the recipient.\nTherefore in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whatever exists is reducible to some kind of being\nand some degree of good. But there is no assignable kind of being to\nwhich such a power can belong; as anyone may see by running through\nthem all. Nor is it reducible to some degree of good; for neither is\nit one of the goods of least account, since sacraments are necessary\nfor salvation: nor is it an intermediate good, such as are the powers\nof the soul, which are natural powers; nor is it one of the greater\ngoods, for it is neither grace nor a virtue of the mind. Therefore it\nseems that in the sacraments there is no power of causing grace.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if there be such a power in the sacraments, its\npresence there must be due to nothing less than a creative act of\nGod. But it seems unbecoming that so excellent a being created by God\nshould cease to exist as soon as the sacrament is complete. Therefore\nit seems that in the sacraments there is no power for causing grace.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the same thing cannot be in several. But several\nthings concur in the completion of a sacrament, namely, words and\nthings: while in one sacrament there can be but one power. Therefore\nit seems that there is no power of causing grace in the sacraments.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): \"Whence\nhath water so great power, that it touches the body and cleanses the\nheart?\" And Bede says that \"Our Lord conferred a power of\nregeneration on the waters by the contact of His most pure body.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Those who hold that the sacraments do not cause\ngrace save by a certain coincidence, deny the sacraments any power\nthat is itself productive of the sacramental effect, and hold that\nthe Divine power assists the sacraments and produces their effect.\nBut if we hold that a sacrament is an instrumental cause of grace, we\nmust needs allow that there is in the sacraments a certain\ninstrumental power of bringing about the sacramental effects. Now\nsuch power is proportionate to the instrument: and consequently it\nstands in comparison to the complete and perfect power of anything,\nas the instrument to the principal agent. For an instrument, as\nstated above (A. 1), does not work save as moved by the principal\nagent, which works of itself. And therefore the power of the\nprincipal agent exists in nature completely and perfectly: whereas\nthe instrumental power has a being that passes from one thing into\nanother, and is incomplete; just as motion is an imperfect act\npassing from agent to patient.\n\nReply Obj. 1: A spiritual power cannot be in a corporeal subject,\nafter the manner of a permanent and complete power, as the argument\nproves. But there is nothing to hinder an instrumental spiritual\npower from being in a body; in so far as a body can be moved by a\nparticular spiritual substance so as to produce a particular\nspiritual effect; thus in the very voice which is perceived by the\nsenses there is a certain spiritual power, inasmuch as it proceeds\nfrom a mental concept, of arousing the mind of the hearer. It is in\nthis way that a spiritual power is in the sacraments, inasmuch as\nthey are ordained by God unto the production of a spiritual effect.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Just as motion, through being an imperfect act, is not\nproperly in a genus, but is reducible to a genus of perfect act, for\ninstance, alteration to the genus of quality: so, instrumental power,\nproperly speaking, is not in any genus, but is reducible to a genus\nand species of perfect act.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Just as an instrumental power accrues to an instrument\nthrough its being moved by the principal agent, so does a sacrament\nreceive spiritual power from Christ's blessing and from the action of\nthe minister in applying it to a sacramental use. Hence Augustine\nsays in a sermon on the Epiphany (St. Maximus of Turin, Serm. xii):\n\"Nor should you marvel, if we say that water, a corporeal substance,\nachieves the cleansing of the soul. It does indeed, and penetrates\nevery secret hiding-place of the conscience. For subtle and clear as\nit is, the blessing of Christ makes it yet more subtle, so that it\npermeates into the very principles of life and searches the innermost\nrecesses of the heart.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Just as the one same power of the principal agent is\ninstrumentally in all the instruments that are ordained unto the\nproduction of an effect, forasmuch as they are one as being so\nordained: so also the one same sacramental power is in both words and\nthings, forasmuch as words and things combine to form one sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Sacraments of the New Law Derive Their Power from\nChrist's Passion?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the New Law do not\nderive their power from Christ's Passion. For the power of the\nsacraments is in the causing of grace which is the principle of\nspiritual life in the soul. But as Augustine says (Tract. xix in\nJoan.): \"The Word, as He was in the beginning with God, quickens\nsouls; as He was made flesh, quickens bodies.\" Since, therefore,\nChrist's Passion pertains to the Word as made flesh, it seems that it\ncannot cause the power of the sacraments.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the power of the sacraments seems to depend on\nfaith. for as Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.), the Divine Word\nperfects the sacrament \"not because it is spoken, but because it is\nbelieved.\" But our faith regards not only Christ's Passion, but also\nthe other mysteries of His humanity, and in a yet higher measure, His\nGodhead. Therefore it seems that the power of the sacraments is not\ndue specially to Christ's Passion.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's\njustification, according to 1 Cor. 6:11: \"You are washed . . . you\nare justified.\" Now justification is ascribed to the Resurrection,\naccording to Rom. 4:25: \"(Who) rose again for our justification.\"\nTherefore it seems that the sacraments derive their power from\nChrist's Resurrection rather than from His Passion.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on Rom. 5:14: \"After the similitude of the\ntransgression of Adam,\" etc., the gloss says: \"From the side of\nChrist asleep on the Cross flowed the sacraments which brought\nsalvation to the Church.\" Consequently, it seems that the sacraments\nderive their power from Christ's Passion.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) a sacrament in causing grace\nworks after the manner of an instrument. Now an instrument is\ntwofold; the one, separate, as a stick, for instance; the other,\nunited, as a hand. Moreover, the separate instrument is moved by\nmeans of the united instrument, as a stick by the hand. Now the\nprincipal efficient cause of grace is God Himself, in comparison with\nWhom Christ's humanity is as a united instrument, whereas the\nsacrament is as a separate instrument. Consequently, the saving power\nmust needs be derived by the sacraments from Christ's Godhead through\nHis humanity.\n\nNow sacramental grace seems to be ordained principally to two things:\nnamely, to take away the defects consequent on past sins, in so far\nas they are transitory in act, but endure in guilt; and, further, to\nperfect the soul in things pertaining to Divine Worship in regard to\nthe Christian Religion. But it is manifest from what has been stated\nabove (Q. 48, AA. 1, 2, 6; Q. 49, AA. 1, 3) that Christ delivered us\nfrom our sins principally through His Passion, not only by way of\nefficiency and merit, but also by way of satisfaction. Likewise by\nHis Passion He inaugurated the Rites of the Christian Religion by\noffering \"Himself--an oblation and a sacrifice to God\" (Eph. 5:2).\nWherefore it is manifest that the sacraments of the Church derive\ntheir power specially from Christ's Passion, the virtue of which is\nin a manner united to us by our receiving the sacraments. It was in\nsign of this that from the side of Christ hanging on the Cross there\nflowed water and blood, the former of which belongs to Baptism, the\nlatter to the Eucharist, which are the principal sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Word, forasmuch as He was in the beginning with\nGod, quickens souls as principal agent; but His flesh, and the\nmysteries accomplished therein, are as instrumental causes in the\nprocess of giving life to the soul: while in giving life to the body\nthey act not only as instrumental causes, but also to a certain\nextent as exemplars, as we stated above (Q. 56, A. 1, ad 3).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ dwells in us \"by faith\" (Eph. 3:17).\nConsequently, by faith Christ's power is united to us. Now the power\nof blotting out sin belongs in a special way to His Passion. And\ntherefore men are delivered from sin especially by faith in His\nPassion, according to Rom. 3:25: \"Whom God hath proposed to be a\npropitiation through faith in His Blood.\" Therefore the power of the\nsacraments which is ordained unto the remission of sins is derived\nprincipally from faith in Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Justification is ascribed to the Resurrection by reason\nof the term \"whither,\" which is newness of life through grace. But it\nis ascribed to the Passion by reason of the term \"whence,\" i.e. in\nregard to the forgiveness of sin.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 62, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Sacraments of the Old Law Caused Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacraments of the Old Law caused\ngrace. For, as stated above (A. 5, ad 2) the sacraments of the New\nLaw derive their efficacy from faith in Christ's Passion. But there\nwas faith in Christ's Passion under the Old Law, as well as under the\nNew, since we have \"the same spirit of faith\" (2 Cor. 4:13).\nTherefore just as the sacraments of the New Law confer grace, so did\nthe sacraments of the Old Law.\n\nObj. 2: Further, there is no sanctification save by grace. But men\nwere sanctified by the sacraments of the Old Law: for it is written\n(Lev. 8:31): \"And when he,\" i.e. Moses, \"had sanctified them,\" i.e.\nAaron and his sons, \"in their vestments,\" etc. Therefore it seems\nthat the sacraments of the Old Law conferred grace.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Bede says in a homily on the Circumcision: \"Under\nthe Law circumcision provided the same health-giving balm against the\nwound of original sin, as baptism in the time of revealed grace.\" But\nBaptism confers grace now. Therefore circumcision conferred grace;\nand in like manner, the other sacraments of the Law; for just as\nBaptism is the door of the sacraments of the New Law, so was\ncircumcision the door of the sacraments of the Old Law: hence the\nApostle says (Gal. 5:3): \"I testify to every man circumcising\nhimself, that he is a debtor to the whole law.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Gal. 4:9): \"Turn you again to the\nweak and needy elements?\" i.e. \"to the Law,\" says the gloss, \"which\nis called weak, because it does not justify perfectly.\" But grace\njustifies perfectly. Therefore the sacraments of the old Law did not\nconfer grace.\n\n_I answer that,_ It cannot be said that the sacraments of the Old Law\nconferred sanctifying grace of themselves, i.e. by their own power:\nsince thus Christ's Passion would not have been necessary, according\nto Gal. 2:21: \"If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain.\"\n\nBut neither can it be said that they derived the power of conferring\nsanctifying grace from Christ's Passion. For as it was stated above\n(A. 5), the power of Christ's Passion is united to us by faith and\nthe sacraments, but in different ways; because the link that comes\nfrom faith is produced by an act of the soul; whereas the link that\ncomes from the sacraments, is produced by making use of exterior\nthings. Now nothing hinders that which is subsequent in point of\ntime, from causing movement, even before it exists in reality, in so\nfar as it pre-exists in an act of the soul: thus the end, which is\nsubsequent in point of time, moves the agent in so far as it is\napprehended and desired by him. On the other hand, what does not yet\nactually exist, does not cause movement if we consider the use of\nexterior things. Consequently, the efficient cause cannot in point of\ntime come into existence after causing movement, as does the final\ncause. It is therefore clear that the sacraments of the New Law do\nreasonably derive the power of justification from Christ's Passion,\nwhich is the cause of man's righteousness; whereas the sacraments of\nthe Old Law did not.\n\nNevertheless the Fathers of old were justified by faith in Christ's\nPassion, just as we are. And the sacraments of the old Law were a\nkind of protestation of that faith, inasmuch as they signified\nChrist's Passion and its effects. It is therefore manifest that the\nsacraments of the Old Law were not endowed with any power by which\nthey conduced to the bestowal of justifying grace: and they merely\nsignified faith by which men were justified.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Fathers of old had faith in the future Passion of\nChrist, which, inasmuch as it was apprehended by the mind, was able\nto justify them. But we have faith in the past Passion of Christ,\nwhich is able to justify, also by the real use of sacramental things\nas stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: That sanctification was but a figure: for they were\nsaid to be sanctified forasmuch as they gave themselves up to the\nDivine worship according to the rite of the Old Law, which was wholly\nordained to the foreshadowing of Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 3: There have been many opinions about Circumcision. For,\naccording to some, Circumcision conferred no grace, but only remitted\nsin. But this is impossible; because man is not justified from sin\nsave by grace, according to Rom. 3:24: \"Being justified freely by His\ngrace.\"\n\nWherefore others said that by Circumcision grace is conferred, as to\nthe privative effects of sin, but not as to its positive effects. But\nthis also appears to be false, because by Circumcision, children\nreceived the faculty of obtaining glory, which is the ultimate\npositive effect of grace. Moreover, as regards the order of the\nformal cause, positive effects are naturally prior to privative\neffects, though according to the order of the material cause, the\nreverse is the case: for a form does not exclude privation save by\ninforming the subject.\n\nHence others say that Circumcision conferred grace also as regards a\ncertain positive effect, i.e. by making man worthy of eternal life,\nbut not so as to repress concupiscence which makes man prone to sin.\nAnd so at one time it seemed to me. But if the matter be considered\ncarefully, this too appears to be untrue; because the very least\ngrace is sufficient to resist any degree of concupiscence, and to\nmerit eternal life.\n\nAnd therefore it seems better to say that Circumcision was a sign of\njustifying faith: wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 4:11) that Abraham\n\"received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of faith.\"\nConsequently grace was conferred in Circumcision in so far as it was\na sign of Christ's future Passion, as will be made clear further on\n(Q. 70, A. 4).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 63\n\nOF THE OTHER EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS, WHICH IS A CHARACTER\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the other effect of the sacraments, which is\na character: and concerning this there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether by the sacraments a character is produced in the soul?\n\n(2) What is this character?\n\n(3) Of whom is this character?\n\n(4) What is its subject?\n\n(5) Is it indelible?\n\n(6) Whether every sacrament imprints a character?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 1]\n\nWhether a Sacrament Imprints a Character on the Soul?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a sacrament does not imprint a character\non the soul. For the word \"character\" seems to signify some kind of\ndistinctive sign. But Christ's members are distinguished from others\nby eternal predestination, which does not imply anything in the\npredestined, but only in God predestinating, as we have stated in the\nFirst Part (Q. 23, A. 2). For it is written (2 Tim. 2:19): \"The sure\nfoundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: The Lord knoweth\nwho are His.\" Therefore the sacraments do not imprint a character on\nthe soul.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a character is a distinctive sign. Now a sign, as\nAugustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii) \"is that which conveys\nsomething else to the mind, besides the species which it impresses on\nthe senses.\" But nothing in the soul can impress a species on the\nsenses. Therefore it seems that no character is imprinted on the soul\nby the sacraments.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as the believer is distinguished from the\nunbeliever by the sacraments of the New Law, so was it under the Old\nLaw. But the sacraments of the Old Law did not imprint a character;\nwhence they are called \"justices of the flesh\" (Heb. 9:10) by the\nApostle. Therefore neither seemingly do the sacraments of the New Law.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (2 Cor. 1:21, 22): \"He . . . that\nhath anointed us is God; Who also hath sealed us, and given the\npledge of the spirit in our hearts.\" But a character means nothing\nelse than a kind of sealing. Therefore it seems that by the\nsacraments God imprints His character on us.\n\n_I answer that,_ As is clear from what has been already stated (Q.\n62, A. 5) the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for a twofold\npurpose; namely, for a remedy against sins; and for the perfecting of\nthe soul in things pertaining to the Divine worship according to the\nrite of the Christian life. Now whenever anyone is deputed to some\ndefinite purpose he is wont to receive some outward sign thereof;\nthus in olden times soldiers who enlisted in the ranks used to be\nmarked with certain characters on the body, through being deputed to\na bodily service. Since, therefore, by the sacraments men are deputed\nto a spiritual service pertaining to the worship of God, it follows\nthat by their means the faithful receive a certain spiritual\ncharacter. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): \"If a\ndeserter from the battle, through dread of the mark of enlistment on\nhis body, throws himself on the emperor's clemency, and having\nbesought and received mercy, return to the fight; is that character\nrenewed, when the man has been set free and reprimanded? is it not\nrather acknowledged and approved? Are the Christian sacraments, by\nany chance, of a nature less lasting than this bodily mark?\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The faithful of Christ are destined to the reward of\nthe glory that is to come, by the seal of Divine Predestination. But\nthey are deputed to acts becoming the Church that is now, by a\ncertain spiritual seal that is set on them, and is called a character.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The character imprinted on the soul is a kind of sign\nin so far as it is imprinted by a sensible sacrament: since we know\nthat a certain one has received the baptismal character, through his\nbeing cleansed by the sensible water. Nevertheless from a kind of\nlikeness, anything that assimilates one thing to another, or\ndiscriminates one thing from another, even though it be not sensible,\ncan be called a character or a seal; thus the Apostle calls Christ\n\"the figure\" or _charakter_ \"of the substance of the Father\" (Heb.\n1:3).\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 62, A. 6) the sacraments of the Old\nLaw had not in themselves any spiritual power of producing a\nspiritual effect. Consequently in those sacraments there was no need\nof a spiritual character, and bodily circumcision sufficed, which the\nApostle calls \"a seal\" (Rom. 4:11).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 2]\n\nWhether a Character Is a Spiritual Power?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a character is not a spiritual power. For\n\"character\" seems to be the same thing as \"figure\"; hence (Heb. 1:3),\nwhere we read \"figure of His substance,\" for \"figure\" the Greek has\n_charakter_. Now \"figure\" is in the fourth species of quality, and\nthus differs from power which is in the second species. Therefore\ncharacter is not a spiritual power.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii): \"The Divine\nBeatitude admits him that seeks happiness to a share in Itself, and\ngrants this share to him by conferring on him Its light as a kind of\nseal.\" Consequently, it seems that a character is a kind of light.\nNow light belongs rather to the third species of quality. Therefore a\ncharacter is not a power, since this seems to belong to the second\nspecies.\n\nObj. 3: Further, character is defined by some thus: \"A character is a\nholy sign of the communion of faith and of the holy ordination\nconferred by a hierarch.\" Now a sign is in the genus of _relation,_\nnot of _power._ Therefore a character is not a spiritual power.\n\nObj. 4: Further, a power is in the nature of a cause and principle\n(Metaph. v). But a _sign_ which is set down in the definition of a\ncharacter is rather in the nature of an effect. Therefore a character\nis not a spiritual power.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii): \"There are three\nthings in the soul, power, habit, and passion.\" Now a character is\nnot a passion: since a passion passes quickly, whereas a character is\nindelible, as will be made clear further on (A. 5). In like manner it\nis not a habit: because no habit is indifferent to acting well or\nill: whereas a character is indifferent to either, since some use it\nwell, some ill. Now this cannot occur with a habit: because no one\nabuses a habit of virtue, or uses well an evil habit. It remains,\ntherefore, that a character is a power.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the sacraments of the New\nLaw produce a character, in so far as by them we are deputed to the\nworship of God according to the rite of the Christian religion.\nWherefore Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii), after saying that God \"by a\nkind of sign grants a share of Himself to those that approach Him,\"\nadds \"by making them Godlike and communicators of Divine gifts.\" Now\nthe worship of God consists either in receiving Divine gifts, or in\nbestowing them on others. And for both these purposes some power is\nneeded; for to bestow something on others, active power is necessary;\nand in order to receive, we need a passive power. Consequently, a\ncharacter signifies a certain spiritual power ordained unto things\npertaining to the Divine worship.\n\nBut it must be observed that this spiritual power is instrumental: as\nwe have stated above (Q. 62, A. 4) of the virtue which is in the\nsacraments. For to have a sacramental character belongs to God's\nministers: and a minister is a kind of instrument, as the Philosopher\nsays (Polit. i). Consequently, just as the virtue which is in the\nsacraments is not of itself in a genus, but is reducible to a genus,\nfor the reason that it is of a transitory and incomplete nature: so\nalso a character is not properly in a genus or species, but is\nreducible to the second species of quality.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Configuration is a certain boundary of quantity.\nWherefore, properly speaking, it is only in corporeal things; and of\nspiritual things is said metaphorically. Now that which decides the\ngenus or species of a thing must needs be predicated of it properly.\nConsequently, a character cannot be in the fourth species of quality,\nalthough some have held this to be the case.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The third species of quality contains only sensible\npassions or sensible qualities. Now a character is not a sensible\nlight. Consequently, it is not in the third species of quality as\nsome have maintained.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The relation signified by the word \"sign\" must needs\nhave some foundation. Now the relation signified by this sign which\nis a character, cannot be founded immediately on the essence of the\nsoul: because then it would belong to every soul naturally.\nConsequently, there must be something in the soul on which such a\nrelation is founded. And it is in this that a character essentially\nconsists. Therefore it need not be in the genus \"relation\" as some\nhave held.\n\nReply Obj. 4: A character is in the nature of a sign in comparison to\nthe sensible sacrament by which it is imprinted. But considered in\nitself, it is in the nature of a principle, in the way already\nexplained.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Sacramental Character Is the Character of Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacramental character is not the\ncharacter of Christ. For it is written (Eph. 4:30): \"Grieve not the\nHoly Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed.\" But a character consists\nessentially in something that seals. Therefore the sacramental\ncharacter should be attributed to the Holy Ghost rather than to\nChrist.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a character has the nature of a sign. And it is a\nsign of the grace that is conferred by the sacrament. Now grace is\npoured forth into the soul by the whole Trinity; wherefore it is\nwritten (Ps. 83:12): \"The Lord will give grace and glory.\" Therefore\nit seems that the sacramental character should not be attributed\nspecially to Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a man is marked with a character that he may be\ndistinguishable from others. But the saints are distinguishable from\nothers by charity, which, as Augustine says (De Trin. xv), \"alone\nseparates the children of the Kingdom from the children of\nperdition\": wherefore also the children of perdition are said to have\n\"the character of the beast\" (Apoc. 13:16, 17). But charity is not\nattributed to Christ, but rather to the Holy Ghost according to Rom.\n5:5: \"The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy\nGhost, Who is given to us\"; or even to the Father, according to 2\nCor. 13:13: \"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of\nGod.\" Therefore it seems that the sacramental character should not be\nattributed to Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Some define character thus: \"A character is a\ndistinctive mark printed in a man's rational soul by the eternal\nCharacter, whereby the created trinity is sealed with the likeness of\nthe creating and re-creating Trinity, and distinguishing him from\nthose who are not so enlikened, according to the state of faith.\" But\nthe eternal Character is Christ Himself, according to Heb. 1:3: \"Who\nbeing the brightness of His glory and the figure,\" or character, \"of\nHis substance.\" It seems, therefore, that the character should\nproperly be attributed to Christ.\n\n_I answer that,_ As has been made clear above (A. 1), a character is\nproperly a kind of seal, whereby something is marked, as being\nordained to some particular end: thus a coin is marked for use in\nexchange of goods, and soldiers are marked with a character as being\ndeputed to military service. Now the faithful are deputed to a\ntwofold end. First and principally to the enjoyment of glory. And for\nthis purpose they are marked with the seal of grace according to\nEzech. 9:4: \"Mark Thou upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and\nmourn\"; and Apoc. 7:3: \"Hurt not the earth, nor the sea, nor the\ntrees, till we sign the servants of our God in their foreheads.\"\n\nSecondly, each of the faithful is deputed to receive, or to bestow on\nothers, things pertaining to the worship of God. And this, properly\nspeaking, is the purpose of the sacramental character. Now the whole\nrite of the Christian religion is derived from Christ's priesthood.\nConsequently, it is clear that the sacramental character is specially\nthe character of Christ, to Whose character the faithful are likened\nby reason of the sacramental characters, which are nothing else than\ncertain participations of Christ's Priesthood, flowing from Christ\nHimself.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Apostle speaks there of that sealing by which a man\nis assigned to future glory, and which is effected by grace. Now\ngrace is attributed to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as it is through love\nthat God gives us something gratis, which is the very nature of\ngrace: while the Holy Ghost is love. Wherefore it is written (1 Cor.\n12:4): \"There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The sacramental character is a thing as regards the\nexterior sacrament, and a sacrament in regard to the ultimate effect.\nConsequently, something can be attributed to a character in two ways.\nFirst, if the character be considered as a sacrament: and thus it is\na sign of the invisible grace which is conferred in the sacrament.\nSecondly, if it be considered as a character. And thus it is a sign\nconferring on a man a likeness to some principal person in whom is\nvested the authority over that to which he is assigned: thus soldiers\nwho are assigned to military service, are marked with their leader's\nsign, by which they are, in a fashion, likened to him. And in this\nway those who are deputed to the Christian worship, of which Christ\nis the author, receive a character by which they are likened to\nChrist. Consequently, properly speaking, this is Christ's character.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A character distinguishes one from another, in relation\nto some particular end, to which he, who receives the character is\nordained: as has been stated concerning the military character (A. 1)\nby which a soldier of the king is distinguished from the enemy's\nsoldier in relation to the battle. In like manner the character of\nthe faithful is that by which the faithful of Christ are\ndistinguished from the servants of the devil, either in relation to\neternal life, or in relation to the worship of the Church that now\nis. Of these the former is the result of charity and grace, as the\nobjection runs; while the latter results from the sacramental\ncharacter. Wherefore the \"character of the beast\" may be understood\nby opposition, to mean either the obstinate malice for which some are\nassigned to eternal punishment, or the profession of an unlawful form\nof worship.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Character Be Subjected in the Powers of the Soul?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the character is not subjected in the\npowers of the soul. For a character is said to be a disposition to\ngrace. But grace is subjected in the essence of the soul as we have\nstated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 110, A. 4). Therefore it seems\nthat the character is in the essence of the soul and not in the\npowers.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a power of the soul does not seem to be the subject\nof anything save habit and disposition. But a character, as stated\nabove (A. 2), is neither habit nor disposition, but rather a power:\nthe subject of which is nothing else than the essence of the soul.\nTherefore it seems that the character is not subjected in a power of\nthe soul, but rather in its essence.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the powers of the soul are divided into those of\nknowledge and those of appetite. But it cannot be said that a\ncharacter is only in a cognitive power, nor, again, only in an\nappetitive power: since it is neither ordained to knowledge only, nor\nto desire only. Likewise, neither can it be said to be in both,\nbecause the same accident cannot be in several subjects. Therefore it\nseems that a character is not subjected in a power of the soul, but\nrather in the essence.\n\n_On the contrary,_ A character, according to its definition given\nabove (A. 3), is imprinted in the rational soul \"by way of an image.\"\nBut the image of the Trinity in the soul is seen in the powers.\nTherefore a character is in the powers of the soul.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), a character is a kind of\nseal by which the soul is marked, so that it may receive, or bestow\non others, things pertaining to Divine worship. Now the Divine\nworship consists in certain actions: and the powers of the soul are\nproperly ordained to actions, just as the essence is ordained to\nexistence. Therefore a character is subjected not in the essence of\nthe soul, but in its power.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The subject is ascribed to an accident in respect of\nthat to which the accident disposes it proximately, but not in\nrespect of that to which it disposes it remotely or indirectly. Now a\ncharacter disposes the soul directly and proximately to the\nfulfilling of things pertaining to Divine worship: and because such\ncannot be accomplished suitably without the help of grace, since,\naccording to John 4:24, \"they that adore\" God \"must adore Him in\nspirit and in truth,\" consequently, the Divine bounty bestows grace\non those who receive the character, so that they may accomplish\nworthily the service to which they are deputed. Therefore the subject\nshould be ascribed to a character in respect of those actions that\npertain to the Divine worship, rather than in respect of grace.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The essence of the soul is the subject of the natural\npower, which flows from the principles of the essence. Now a\ncharacter is not a power of this kind, but a spiritual power coming\nfrom without. Wherefore, just as the essence of the soul, from which\nman has his natural life, is perfected by grace from which the soul\nderives spiritual life; so the natural power of the soul is perfected\nby a spiritual power, which is a character. For habit and disposition\nbelong to a power of the soul, since they are ordained to actions of\nwhich the powers are the principles. And in like manner whatever is\nordained to action, should be attributed to a power.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above, a character is ordained unto things\npertaining to the Divine worship; which is a protestation of faith\nexpressed by exterior signs. Consequently, a character needs to be in\nthe soul's cognitive power, where also is faith.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 5]\n\nWhether a Character Can Be Blotted Out from the Soul?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a character can be blotted out from the\nsoul. Because the more perfect an accident is, the more firmly does\nit adhere to its subject. But grace is more perfect than a character;\nbecause a character is ordained unto grace as to a further end. Now\ngrace is lost through sin. Much more, therefore, is a character so\nlost.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by a character a man is deputed to the Divine\nworship, as stated above (AA. 3, 4). But some pass from the worship\nof God to a contrary worship by apostasy from the faith. It seems,\ntherefore, that such lose the sacramental character.\n\nObj. 3: Further, when the end ceases, the means to the end should\ncease also: thus after the resurrection there will be no marriage,\nbecause begetting will cease, which is the purpose of marriage. Now\nthe exterior worship to which a character is ordained, will not\nendure in heaven, where there will be no shadows, but all will be\ntruth without a veil. Therefore the sacramental character does not\nlast in the soul for ever: and consequently it can be blotted out.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): \"The Christian\nsacraments are not less lasting than the bodily mark\" of military\nservice. But the character of military service is not repeated, but\nis \"recognized and approved\" in the man who obtains the emperor's\nforgiveness after offending him. Therefore neither can the\nsacramental character be blotted out.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), in a sacramental character\nChrist's faithful have a share in His Priesthood; in the sense that\nas Christ has the full power of a spiritual priesthood, so His\nfaithful are likened to Him by sharing a certain spiritual power with\nregard to the sacraments and to things pertaining to the Divine\nworship. For this reason it is unbecoming that Christ should have a\ncharacter: but His Priesthood is compared to a character, as that\nwhich is complete and perfect is compared to some participation of\nitself. Now Christ's Priesthood is eternal, according to Ps. 109:4:\n\"Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech.\"\nConsequently, every sanctification wrought by His Priesthood, is\nperpetual, enduring as long as the thing sanctified endures. This is\nclear even in inanimate things; for the consecration of a church or\nan altar lasts for ever unless they be destroyed. Since, therefore,\nthe subject of a character is the soul as to its intellective part,\nwhere faith resides, as stated above (A. 4, ad 3); it is clear that,\nthe intellect being perpetual and incorruptible, a character cannot\nbe blotted out from the soul.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Both grace and character are in the soul, but in\ndifferent ways. For grace is in the soul, as a form having complete\nexistence therein: whereas a character is in the soul, as an\ninstrumental power, as stated above (A. 2). Now a complete form is in\nits subject according to the condition of the subject. And since the\nsoul as long as it is a wayfarer is changeable in respect of the\nfree-will, it results that grace is in the soul in a changeable\nmanner. But an instrumental power follows rather the condition of the\nprincipal agent: and consequently a character exists in the soul in\nan indelible manner, not from any perfection of its own, but from the\nperfection of Christ's Priesthood, from which the character flows\nlike an instrumental power.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), \"even apostates\nare not deprived of their baptism, for when they repent and return to\nthe fold they do not receive it again; whence we conclude that it\ncannot be lost.\" The reason of this is that a character is an\ninstrumental power, as stated above (ad 1), and the nature of an\ninstrument as such is to be moved by another, but not to move itself;\nthis belongs to the will. Consequently, however much the will be\nmoved in the contrary direction, the character is not removed, by\nreason of the immobility of the principal mover.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although external worship does not last after this\nlife, yet its end remains. Consequently, after this life the\ncharacter remains, both in the good as adding to their glory, and in\nthe wicked as increasing their shame: just as the character of the\nmilitary service remains in the soldiers after the victory, as the\nboast of the conquerors, and the disgrace of the conquered.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 63, Art. 6]\n\nWhether a Character Is Imprinted by Each Sacrament of the New Law?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a character is imprinted by all the\nsacraments of the New Law: because each sacrament of the New Law\nmakes man a participator in Christ's Priesthood. But the sacramental\ncharacter is nothing but a participation in Christ's Priesthood, as\nalready stated (AA. 3, 5). Therefore it seems that a character is\nimprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a character may be compared to the soul in which it\nis, as a consecration to that which is consecrated. But by each\nsacrament of the New Law man becomes the recipient of sanctifying\ngrace, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 1). Therefore it seems that a\ncharacter is imprinted by each sacrament of the New Law.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a character is both a reality and a sacrament. But\nin each sacrament of the New Law, there is something which is only a\nreality, and something which is only a sacrament, and something which\nis both reality and sacrament. Therefore a character is imprinted by\neach sacrament of the New Law.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Those sacraments in which a character is\nimprinted, are not reiterated, because a character is indelible, as\nstated above (A. 5): whereas some sacraments are reiterated, for\ninstance, penance and matrimony. Therefore not all the sacraments\nimprint a character.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 62, AA. 1, 5), the sacraments of\nthe New Law are ordained for a twofold purpose, namely, as a remedy\nfor sin, and for the Divine worship. Now all the sacraments, from the\nfact that they confer grace, have this in common, that they afford a\nremedy against sin: whereas not all the sacraments are directly\nordained to the Divine worship. Thus it is clear that penance,\nwhereby man is delivered from sin, does not afford man any advance in\nthe Divine worship, but restores him to his former state.\n\nNow a sacrament may belong to the Divine worship in three ways: first\nin regard to the thing done; secondly, in regard to the agent;\nthirdly, in regard to the recipient. In regard to the thing done, the\nEucharist belongs to the Divine worship, for the Divine worship\nconsists principally therein, so far as it is the sacrifice of the\nChurch. And by this same sacrament a character is not imprinted on\nman; because it does not ordain man to any further sacramental action\nor benefit received, since rather is it \"the end and consummation of\nall the sacraments,\" as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). But it\ncontains within itself Christ, in Whom there is not the character,\nbut the very plenitude of the Priesthood.\n\nBut it is the sacrament of order that pertains to the sacramental\nagents: for it is by this sacrament that men are deputed to confer\nsacraments on others: while the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the\nrecipients, since it confers on man the power to receive the other\nsacraments of the Church; whence it is called the \"door of the\nsacraments.\" In a way Confirmation also is ordained for the same\npurpose, as we shall explain in its proper place (Q. 65, A. 3).\nConsequently, these three sacraments imprint a character, namely,\nBaptism, Confirmation, and order.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Every sacrament makes man a participator in Christ's\nPriesthood, from the fact that it confers on him some effect thereof.\nBut every sacrament does not depute a man to do or receive something\npertaining to the worship of the priesthood of Christ: while it is\njust this that is required for a sacrament to imprint a character.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Man is sanctified by each of the sacraments, since\nsanctity means immunity from sin, which is the effect of grace. But\nin a special way some sacraments, which imprint a character, bestow\non man a certain consecration, thus deputing him to the Divine\nworship: just as inanimate things are said to be consecrated\nforasmuch as they are deputed to Divine worship.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although a character is a reality and a sacrament, it\ndoes not follow that whatever is a reality and a sacrament, is also a\ncharacter. With regard to the other sacraments we shall explain\nfurther on what is the reality and what is the sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 64\n\nOF THE CAUSES OF THE SACRAMENTS\n(In Ten Articles)\n\nIn the next place we have to consider the causes of the sacraments,\nboth as to authorship and as to ministration. Concerning which there\nare ten points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether God alone works inwardly in the sacraments?\n\n(2) Whether the institution of the sacraments is from God alone?\n\n(3) Of the power which Christ exercised over the sacraments;\n\n(4) Whether He could transmit that power to others?\n\n(5) Whether the wicked can have the power of administering the\nsacraments?\n\n(6) Whether the wicked sin in administering the sacraments?\n\n(7) Whether the angels can be ministers of the sacraments?\n\n(8) Whether the minister's intention is necessary in the sacraments?\n\n(9) Whether right faith is required therein; so that it be impossible\nfor an unbeliever to confer a sacrament?\n\n(10) Whether a right intention is required therein?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 1]\n\nWhether God Alone, or the Minister Also, Works Inwardly Unto the\nSacramental Effect?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that not God alone, but also the minister,\nworks inwardly unto the sacramental effect. For the inward\nsacramental effect is to cleanse man from sin and enlighten him by\ngrace. But it belongs to the ministers of the Church \"to cleanse,\nenlighten and perfect,\" as Dionysius explains (Coel. Hier. v).\nTherefore it seems that the sacramental effect is the work not only\nof God, but also of the ministers of the Church.\n\nObj. 2: Further, certain prayers are offered up in conferring the\nsacraments. But the prayers of the righteous are more acceptable to\nGod than those of any other, according to John 9:31: \"If a man be a\nserver of God, and doth His will, him He heareth.\" Therefore it stems\nthat a man obtains a greater sacramental effect if he receive it from\na good minister. Consequently, the interior effect is partly the work\nof the minister and not of God alone.\n\nObj. 3: Further, man is of greater account than an inanimate thing.\nBut an inanimate thing contributes something to the interior effect:\nsince \"water touches the body and cleanses the soul,\" as Augustine\nsays (Tract. lxxx in Joan.). Therefore the interior sacramental\neffect is partly the work of man and not of God alone.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 8:33): \"God that justifieth.\"\nSince, then, the inward effect of all the sacraments is\njustification, it seems that God alone works the interior sacramental\neffect.\n\n_I answer that,_ There are two ways of producing an effect; first, as\na principal agent; secondly, as an instrument. In the former way the\ninterior sacramental effect is the work of God alone: first, because\nGod alone can enter the soul wherein the sacramental effect takes\nplace; and no agent can operate immediately where it is not:\nsecondly, because grace which is an interior sacramental effect is\nfrom God alone, as we have established in the Second Part (I-II, Q.\n112, A. 1); while the character which is the interior effect of\ncertain sacraments, is an instrumental power which flows from the\nprincipal agent, which is God. In the second way, however, the\ninterior sacramental effect can be the work of man, in so far as he\nworks as a minister. For a minister is of the nature of an\ninstrument, since the action of both is applied to something\nextrinsic, while the interior effect is produced through the power of\nthe principal agent, which is God.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Cleansing in so far as it is attributed to the\nministers of the Church is not a washing from sin: deacons are said\nto \"cleanse,\" inasmuch as they remove the unclean from the body of\nthe faithful, or prepare them by their pious admonitions for the\nreception of the sacraments. In like manner also priests are said to\n\"enlighten\" God's people, not indeed by giving them grace, but by\nconferring on them the sacraments of grace; as Dionysius explains\n(Coel. Hier. v).\n\nReply Obj. 2: The prayers which are said in giving the sacraments,\nare offered to God, not on the part of the individual, but on the\npart of the whole Church, whose prayers are acceptable to God,\naccording to Matt. 18:19: \"If two of you shall consent upon earth,\nconcerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to\nthem by My Father.\" Nor is there any reason why the devotion of a\njust man should not contribute to this effect. But that which is the\nsacramental effect is not impetrated by the prayer of the Church or\nof the minister, but through the merit of Christ's Passion, the power\nof which operates in the sacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5).\nWherefore the sacramental effect is made no better by a better\nminister. And yet something in addition may be impetrated for the\nreceiver of the sacrament through the devotion of the minister: but\nthis is not the work of the minister, but the work of God Who hears\nthe minister's prayer.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Inanimate things do not produce the sacramental effect,\nexcept instrumentally, as stated above. In like manner neither do men\nproduce the sacramental effect, except ministerially, as also stated\nabove.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Sacraments Are Instituted by God Alone?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacraments are not instituted by God\nalone. For those things which God has instituted are delivered to us\nin Holy Scripture. But in the sacraments certain things are done\nwhich are nowhere mentioned in Holy Scripture; for instance, the\nchrism with which men are confirmed, the oil with which priests are\nanointed, and many others, both words and actions, which we employ in\nthe sacraments. Therefore the sacraments were not instituted by God\nalone.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a sacrament is a kind of sign. Now sensible things\nhave their own natural signification. Nor can it be said that God\ntakes pleasure in certain significations and not in others; because\nHe approves of all that He made. Moreover, it seems to be peculiar to\nthe demons to be enticed to something by means of signs; for\nAugustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi): \"The demons are enticed . . . by\nmeans of creatures, which were created not by them but by God, by\nvarious means of attraction according to their various natures, not\nas an animal is enticed by food, but as a spirit is drawn by a sign.\"\nIt seems, therefore, that there is no need for the sacraments to be\ninstituted by God.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the apostles were God's vicegerents on earth: hence\nthe Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:10): \"For what I have pardoned, if I have\npardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of\nChrist,\" i.e. as though Christ Himself had pardoned. Therefore it\nseems that the apostles and their successors can institute new\nsacraments.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The institutor of anything is he who gives it\nstrength and power: as in the case of those who institute laws. But\nthe power of a sacrament is from God alone, as we have shown above\n(A. 1; Q. 62, A. 1). Therefore God alone can institute a sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ As appears from what has been said above (A. 1; Q.\n62, A. 1), the sacraments are instrumental causes of spiritual\neffects. Now an instrument has its power from the principal agent.\nBut an agent in respect of a sacrament is twofold; viz. he who\ninstitutes the sacraments, and he who makes use of the sacrament\ninstituted, by applying it for the production of the effect. Now the\npower of a sacrament cannot be from him who makes use of the\nsacrament: because he works but as a minister. Consequently, it\nfollows that the power of the sacrament is from the institutor of the\nsacrament. Since, therefore, the power of the sacrament is from God\nalone, it follows that God alone can institute the sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Human institutions observed in the sacraments are not\nessential to the sacrament; but belong to the solemnity which is\nadded to the sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in\nthe recipients. But those things that are essential to the sacrament,\nare instituted by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they\nare not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them\nfrom the intimate tradition of the apostles, according to the saying\nof the Apostle (1 Cor. 11:34): \"The rest I will set in order when I\ncome.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: From their very nature sensible things have a certain\naptitude for the signifying of spiritual effects: but this aptitude\nis fixed by the Divine institution to some special signification.\nThis is what Hugh of St. Victor means by saying (De Sacram. i) that\n\"a sacrament owes its signification to its institution.\" Yet God\nchooses certain things rather than others for sacramental\nsignification, not as though His choice were restricted to them, but\nin order that their signification be more suitable to them.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The apostles and their successors are God's vicars in\ngoverning the Church which is built on faith and the sacraments of\nfaith. Wherefore, just as they may not institute another Church, so\nneither may they deliver another faith, nor institute other\nsacraments: on the contrary, the Church is said to be built up with\nthe sacraments \"which flowed from the side of Christ while hanging on\nthe Cross.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ As Man Had the Power of Producing the Inward\nSacramental Effect?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ as man had the power of producing\nthe interior sacramental effect. For John the Baptist said (John\n1:33): \"He, Who sent me to baptize in water, said to me: He upon Whom\nthou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is\nthat baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.\" But to baptize with the Holy\nGhost is to confer inwardly the grace of the Holy Ghost. And the Holy\nGhost descended upon Christ as man, not as God: for thus He Himself\ngives the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ, as man, had the\npower of producing the inward sacramental effect.\n\nObj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 9:6): \"That you may know that\nthe Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.\" But forgiveness\nof sins is an inward sacramental effect. Therefore it seems that\nChrist as man produces the inward sacramental effect.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the institution of the sacraments belongs to him who\nacts as principal agent in producing the inward sacramental effect.\nNow it is clear that Christ instituted the sacraments. Therefore it\nis He that produces the inward sacramental effect.\n\nObj. 4: Further, no one can confer the sacramental effect without\nconferring the sacrament, except he produce the sacramental effect by\nhis own power. But Christ conferred the sacramental effect without\nconferring the sacrament; as in the case of Magdalen to whom He said:\n\"Thy sins are forgiven Thee\" (Luke 7:48). Therefore it seems that\nChrist, as man, produces the inward sacramental effect.\n\nObj. 5: Further, the principal agent in causing the inward effect is\nthat in virtue of which the sacrament operates. But the sacraments\nderive their power from Christ's Passion and through the invocation\nof His Name; according to 1 Cor. 1:13: \"Was Paul then crucified for\nyou? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?\" Therefore Christ, as\nman, produces the inward sacramental effect.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Isidore, Etym. vi) says: \"The Divine\npower in the sacraments works inwardly in producing their salutary\neffect.\" Now the Divine power is Christ's as God, not as man.\nTherefore Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, not as man\nbut as God.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ produces the inward sacramental effect, both\nas God and as man, but not in the same way. For, as God, He works in\nthe sacraments by authority: but, as man, His operation conduces to\nthe inward sacramental effects meritoriously and efficiently, but\ninstrumentally. For it has been stated (Q. 48, AA. 1, 6; Q. 49, A. 1)\nthat Christ's Passion which belongs to Him in respect of His human\nnature, is the cause of justification, both meritoriously and\nefficiently, not as the principal cause thereof, or by His own\nauthority, but as an instrument, in so far as His humanity is the\ninstrument of His Godhead, as stated above (Q. 13, AA. 2, 3; Q. 19,\nA. 1).\n\nNevertheless, since it is an instrument united to the Godhead in\nunity of Person, it has a certain headship and efficiency in regard\nto extrinsic instruments, which are the ministers of the Church and\nthe sacraments themselves, as has been explained above (A. 1).\nConsequently, just as Christ, as God, has power of _authority_ over\nthe sacraments, so, as man, He has the power of ministry in chief, or\npower of _excellence._ And this consists in four things. First in\nthis, that the merit and power of His Passion operates in the\nsacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5). And because the power of\nthe Passion is communicated to us by faith, according to Rom. 3:25:\n\"Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His\nblood,\" which faith we proclaim by calling on the name of Christ:\ntherefore, secondly, Christ's power of excellence over the sacraments\nconsists in this, that they are sanctified by the invocation of His\nname. And because the sacraments derive their power from their\ninstitution, hence, thirdly, the excellence of Christ's power\nconsists in this, that He, Who gave them their power, could institute\nthe sacraments. And since cause does not depend on effect, but rather\nconversely, it belongs to the excellence of Christ's power, that He\ncould bestow the sacramental effect without conferring the exterior\nsacrament. Thus it is clear how to solve the objections; for the\narguments on either side are true to a certain extent, as explained\nabove.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Christ Could Communicate to Ministers the Power Which He Had\nin the Sacraments?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ could not communicate to ministers\nthe power which He had in the sacraments. For as Augustine argues\nagainst Maximin, \"if He could, but would not, He was jealous of His\npower.\" But jealousy was far from Christ Who had the fulness of\ncharity. Since, therefore, Christ did not communicate His power to\nministers, it seems that He could not.\n\nObj. 2: Further, on John 14:12: \"Greater than these shall he do,\"\nAugustine says (Tract. lxxii): \"I affirm this to be altogether\ngreater,\" namely, for a man from being ungodly to be made righteous,\n\"than to create heaven and earth.\" But Christ could not communicate\nto His disciples the power of creating heaven and earth: neither,\ntherefore, could He give them the power of making the ungodly to be\nrighteous. Since, therefore, the justification of the ungodly is\neffected by the power that Christ has in the sacraments, it seems\nthat He could not communicate that power to ministers.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it belongs to Christ as Head of the Church that\ngrace should flow from Him to others, according to John 1:16: \"Of His\nfulness we all have received.\" But this could not be communicated to\nothers; since then the Church would be deformed, having many heads.\nTherefore it seems that Christ could not communicate His power to\nministers.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on John 1:31: \"I knew Him not,\" Augustine says\n(Tract. v) that \"he did not know that our Lord having the authority\nof baptizing . . . would keep it to Himself.\" But John would not have\nbeen in ignorance of this, if such a power were incommunicable.\nTherefore Christ could communicate His power to ministers.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), Christ had a twofold power\nin the sacraments. One was the power of _authority,_ which belongs to\nHim as God: and this power He could not communicate to any creature;\njust as neither could He communicate the Divine Essence. The other\nwas the power of _excellence,_ which belongs to Him as man. This\npower He could communicate to ministers; namely, by giving them such\na fulness of grace--that their merits would conduce to the\nsacramental effect--that by the invocation of their names, the\nsacraments would be sanctified--and that they themselves might\ninstitute sacraments, and by their mere will confer the sacramental\neffect without observing the sacramental rite. For a united\ninstrument, the more powerful it is, is all the more able to lend its\npower to the separated instrument; as the hand can to a stick.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It was not through jealousy that Christ refrained from\ncommunicating to ministers His power of excellence, but for the good\nof the faithful; lest they should put their trust in men, and lest\nthere should be various kinds of sacraments, giving rise to division\nin the Church; as may be seen in those who said: \"I am of Paul, I am\nof Apollo, and I of Cephas\" (1 Cor. 1:12).\n\nReply Obj. 2: This objection is true of the power of authority, which\nbelongs to Christ as God. At the same time the power of excellence\ncan be called authority in comparison to other ministers. Whence on 1\nCor. 1:13: \"Is Christ divided?\" the gloss says that \"He could give\npower of authority in baptizing, to those to whom He gave the power\nof administering it.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: It was in order to avoid the incongruity of many heads\nin the Church, that Christ was unwilling to communicate to ministers\nHis power of excellence. If, however, He had done so, He would have\nbeen Head in chief; the others in subjection to Him.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Sacraments Can Be Conferred by Evil Ministers?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacraments cannot be conferred by evil\nministers. For the sacraments of the New Law are ordained for the\npurpose of cleansing from sin and for the bestowal of grace. Now evil\nmen, being themselves unclean, cannot cleanse others from sin,\naccording to Ecclus. 34:4: \"Who [Vulg.: 'What'] can be made clean by\nthe unclean?\" Moreover, since they have not grace, it seems that they\ncannot give grace, for \"no one gives what he has not.\" It seems,\ntherefore, that the sacraments cannot be conferred by wicked men.\n\nObj. 2: Further, all the power of the sacraments is derived from\nChrist, as stated above (A. 3; Q. 62, A. 5). But evil men are cut off\nfrom Christ: because they have not charity, by which the members are\nunited to their Head, according to 1 John 4:16: \"He that abideth in\ncharity, abideth in God, and God in him.\" Therefore it seems that the\nsacraments cannot be conferred by evil men.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if anything is wanting that is required for the\nsacraments, the sacrament is invalid; for instance, if the required\nmatter or form be wanting. But the minister required for a sacrament\nis one who is without the stain of sin, according to Lev. 21:17, 18:\n\"Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he\nshall not offer bread to his God, neither shall he approach to\nminister to Him.\" Therefore it seems that if the minister be wicked,\nthe sacrament has no effect.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says on John 1:33: \"He upon Whom thou\nshalt see the Spirit,\" etc. (Tract. v in Joan.), that \"John did not\nknow that our Lord, having the authority of baptizing, would keep it\nto Himself, but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good\nand evil men . . . What is a bad minister to thee, where the Lord is\ngood?\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), the ministers of the Church\nwork instrumentally in the sacraments, because, in a way, a minister\nis of the nature of an instrument. But, as stated above (Q. 62, AA.\n1, 4), an instrument acts not by reason of its own form, but by the\npower of the one who moves it. Consequently, whatever form or power\nan instrument has in addition to that which it has as an instrument,\nis accidental to it: for instance, that a physician's body, which is\nthe instrument of his soul, wherein is his medical art, be healthy or\nsickly; or that a pipe, through which water passes, be of silver or\nlead. Therefore the ministers of the Church can confer the\nsacraments, though they be wicked.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The ministers of the Church do not by their own power\ncleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, nor do they\nconfer grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power\nwhile He employs them as instruments. Consequently, those who\napproach the sacraments receive an effect whereby they are enlikened\nnot to the ministers but to Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's members are united to their Head by charity,\nso that they may receive life from Him; for as it is written (1 John\n3:14): \"He that loveth not abideth in death.\" Now it is possible for\na man to work with a lifeless instrument, and separated from him as\nto bodily union, provided it be united to him by some sort of motion:\nfor a workman works in one way with his hand, in another with his\naxe. Consequently, it is thus that Christ works in the sacraments,\nboth by wicked men as lifeless instruments, and by good men as living\ninstruments.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A thing is required in a sacrament in two ways. First,\nas being essential to it: and if this be wanting, the sacrament is\ninvalid; for instance, if the due form or matter be wanting.\nSecondly, a thing is required for a sacrament, by reason of a certain\nfitness. And in this way good ministers are required for a sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Wicked Men Sin in Administering the Sacraments?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that wicked men do not sin in administering the\nsacraments. For just as men serve God in the sacraments, so do they\nserve Him in works of charity; whence it is written (Heb. 13:16): \"Do\nnot forget to do good and to impart, for by such sacrifices God's\nfavor is obtained.\" But the wicked do not sin in serving God by works\nof charity: indeed, they should be persuaded to do so, according to\nDan. 4:24: \"Let my counsel be acceptable\" to the king; \"Redeem thou\nthy sins with alms.\" Therefore it seems that wicked men do not sin in\nadministering the sacraments.\n\nObj. 2: Further, whoever co-operates with another in his sin, is also\nguilty of sin, according to Rom. 1:32: \"He is [Vulg.: 'They are']\nworthy of death; not only he that commits the sin, but also he who\nconsents to them that do them.\" But if wicked ministers sin in\nadministering sacraments, those who receive sacraments from them,\nco-operate in their sin. Therefore they would sin also; which seems\nunreasonable.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it seems that no one should act when in doubt, for\nthus man would be driven to despair, as being unable to avoid sin.\nBut if the wicked were to sin in administering sacraments, they would\nbe in a state of perplexity: since sometimes they would sin also if\nthey did not administer sacraments; for instance, when by reason of\ntheir office it is their bounden duty to do so; for it is written (1\nCor. 9:16): \"For a necessity lieth upon me: Woe is unto me if I\npreach not the gospel.\" Sometimes also on account of some danger; for\ninstance, if a child in danger of death be brought to a sinner for\nbaptism. Therefore it seems that the wicked do not sin in\nadministering the sacraments.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. i) that \"it is wrong\nfor the wicked even to touch the symbols,\" i.e. the sacramental\nsigns. And he says in the epistle to Demophilus: \"It seems\npresumptuous for such a man,\" i.e. a sinner, \"to lay hands on\npriestly things; he is neither afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that\nhe is, to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does\nnot see what he sees in himself: he thinks, by false pretenses, to\ncheat Him Whom he calls his Father; he dares to utter, in the person\nof Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them\nprayers, over the Divine symbols.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A sinful action consists in this, that a man \"fails\nto act as he ought to,\" as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. ii). Now\nit has been said (A. 5, ad 3) that it is fitting for the ministers of\nsacraments to be righteous; because ministers should be like unto\ntheir Lord, according to Lev. 19:2: \"Be ye holy, because I . . . am\nholy\"; and Ecclus. 10:2: \"As the judge of the people is himself, so\nalso are his ministers.\" Consequently, there can be no doubt that the\nwicked sin by exercising the ministry of God and the Church, by\nconferring the sacraments. And since this sin pertains to irreverence\ntowards God and the contamination of holy things, as far as the man\nwho sins is concerned, although holy things in themselves cannot be\ncontaminated; it follows that such a sin is mortal in its genus.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Works of charity are not made holy by some process of\nconsecration, but they belong to the holiness of righteousness, as\nbeing in a way parts of righteousness. Consequently, when a man shows\nhimself as a minister of God, by doing works of charity, if he be\nrighteous, he will be made yet holier; but if he be a sinner, he is\nthereby disposed to holiness. On the other hand, the sacraments are\nholy in themselves owing to their mystical consecration. Wherefore\nthe holiness of righteousness is required in the minister, that he\nmay be suitable for his ministry: for which reason he acts\nunbecomingly and sins, if while in a state of sin he attempts to\nfulfil that ministry.\n\nReply Obj. 2: He who approaches a sacrament, receives it from a\nminister of the Church, not because he is such and such a man, but\nbecause he is a minister of the Church. Consequently, as long as the\nlatter is tolerated in the ministry, he that receives a sacrament\nfrom him, does not communicate in his sin, but communicates with the\nChurch from whom he has his ministry. But if the Church, by\ndegrading, excommunicating, or suspending him, does not tolerate him\nin the ministry, he that receives a sacrament from him sins, because\nhe communicates in his sin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A man who is in mortal sin is not perplexed simply, if\nby reason of his office it be his bounden duty to minister\nsacraments; because he can repent of his sin and so minister\nlawfully. But there is nothing unreasonable in his being perplexed,\nif we suppose that he wishes to remain in sin.\n\nHowever, in a case of necessity when even a lay person might baptize,\nhe would not sin in baptizing. For it is clear that then he does not\nexercise the ministry of the Church, but comes to the aid of one who\nis in need of his services. It is not so with the other sacraments,\nwhich are not so necessary as baptism, as we shall show further on\n(Q. 65, AA. 3, 4; Q. 62, A. 3).\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 7]\n\nWhether Angels Can Administer Sacraments?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that angels can administer sacraments. Because\na higher minister can do whatever the lower can; thus a priest can do\nwhatever a deacon can: but not conversely. But angels are higher\nministers in the hierarchical order than any men whatsoever, as\nDionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix). Therefore, since men can be\nministers of sacraments, it seems that much more can angels be.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in heaven holy men are likened to the angels (Matt.\n22:30). But some holy men, when in heaven, can be ministers of the\nsacraments; since the sacramental character is indelible, as stated\nabove (Q. 63, A. 5). Therefore it seems that angels too can be\nministers of sacraments.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as stated above (Q. 8, A. 7), the devil is head of\nthe wicked, and the wicked are his members. But sacraments can be\nadministered by the wicked. Therefore it seems that they can be\nadministered even by demons.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 5:1): \"Every high priest taken\nfrom among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to\nGod.\" But angels whether good or bad are not taken from among men.\nTherefore they are not ordained ministers in the things that\nappertain to God, i.e. in the sacraments.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3; Q. 62, A. 5), the whole power\nof the sacraments flows from Christ's Passion, which belongs to Him\nas man. And Him in their very nature men, not angels, resemble;\nindeed, in respect of His Passion, He is described as being \"a little\nlower than the angels\" (Heb. 2:9). Consequently, it belongs to men,\nbut not to angels, to dispense the sacraments and to take part in\ntheir administration.\n\nBut it must be observed that as God did not bind His power to the\nsacraments, so as to be unable to bestow the sacramental effect\nwithout conferring the sacrament; so neither did He bind His power to\nthe ministers of the Church so as to be unable to give angels power\nto administer the sacraments. And since good angels are messengers of\ntruth; if any sacramental rite were performed by good angels, it\nshould be considered valid, because it ought to be evident that this\nis being done by the will of God: for instance, certain churches are\nsaid to have been consecrated by the ministry of the angels [*See\nActa S.S., September 29]. But if demons, who are \"lying spirits,\"\nwere to perform a sacramental rite, it should be pronounced as\ninvalid.\n\nReply Obj. 1: What men do in a less perfect manner, i.e. by sensible\nsacraments, which are proportionate to their nature, angels also do,\nas ministers of a higher degree, in a more perfect manner, i.e.\ninvisibly--by cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The saints in heaven resemble the angels as to their\nshare of glory, but not as to the conditions of their nature: and\nconsequently not in regard to the sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Wicked men do not owe their power of conferring\nsacraments to their being members of the devil. Consequently, it does\nnot follow that _a fortiori_ the devil, their head, can do so.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 8]\n\nWhether the Minister's Intention Is Required for the Validity of a\nSacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the minister's intention is not required\nfor the validity of a sacrament. For the minister of a sacrament\nworks instrumentally. But the perfection of an action does not depend\non the intention of the instrument, but on that of the principal\nagent. Therefore the minister's intention is not necessary for the\nperfecting of a sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, one man's intention cannot be known to another.\nTherefore if the minister's intention were required for the validity\nof a sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether\nhe has received the sacrament. Consequently he could have no\ncertainty in regard to salvation; the more that some sacraments are\nnecessary for salvation, as we shall state further on (Q. 65, A. 4).\n\nObj. 3: Further, a man's intention cannot bear on that to which he\ndoes not attend. But sometimes ministers of sacraments do not attend\nto what they say or do, through thinking of something else. Therefore\nin this respect the sacrament would be invalid through want of\nintention.\n\n_On the contrary,_ What is unintentional happens by chance. But this\ncannot be said of the sacramental operation. Therefore the sacraments\nrequire the intention of the minister.\n\n_I answer that,_ When a thing is indifferent to many uses, it must\nneeds be determined to one, if that one has to be effected. Now those\nthings which are done in the sacraments, can be done with various\nintent; for instance, washing with water, which is done in baptism,\nmay be ordained to bodily cleanliness, to the health of the body, to\namusement, and many other similar things. Consequently, it needs to\nbe determined to one purpose, i.e. the sacramental effect, by the\nintention of him who washes. And this intention is expressed by the\nwords which are pronounced in the sacraments; for instance the words,\n\"I baptize thee in the name of the Father,\" etc.\n\nReply Obj. 1: An inanimate instrument has no intention regarding the\neffect; but instead of the intention there is the motion whereby it\nis moved by the principal agent. But an animate instrument, such as a\nminister, is not only moved, but in a sense moves itself, in so far\nas by his will he moves his bodily members to act. Consequently, his\nintention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal\nagent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which\nChrist and the Church do.\n\nReply Obj. 2: On this point there are two opinions. For some hold\nthat the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the\nabsence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in\nthe case of children who have not the intention of approaching the\nsacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in\nadults, who have that intention, this defect is made good by their\nfaith and devotion.\n\nThis might be true enough of the ultimate effect, i.e. justification\nfrom sins; but as to that effect which is both real and sacramental,\nviz. the character, it does not appear possible for it to be made\ngood by the devotion of the recipient, since a character is never\nimprinted save by a sacrament.\n\nConsequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a\nsacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he\nis; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is\nexpressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament,\nexcept the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister\nor of the recipient of the sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although he who thinks of something else, has no actual\nintention, yet he has habitual intention, which suffices for the\nvalidity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to\nbaptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church does.\nWherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be\ndistracted by other matters, the sacrament is valid in virtue of his\noriginal intention. Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament should\ntake great care to have actual intention. But this is not entirely in\nman's power, because when a man wishes to be very intent on\nsomething, he begins unintentionally to think of other things,\naccording to Ps. 39:18: \"My heart hath forsaken me.\"\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 9]\n\nWhether Faith Is Required of Necessity in the Minister of a Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that faith is required of necessity in the\nminister of a sacrament. For, as stated above (A. 8), the intention\nof the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament. But\n\"faith directs in intention\" as Augustine says against Julian (In\nPsalm xxxi, cf. Contra Julian iv). Therefore, if the minister is\nwithout the true faith, the sacrament is invalid.\n\nObj. 2: Further, if a minister of the Church has not the true faith,\nit seems that he is a heretic. But heretics, seemingly, cannot confer\nsacraments. For Cyprian says in an epistle against heretics (lxxiii):\n\"Everything whatsoever heretics do, is carnal, void and counterfeit,\nso that nothing that they do should receive our approval.\" And Pope\nLeo says in his epistle to Leo Augustus (clvi): \"It is a matter of\nnotoriety that the light of all the heavenly sacraments is\nextinguished in the see of Alexandria, by an act of dire and\nsenseless cruelty. The sacrifice is no longer offered, the chrism is\nno longer consecrated, all the mysteries of religion have fled at the\ntouch of the parricide hands of ungodly men.\" Therefore a sacrament\nrequires of necessity that the minister should have the true faith.\n\nObj. 3: Further, those who have not the true faith seem to be\nseparated from the Church by excommunication: for it is written in\nthe second canonical epistle of John (10): \"If any man come to you,\nand bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say\nto him; God speed you\": and (Titus 3:10): \"A man that is a heretic,\nafter the first and second admonition avoid.\" But it seems that an\nexcommunicate cannot confer a sacrament of the Church: since he is\nseparated from the Church, to whose ministry the dispensation of the\nsacraments belongs. Therefore a sacrament requires of necessity that\nthe minister should have the true faith.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says against the Donatist Petilian:\n\"Remember that the evil lives of wicked men are not prejudicial to\nGod's sacraments, by rendering them either invalid or less holy.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 5), since the minister works\ninstrumentally in the sacraments, he acts not by his own but by\nChrist's power. Now just as charity belongs to a man's own power so\nalso does faith. Wherefore, just as the validity of a sacrament does\nnot require that the minister should have charity, and even sinners\ncan confer sacraments, as stated above (A. 5); so neither is it\nnecessary that he should have faith, and even an unbeliever can\nconfer a true sacrament, provided that the other essentials be there.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It may happen that a man's faith is defective in regard\nto something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament\nwhich he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to\nswear in any case whatever, and yet he may believe that baptism is an\nefficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder\nthe intention of conferring the sacrament. But if his faith be\ndefective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although\nhe believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done\noutwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to\nconfer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his\nunbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does,\nalbeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for\na sacrament: because as stated above (A. 8, ad 2) the minister of a\nsacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect\nin the minister's faith is made good.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe\nthe form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the\nsacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. But some do observe the\nform prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament\nbut not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are\noutwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that\nanyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently\nis hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament. Wherefore\nAugustine (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Pet.) says: \"Be well assured and\nhave no doubt whatever that those who are baptized outside the\nChurch, unless they come back to the Church, will reap disaster from\ntheir Baptism.\" In this sense Pope Leo says that \"the light of the\nsacraments was extinguished in the Church of Alexandria\"; viz. in\nregard to the reality of the sacrament, not as to the sacrament\nitself.\n\nCyprian, however, thought that heretics do not confer even the\nsacrament: but in this respect we do not follow his opinion. Hence\nAugustine says (De unico Baptismo xiii): \"Though the martyr Cyprian\nrefused to recognize Baptism conferred by heretics or schismatics,\nyet so great are his merits, culminating in the crown of martyrdom,\nthat the light of his charity dispels the darkness of his fault, and\nif anything needed pruning, the sickle of his passion cut it off.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The power of administering the sacraments belongs to\nthe spiritual character which is indelible, as explained above (Q.\n63, A. 3). Consequently, if a man be suspended by the Church, or\nexcommunicated or degraded, he does not lose the power of conferring\nsacraments, but the permission to use this power. Wherefore he does\nindeed confer the sacrament, but he sins in so doing. He also sins\nthat receives a sacrament from such a man: so that he does not\nreceive the reality of the sacrament, unless ignorance excuses him.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 64, Art. 10]\n\nWhether the Validity of a Sacrament Requires a Good Intention in the\nMinister?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a\ngood intention in the minister. For the minister's intention should\nbe in conformity with the Church's intention, as explained above (A.\n8, ad 1). But the intention of the Church is always good. Therefore\nthe validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in\nthe minister.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one.\nBut a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance, if\nsomeone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more,\ntherefore, does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament: for\ninstance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him\nafterwards.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work,\naccording to Luke 11:34: \"If thy eye be evil, thy\" whole \"body will\nbe darksome.\" But the sacraments of Christ cannot be contaminated by\nevil men; as Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii).\nTherefore it seems that, if the minister's intention is perverse, the\nsacrament is invalid.\n\n_On the contrary,_ A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of\nthe minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the\nsacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.\n\n_I answer that,_ The minister's intention may be perverted in two\nways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does\nnot intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a\nperverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially\nif it be manifested outwardly.\n\nSecondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something\nthat follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to\nbaptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the\nBody of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which\ncomes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such\na perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister\nhimself sins grievously in having such an intention.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Church has a good intention both as to the validity\nof the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former\nintention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to\nthe meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his\nintention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the\nlatter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind\nof right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament.\nConsequently, there is no comparison.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who\nhas such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the\nperverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far\nas it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ,\nWhose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some\nman were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas\nhis master had commanded him with a good intention to do so.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 65\n\nOF THE NUMBER OF THE SACRAMENTS\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the number of the sacraments: and concerning\nthis there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether there are seven sacraments?\n\n(2) The order of the sacraments among themselves;\n\n(3) Their mutual comparison;\n\n(4) Whether all the sacraments are necessary for salvation?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 65, Art. 1]\n\nWhether There Should Be Seven Sacraments?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that there ought not to be seven sacraments.\nFor the sacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine power, and\nthe power of Christ's Passion. But the Divine power is one, and\nChrist's Passion is one; since \"by one oblation He hath perfected for\never them that are sanctified\" (Heb. 10:14). Therefore there should\nbe but one sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a sacrament is intended as a remedy for the defect\ncaused by sin. Now this is twofold, punishment and guilt. Therefore\ntwo sacraments would be enough.\n\nObj. 3: Further, sacraments belong to the actions of the\necclesiastical hierarchy, as Dionysius explains (Eccl. Hier. v). But,\nas he says, there are three actions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy,\nnamely, \"to cleanse, to enlighten, to perfect.\" Therefore there\nshould be no more than three sacraments.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix) that the\n\"sacraments\" of the New Law are \"less numerous\" than those of the Old\nLaw. But in the Old Law there was no sacrament corresponding to\nConfirmation and Extreme Unction. Therefore these should not be\ncounted among the sacraments of the New Law.\n\nObj. 5: Further, lust is not more grievous than other sins, as we\nhave made clear in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 74, A. 5; II-II, Q. 154,\nA. 3). But there is no sacrament instituted as a remedy for other\nsins. Therefore neither should matrimony be instituted as a remedy\nfor lust.\n\nObj. 6: On the other hand, It seems that there should be more than\nseven sacraments. For sacraments are a kind of sacred sign. But in\nthe Church there are many sanctifications by sensible signs, such as\nHoly Water the Consecration of Altars, and such like. Therefore there\nare more than seven sacraments.\n\nObj. 7: Further, Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) says that the\nsacraments of the Old Law were oblations, tithes and sacrifices. But\nthe Sacrifice of the Church is one sacrament, called the Eucharist.\nTherefore oblations also and tithes should be called sacraments.\n\nObj. 8: Further, there are three kinds of sin, original, mortal and\nvenial. Now Baptism is intended as a remedy against original sin, and\nPenance against mortal sin. Therefore besides the seven sacraments,\nthere should be another against venial sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 62, A. 5; Q. 63, A. 1), the\nsacraments of the Church were instituted for a twofold purpose:\nnamely, in order to perfect man in things pertaining to the worship\nof God according to the religion of Christian life, and to be a\nremedy against the defects caused by sin. And in either way it is\nbecoming that there should be seven sacraments.\n\nFor spiritual life has a certain conformity with the life of the\nbody: just as other corporeal things have a certain likeness to\nthings spiritual. Now a man attains perfection in the corporeal life\nin two ways: first, in regard to his own person; secondly, in regard\nto the whole community of the society in which he lives, for man is\nby nature a social animal. With regard to himself man is perfected in\nthe life of the body, in two ways; first, directly (_per se_), i.e.\nby acquiring some vital perfection; secondly, indirectly (_per\naccidens_), i.e. by the removal of hindrances to life, such as\nailments, or the like. Now the life of the body is perfected\n_directly,_ in three ways. First, by generation whereby a man begins\nto be and to live: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life\nthere is Baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration, according to\nTitus 3:5: \"By the laver of regeneration,\" etc. Secondly, by growth\nwhereby a man is brought to perfect size and strength: and\ncorresponding to this in the spiritual life there is Confirmation, in\nwhich the Holy Ghost is given to strengthen us. Wherefore the\ndisciples who were already baptized were bidden thus: \"Stay you in\nthe city till you be endued with power from on high\" (Luke 24:49).\nThirdly, by nourishment, whereby life and strength are preserved to\nman; and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is the\nEucharist. Wherefore it is said (John 6:54): \"Except you eat of the\nflesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life\nin you.\"\n\nAnd this would be enough for man if he had an impassible life, both\ncorporally and spiritually; but since man is liable at times to both\ncorporal and spiritual infirmity, i.e. sin, hence man needs a cure\nfrom his infirmity; which cure is twofold. One is the healing, that\nrestores health: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life\nthere is Penance, according to Ps. 40:5: \"Heal my soul, for I have\nsinned against Thee.\" The other is the restoration of former vigor by\nmeans of suitable diet and exercise: and corresponding to this in the\nspiritual life there is Extreme Unction, which removes the remainder\nof sin, and prepares man for final glory. Wherefore it is written\n(James 5:15): \"And if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him.\"\n\nIn regard to the whole community, man is perfected in two ways.\nFirst, by receiving power to rule the community and to exercise\npublic acts: and corresponding to this in the spiritual life there is\nthe sacrament of order, according to the saying of Heb. 7:27, that\npriests offer sacrifices not for themselves only, but also for the\npeople. Secondly in regard to natural propagation. This is\naccomplished by Matrimony both in the corporal and in the spiritual\nlife: since it is not only a sacrament but also a function of nature.\n\nWe may likewise gather the number of the sacraments from their being\ninstituted as a remedy against the defect caused by sin. For Baptism\nis intended as a remedy against the absence of spiritual life;\nConfirmation, against the infirmity of soul found in those of recent\nbirth; the Eucharist, against the soul's proneness to sin; Penance,\nagainst actual sin committed after baptism; Extreme Unction, against\nthe remainders of sins--of those sins, namely, which are not\nsufficiently removed by Penance, whether through negligence or\nthrough ignorance; order, against divisions in the community;\nMatrimony, as a remedy against concupiscence in the individual, and\nagainst the decrease in numbers that results from death.\n\nSome, again, gather the number of sacraments from a certain\nadaptation to the virtues and to the defects and penal effects\nresulting from sin. They say that Baptism corresponds to Faith, and\nis ordained as a remedy against original sin; Extreme Unction, to\nHope, being ordained against venial sin; the Eucharist, to Charity,\nbeing ordained against the penal effect which is malice; Order, to\nPrudence, being ordained against ignorance; Penance to Justice, being\nordained against mortal sin; Matrimony, to Temperance, being ordained\nagainst concupiscence; Confirmation, to Fortitude, being ordained\nagainst infirmity.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The same principal agent uses various instruments unto\nvarious effects, in accordance with the thing to be done. In the same\nway the Divine power and the Passion of Christ work in us through the\nvarious sacraments as through various instruments.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Guilt and punishment are diversified both according to\nspecies, inasmuch as there are various species of guilt and\npunishment, and according to men's various states and habitudes. And\nin this respect it was necessary to have a number of sacraments, as\nexplained above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In hierarchical actions we must consider the agents,\nthe recipients and the actions. The agents are the ministers of the\nChurch; and to these the sacrament of order belongs. The recipients\nare those who approach the sacraments: and these are brought into\nbeing by Matrimony. The actions are \"cleansing,\"    \"enlightening,\"\nand \"perfecting.\" Mere cleansing, however, cannot be a sacrament of\nthe New Law, which confers grace: yet it belongs to certain\nsacramentals, i.e. catechism and exorcism. But cleansing coupled with\nenlightening, according to Dionysius, belongs to Baptism; and, for\nhim who falls back into sin, they belong secondarily to Penance and\nExtreme Unction. And perfecting, as regards power, which is, as it\nwere, a formal perfection, belongs to Confirmation: while, as regards\nthe attainment of the end, it belongs to the Eucharist.\n\nReply Obj. 4: In the sacrament of Confirmation we receive the fulness\nof the Holy Ghost in order to be strengthened; while in Extreme\nUnction man is prepared for the immediate attainment of glory; and\nneither of these two purposes was becoming to the Old Testament.\nConsequently, nothing in the old Law could correspond to these\nsacraments. Nevertheless, the sacraments of the old Law were more\nnumerous, on account of the various kinds of sacrifices and\nceremonies.\n\nReply Obj. 5: There was need for a special sacrament to be applied as\na remedy against venereal concupiscence: first because by this\nconcupiscence, not only the person but also the nature is defiled:\nsecondly, by reason of its vehemence whereby it clouds the reason.\n\nReply Obj. 6: Holy Water and other consecrated things are not called\nsacraments, because they do not produce the sacramental effect, which\nis the receiving of grace. They are, however, a kind of disposition\nto the sacraments: either by removing obstacles, thus holy water is\nordained against the snares of the demons, and against venial sins:\nor by making things suitable for the conferring of a sacrament; thus\nthe altar and vessels are consecrated through reverence for the\nEucharist.\n\nReply Obj. 7: Oblations and tithes, both the Law of nature and in the\nLaw of Moses, ere ordained not only for the sustenance of the\nministers and the poor, but also figuratively; and consequently they\nwere sacraments. But now they remain no longer as figures, and\ntherefore they are not sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 8: The infusion of grace is not necessary for the blotting\nout of venial sin. Wherefore, since grace is infused in each of the\nsacraments of the New Law, none of them was instituted directly\nagainst venial sin. This is taken away by certain sacramentals, for\ninstance, Holy Water and such like. Some, however, hold that Extreme\nUnction is ordained against venial sin. But of this we shall speak in\nits proper place (Suppl., Q. 30, A. 1).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 65, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Order of the Sacraments, As Given Above, Is Becoming?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the order of the sacraments as given above\nis unbecoming. For according to the Apostle (1 Cor. 15:46), \"that was\n. . . first . . . which is natural, afterwards that which is\nspiritual.\" But man is begotten through Matrimony by a first and\nnatural generation; while in Baptism he is regenerated as by a second\nand spiritual generation. Therefore Matrimony should precede Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, through the sacrament of order man receives the\npower of agent in sacramental actions. But the agent precedes his\naction. Therefore order should precede Baptism and the other\nsacraments.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Eucharist is a spiritual food; while\nConfirmation is compared to growth. But food causes, and consequently\nprecedes, growth. Therefore the Eucharist precedes Confirmation.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Penance prepares man for the Eucharist. But a\ndisposition precedes perfection. Therefore Penance should precede the\nEucharist.\n\nObj. 5: Further, that which is nearer the last end comes after other\nthings. But, of all the sacraments, Extreme Unction is nearest to the\nlast end which is Happiness. Therefore it should be placed last among\nthe sacraments.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The order of the sacraments, as given above, is\ncommonly adopted by all.\n\n_I answer that,_ The reason of the order among the sacraments appears\nfrom what has been said above (A. 1). For just as unity precedes\nmultitude, so those sacraments which are intended for the perfection\nof the individual, naturally precede those which are intended for the\nperfection of the multitude; and consequently the last place among\nthe sacraments is given to order and Matrimony, which are intended\nfor the perfection of the multitude: while Matrimony is placed after\norder, because it has less participation in the nature of the\nspiritual life, to which the sacraments are ordained. Moreover, among\nthings ordained to the perfection of the individual, those naturally\ncome first which are ordained directly to the perfection of the\nspiritual life, and afterwards, those which are ordained thereto\nindirectly, viz. by removing some supervening accidental cause of\nharm; such are Penance and Extreme Unction: while, of these, Extreme\nUnction is naturally placed last, for it preserves the healing which\nwas begun by Penance.\n\nOf the remaining three, it is clear that Baptism which is a spiritual\nregeneration, comes first; then Confirmation, which is ordained to\nthe formal perfection of power; and after these the Eucharist which\nis ordained to final perfection.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Matrimony as ordained to natural life is a function of\nnature. But in so far as it has something spiritual it is a\nsacrament. And because it has the least amount of spirituality it is\nplaced last.\n\nReply Obj. 2: For a thing to be an agent it must first of all be\nperfect in itself. Wherefore those sacraments by which a man is\nperfected in himself, are placed before the sacrament of order, in\nwhich a man is made a perfecter of others.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Nourishment both precedes growth, as its cause; and\nfollows it, as maintaining the perfection of size and power in man.\nConsequently, the Eucharist can be placed before Confirmation, as\nDionysius places it (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv), and can be placed after\nit, as the Master does (iv, 2, 8).\n\nReply Obj. 4: This argument would hold if Penance were required of\nnecessity as a preparation to the Eucharist. But this is not true:\nfor if anyone be without mortal sin, he does not need Penance in\norder to receive the Eucharist. Thus it is clear that Penance is an\naccidental preparation to the Eucharist, that is to say, sin being\nsupposed. Wherefore it is written in the last chapter of the second\nBook of Paralipomenon (cf. 2 Paral 33:18): \"Thou, O Lord of the\nrighteous, didst not impose penance on righteous men.\" [*The words\nquoted are from the apocryphal Prayer of Manasses, which, before the\nCouncil of Trent, was to be found inserted in some Latin copies of\nthe Bible.]\n\nReply Obj. 5: Extreme Unction, for this very reason, is given the\nlast place among those sacraments which are ordained to the\nperfection of the individual.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 65, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Eucharist Is the Greatest of the Sacraments?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not the principal of the\nsacraments. For the common good is of more account than the good of\nthe individual (1 _Ethic._ ii). But Matrimony is ordained to the\ncommon good of the human race by means of generation: whereas the\nsacrament of the Eucharist is ordained to the private good of the\nrecipient. Therefore it is not the greatest of the sacraments.\n\nObj. 2: Further, those sacraments, seemingly, are greater, which are\nconferred by a greater minister. But the sacraments of Confirmation\nand order are conferred by a bishop only, who is a greater minister\nthan a mere minister such as a priest, by whom the sacraments of the\nEucharist is conferred. Therefore those sacraments are greater.\n\nObj. 3: Further, those sacraments are greater that have the greater\npower. But some of the sacraments imprint a character, viz. Baptism,\nConfirmation and order; whereas the Eucharist does not. Therefore\nthose sacraments are greater.\n\nObj. 4: Further, that seems to be greater, on which others depend\nwithout its depending on them. But the Eucharist depends on Baptism:\nsince no one can receive the Eucharist except he has been baptized.\nTherefore Baptism is greater than the Eucharist.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii) that \"No one\nreceives hierarchical perfection save by the most God-like\nEucharist.\" Therefore this sacrament is greater than all the others\nand perfects them.\n\n_I answer that,_ Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist\nis the greatest of all the sacraments: and this may be shown in three\nways. First of all because it contains Christ Himself substantially:\nwhereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental power\nwhich is a share of Christ's power, as we have shown above (Q. 62, A.\n4, ad 3, A. 5). Now that which is essentially such is always of more\naccount than that which is such by participation.\n\nSecondly, this is made clear by considering the relation of the\nsacraments to one another. For all the other sacraments seem to be\nordained to this one as to their end. For it is manifest that the\nsacrament of order is ordained to the consecration of the Eucharist:\nand the sacrament of Baptism to the reception of the Eucharist: while\na man is perfected by Confirmation, so as not to fear to abstain from\nthis sacrament. By Penance and Extreme Unction man is prepared to\nreceive the Body of Christ worthily. And Matrimony at least in its\nsignification, touches this sacrament; in so far as it signifies the\nunion of Christ with the Church, of which union the Eucharist is a\nfigure: hence the Apostle says (Eph. 5:32): \"This is a great\nsacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church.\"\n\nThirdly, this is made clear by considering the rites of the\nsacraments. For nearly all the sacraments terminate in the Eucharist,\nas Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): thus those who have been\nordained receive Holy Communion, as also do those who have been\nbaptized, if they be adults.\n\nThe remaining sacraments may be compared to one another in several\nways. For on the ground of necessity, Baptism is the greatest of the\nsacraments; while from the point of view of perfection, order comes\nfirst; while Confirmation holds a middle place. The sacraments of\nPenance and Extreme Unction are on a degree inferior to those\nmentioned above; because, as stated above (A. 2), they are ordained\nto the Christian life, not directly, but accidentally, as it were,\nthat is to say, as remedies against supervening defects. And among\nthese, Extreme Unction is compared to Penance, as Confirmation to\nBaptism; in such a way, that Penance is more necessary, whereas\nExtreme Unction is more perfect.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Matrimony is ordained to the common good as regards the\nbody. But the common spiritual good of the whole Church is contained\nsubstantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By order and Confirmation the faithful of Christ are\ndeputed to certain special duties; and this can be done by the prince\nalone. Consequently the conferring of these sacraments belongs\nexclusively to a bishop, who is, as it were, a prince in the Church.\nBut a man is not deputed to any duty by the sacrament of the\nEucharist, rather is this sacrament the end of all duties, as stated\nabove.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The sacramental character, as stated above (Q. 63, A.\n3), is a kind of participation in Christ's priesthood. Wherefore the\nsacrament that unites man to Christ Himself, is greater than a\nsacrament that imprints Christ's character.\n\nReply Obj. 4: This argument proceeds on the ground of necessity. For\nthus Baptism, being of the greatest necessity, is the greatest of the\nsacraments, just as order and Confirmation have a certain excellence\nconsidered in their administration; and Matrimony by reason of its\nsignification. For there is no reason why a thing should not be\ngreater from a certain point of view which is not greater absolutely\nspeaking.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 65, Art. 4]\n\nWhether All the Sacraments Are Necessary for Salvation?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that all the sacraments are necessary for\nsalvation. For what is not necessary seems to be superfluous. But no\nsacrament is superfluous, because \"God does nothing without a\npurpose\" (De Coelo et Mundo i). Therefore all the sacraments are\nnecessary for salvation.\n\nObj. 2: Further, just as it is said of Baptism (John 3:5): \"Unless a\nman be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter in to\nthe kingdom of God,\" so of the Eucharist is it said (John 6:54):\n\"Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His\nblood, you shall not have life in you.\" Therefore, just as Baptism is\na necessary sacrament, so is the Eucharist.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a man can be saved without the sacrament of Baptism,\nprovided that some unavoidable obstacle, and not his contempt for\nreligion, debar him from the sacrament, as we shall state further on\n(Q. 68, A. 2). But contempt of religion in any sacrament is a\nhindrance to salvation. Therefore, in like manner, all the sacraments\nare necessary for salvation.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Children are saved by Baptism alone without the\nother sacraments.\n\n_I answer that,_ Necessity of end, of which we speak now, is twofold.\nFirst, a thing may be necessary so that without it the end cannot be\nattained; thus food is necessary for human life. And this is simple\nnecessity of end. Secondly, a thing is said to be necessary, if,\nwithout it, the end cannot be attained so becomingly: thus a horse is\nnecessary for a journey. But this is not simple necessity of end.\n\nIn the first way, three sacraments are necessary for salvation. Two\nof them are necessary to the individual; Baptism, simply and\nabsolutely; Penance, in the case of mortal sin committed after\nBaptism; while the sacrament of order is necessary to the Church,\nsince \"where there is no governor the people shall fall\" (Prov.\n11:14).\n\nBut in the second way the other sacraments are necessary. For in a\nsense Confirmation perfects Baptism; Extreme Unction perfects\nPenance; while Matrimony, by multiplying them, preserves the numbers\nin the Church.\n\nReply Obj. 1: For a thing not to be superfluous it is enough if it be\nnecessary either in the first or the second way. It is thus that the\nsacraments are necessary, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: These words of our Lord are to be understood of\nspiritual, and not of merely sacramental, eating, as Augustine\nexplains (Tract. xxvi super Joan.).\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although contempt of any of the sacraments is a\nhindrance to salvation, yet it does not amount to contempt of the\nsacrament, if anyone does not trouble to receive a sacrament that is\nnot necessary for salvation. Else those who do not receive orders,\nand those who do not contract Matrimony, would be guilty of contempt\nof those sacraments.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 66\n\nOF THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM\n(In Twelve Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider each sacrament specially: (1) Baptism;\n(2) Confirmation; (3) the Eucharist; (4) Penance; (5) Extreme\nUnction; (6) Order; (7) Matrimony.\n\nConcerning the first, our consideration will be twofold: (1) of\nBaptism itself; (2) of things preparatory to Baptism.\n\nConcerning the first, four points arise for our consideration:\n(1) Things pertaining to the sacrament of Baptism; (2) The minister\nof this sacrament; (3) The recipients of this sacrament; (4) The\neffect of this sacrament.\n\nConcerning the first there are twelve points of inquiry:\n\n(1) What is Baptism? Is it a washing?\n\n(2) Of the institution of this sacrament;\n\n(3) Whether water be the proper matter of this sacrament?\n\n(4) Whether plain water be required?\n\n(5) Whether this be a suitable form of this sacrament: \"I baptize\nthee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost\"?\n\n(6) Whether one could baptize with this form: \"I baptize thee in the\nname of Christ?\"\n\n(7) Whether immersion is necessary for Baptism?\n\n(8) Whether trine immersion is necessary?\n\n(9) Whether Baptism can be reiterated?\n\n(10) Of the Baptismal rite;\n\n(11) Of the various kinds of Baptism;\n\n(12) Of the comparison between various Baptisms.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Baptism Is the Mere Washing?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Baptism is not the mere washing. For the\nwashing of the body is something transitory: but Baptism is something\npermanent. Therefore Baptism is not the mere washing; but rather is\nit \"the regeneration, the seal, the safeguarding, the enlightenment,\"\nas Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv).\n\nObj. 2: Further, Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii) that\n\"Baptism is water sanctified by God's word for the blotting out of\nsins.\" But the washing itself is not water, but a certain use of\nwater.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Tract. lxxx super Joan.): \"The word\nis added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament.\" Now, the\nelement is the water. Therefore Baptism is the water and not the\nwashing.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 34:30): \"He that washeth\nhimself (_baptizatur_) after touching the dead, if he touch him\nagain, what does his washing avail?\" It seems, therefore, that\nBaptism is the washing or bathing.\n\n_I answer that,_ In the sacrament of Baptism, three things may be\nconsidered: namely, that which is _sacrament only;_ that which is\n_reality and sacrament;_ and that which is _reality only._ That which\nis sacrament only, is something visible and outward; the sign,\nnamely, of the inward effect: for such is the very nature of a\nsacrament. And this outward something that can be perceived by the\nsense is both the water itself and its use, which is the washing.\nHence some have thought that the water itself is the sacrament: which\nseems to be the meaning of the passage quoted from Hugh of St.\nVictor. For in the general definition of a sacrament he says that it\nis \"a material element\": and in defining Baptism he says it is\n\"water.\"\n\nBut this is not true. For since the sacraments of the New Law effect\na certain sanctification, there the sacrament is completed where the\nsanctification is completed. Now, the sanctification is not completed\nin water; but a certain sanctifying instrumental virtue, not\npermanent but transient, passes from the water, in which it is, into\nman who is the subject of true sanctification. Consequently the\nsacrament is not completed in the very water, but in applying the\nwater to man, i.e. in the washing. Hence the Master (iv, 3) says that\n\"Baptism is the outward washing of the body done together with the\nprescribed form of words.\"\n\nThe Baptismal character is both reality and sacrament: because it is\nsomething real signified by the outward washing; and a sacramental\nsign of the inward justification: and this last is the reality only,\nin this sacrament--namely, the reality signified and not signifying.\n\nReply Obj. 1: That which is both sacrament and reality--i.e. the\ncharacter--and that which is reality only--i.e. the inward\njustification--remain: the character remains and is indelible, as\nstated above (Q. 63, A. 5); the justification remains, but can be\nlost. Consequently Damascene defined Baptism, not as to that which is\ndone outwardly, and is the sacrament only; but as to that which is\ninward. Hence he sets down two things as pertaining to the\ncharacter--namely, \"seal\" and \"safeguarding\"; inasmuch as the\ncharacter which is called a seal, so far as itself is concerned,\nsafeguards the soul in good. He also sets down two things as\npertaining to the ultimate reality of the sacrament--namely,\n\"regeneration\" which refers to the fact that man by being baptized\nbegins the new life of righteousness; and \"enlightenment,\" which\nrefers especially to faith, by which man receives spiritual life,\naccording to Habac 2 (Heb. 10:38; cf. Habac 2:4): \"But (My) just man\nliveth by faith\"; and Baptism is a sort of protestation of faith;\nwhence it is called the \"Sacrament of Faith.\" Likewise Dionysius\ndefined Baptism by its relation to the other sacraments, saying\n(Eccl. Hier. ii) that it is \"the principle that forms the habits of\nthe soul for the reception of those most holy words and sacraments\";\nand again by its relation to heavenly glory, which is the universal\nend of all the sacraments, when he adds, \"preparing the way for us,\nwhereby we mount to the repose of the heavenly kingdom\"; and again as\nto the beginning of spiritual life, when he adds, \"the conferring of\nour most sacred and Godlike regeneration.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As already stated, the opinion of Hugh of St. Victor on\nthis question is not to be followed. Nevertheless the saying that\n\"Baptism is water\" may be verified in so far as water is the material\nprinciple of Baptism: and thus there would be \"causal predication.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: When the words are added, the element becomes a\nsacrament, not in the element itself, but in man, to whom the element\nis applied, by being used in washing him. Indeed, this is signified\nby those very words which are added to the element, when we say: \"I\nbaptize thee,\" etc.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Baptism Was Instituted After Christ's Passion?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Baptism was instituted after Christ's\nPassion. For the cause precedes the effect. Now Christ's Passion\noperates in the sacraments of the New Law. Therefore Christ's Passion\nprecedes the institution of the sacraments of the New Law: especially\nthe sacrament of Baptism since the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3): \"All we,\nwho are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death,\" etc.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law derive their efficacy\nfrom the mandate of Christ. But Christ gave the disciples the mandate\nof Baptism after His Passion and Resurrection, when He said: \"Going,\nteach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,\" etc.\n(Matt. 28:19). Therefore it seems that Baptism was instituted after\nChrist's Passion.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Baptism is a necessary sacrament, as stated above\n(Q. 65, A. 4): wherefore, seemingly, it must have been binding on man\nas soon as it was instituted. But before Christ's Passion men were\nnot bound to be baptized: for Circumcision was still in force, which\nwas supplanted by Baptism. Therefore it seems that Baptism was not\ninstituted before Christ's Passion.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany\n(Append. Serm., clxxxv): \"As soon as Christ was plunged into the\nwaters, the waters washed away the sins of all.\" But this was before\nChrist's Passion. Therefore Baptism was instituted before Christ's\nPassion.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 62, A. 1), sacraments derive\nfrom their institution the power of conferring grace. Wherefore it\nseems that a sacrament is then instituted, when it receives the power\nof producing its effect. Now Baptism received this power when Christ\nwas baptized. Consequently Baptism was truly instituted then, if we\nconsider it as a sacrament. But the obligation of receiving this\nsacrament was proclaimed to mankind after the Passion and\nResurrection. First, because Christ's Passion put an end to the\nfigurative sacraments, which were supplanted by Baptism and the other\nsacraments of the New Law. Secondly, because by Baptism man is \"made\nconformable\" to Christ's Passion and Resurrection, in so far as he\ndies to sin and begins to live anew unto righteousness. Consequently\nit behooved Christ to suffer and to rise again, before proclaiming to\nman his obligation of conforming himself to Christ's Death and\nResurrection.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Even before Christ's Passion, Baptism, inasmuch as it\nforeshadowed it, derived its efficacy therefrom; but not in the same\nway as the sacraments of the Old Law. For these were mere figures:\nwhereas Baptism derived the power of justifying from Christ Himself,\nto Whose power the Passion itself owed its saving virtue.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It was not meet that men should be restricted to a\nnumber of figures by Christ, Who came to fulfil and replace the\nfigure by His reality. Therefore before His Passion He did not make\nBaptism obligatory as soon as it was instituted; but wished men to\nbecome accustomed to its use; especially in regard to the Jews, to\nwhom all things were figurative, as Augustine says (Contra Faust.\niv). But after His Passion and Resurrection He made Baptism\nobligatory, not only on the Jews, but also on the Gentiles, when He\ngave the commandment: \"Going, teach ye all nations.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Sacraments are not obligatory except when we are\ncommanded to receive them. And this was not before the Passion, as\nstated above. For our Lord's words to Nicodemus (John 3:5), \"Unless a\nman be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into\nthe kingdom of God, seem to refer to the future rather than to the\npresent.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Water Is the Proper Matter of Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that water is not the proper matter of Baptism.\nFor Baptism, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) and Damascene (De\nFide Orth. iv), has a power of enlightening. But enlightenment is a\nspecial characteristic of fire. Therefore Baptism should be conferred\nwith fire rather than with water: and all the more since John the\nBaptist said when foretelling Christ's Baptism (Matt. 3:11): \"He\nshall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, the washing away of sins is signified in Baptism.\nBut many other things besides water are employed in washing, such as\nwine, oil, and such like. Therefore Baptism can be conferred with\nthese also; and consequently water is not the proper matter of\nBaptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church flowed from the side of\nChrist hanging on the cross, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5). But not\nonly water flowed therefrom, but also blood. Therefore it seems that\nBaptism can also be conferred with blood. And this seems to be more\nin keeping with the effect of Baptism, because it is written (Apoc.\n1:5): \"(Who) washed us from our sins in His own blood.\"\n\nObj. 4: Further, as Augustine (cf. Master of the Sentences, iv, 3)\nand Bede (Exposit. in Luc. iii, 21) say, Christ, by \"the touch of His\nmost pure flesh, endowed the waters with a regenerating and cleansing\nvirtue.\" But all waters are not connected with the waters of the\nJordan which Christ touched with His flesh. Consequently it seems\nthat Baptism cannot be conferred with any water; and therefore water,\nas such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.\n\nObj. 5: Further, if water, as such, were the proper matter of\nBaptism, there would be no need to do anything to the water before\nusing it for Baptism. But in solemn Baptism the water which is used\nfor baptizing, is exorcized and blessed. Therefore it seems that\nwater, as such, is not the proper matter of Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 3:5): \"Unless a man be born\nagain of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom\nof God.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ By Divine institution water is the proper matter of\nBaptism; and with reason. First, by reason of the very nature of\nBaptism, which is a regeneration unto spiritual life. And this\nanswers to the nature of water in a special degree; wherefore seeds,\nfrom which all living things, viz. plants and animals are generated,\nare moist and akin to water. For this reason certain philosophers\nheld that water is the first principle of all things.\n\nSecondly, in regard to the effects of Baptism, to which the\nproperties of water correspond. For by reason of its moistness it\ncleanses; and hence it fittingly signifies and causes the cleansing\nfrom sins. By reason of its coolness it tempers superfluous heat:\nwherefore it fittingly mitigates the concupiscence of the fomes. By\nreason of its transparency, it is susceptive of light; hence its\nadaptability to Baptism as the \"sacrament of Faith.\"\n\nThirdly, because it is suitable for the signification of the\nmysteries of Christ, by which we are justified. For, as Chrysostom\nsays (Hom. xxv in Joan.) on John 3:5, \"Unless a man be born again,\"\netc., \"When we dip our heads under the water as in a kind of tomb our\nold man is buried, and being submerged is hidden below, and thence he\nrises again renewed.\"\n\nFourthly, because by being so universal and abundant, it is a matter\nsuitable to our need of this sacrament: for it can easily be obtained\neverywhere.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Fire enlightens actively. But he who is baptized does\nnot become an enlightener, but is enlightened by faith, which \"cometh\nby hearing\" (Rom. 10:17). Consequently water is more suitable, than\nfire, for Baptism.\n\nBut when we find it said: \"He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and\nfire,\" we may understand fire, as Jerome says (In Matth. ii), to mean\nthe Holy Ghost, Who appeared above the disciples under the form of\nfiery tongues (Acts 2:3). Or we may understand it to mean\ntribulation, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iii in Matth.): because\ntribulation washes away sin, and tempers concupiscence. Or again, as\nHilary says (Super Matth. ii) that \"when we have been baptized in the\nHoly Ghost,\" we still have to be \"perfected by the fire of the\njudgment.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Wine and oil are not so commonly used for washing, as\nwater. Neither do they wash so efficiently: for whatever is washed\nwith them, contracts a certain smell therefrom; which is not the case\nif water be used. Moreover, they are not so universal or so abundant\nas water.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Water flowed from Christ's side to wash us; blood, to\nredeem us. Wherefore blood belongs to the sacrament of the Eucharist,\nwhile water belongs to the sacrament of Baptism. Yet this latter\nsacrament derives its cleansing virtue from the power of Christ's\nblood.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Christ's power flowed into all waters, by reason of,\nnot connection of place, but likeness of species, as Augustine says\nin a sermon on the Epiphany (Append. Serm. cxxxv): \"The blessing that\nflowed from the Saviour's Baptism, like a mystic river, swelled the\ncourse of every stream, and filled the channels of every spring.\"\n\nReply Obj. 5: The blessing of the water is not essential to Baptism,\nbut belongs to a certain solemnity, whereby the devotion of the\nfaithful is aroused, and the cunning of the devil hindered from\nimpeding the baptismal effect.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Plain Water Is Necessary for Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.\nFor the water which we have is not plain water; as appears especially\nin sea-water, in which there is a considerable proportion of the\nearthly element, as the Philosopher shows (Meteor. ii). Yet this\nwater may be used for Baptism. Therefore plain and pure water is not\nnecessary for Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in the solemn celebration of Baptism, chrism is\npoured into the water. But this seems to take away the purity and\nplainness of the water. Therefore pure and plain water is not\nnecessary for Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the water that flowed from the side of Christ\nhanging on the cross was a figure of Baptism, as stated above (A. 3,\nad 3). But that water, seemingly, was not pure, because the elements\ndo not exist actually in a mixed body, such as Christ's. Therefore it\nseems that pure or plain water is not necessary for Baptism.\n\nObj. 4: Further, lye does not seem to be pure water, for it has the\nproperties of heating and drying, which are contrary to those of\nwater. Nevertheless it seems that lye can be used for Baptism; for\nthe water of the Baths can be so used, which has filtered through a\nsulphurous vein, just as lye percolates through ashes. Therefore it\nseems that plain water is not necessary for Baptism.\n\nObj. 5: Further, rose-water is distilled from roses, just as chemical\nwaters are distilled from certain bodies. But seemingly, such like\nwaters may be used in Baptism; just as rain-water, which is distilled\nfrom vapors. Since, therefore, such waters are not pure and plain\nwater, it seems that pure and plain water is not necessary for\nBaptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The proper matter of Baptism is water, as stated\nabove (A. 3). But plain water alone has the nature of water.\nTherefore pure plain water is necessary for Baptism.\n\n_I answer that,_ Water may cease to be pure or plain water in two\nways: first, by being mixed with another body; secondly, by\nalteration. And each of these may happen in a twofold manner;\nartificially and naturally. Now art fails in the operation of nature:\nbecause nature gives the substantial form, which art cannot give; for\nwhatever form is given by art is accidental; except perchance when\nart applies a proper agent to its proper matter, as fire to a\ncombustible; in which manner animals are produced from certain things\nby way of putrefaction.\n\nWhatever artificial change, then, takes place in the water, whether\nby mixture or by alteration, the water's nature is not changed.\nConsequently such water can be used for Baptism: unless perhaps such\na small quantity of water be mixed artificially with a body that the\ncompound is something other than water; thus mud is earth rather than\nwater, and diluted wine is wine rather than water.\n\nBut if the change be natural, sometimes it destroys the nature of the\nwater; and this is when by a natural process water enters into the\nsubstance of a mixed body: thus water changed into the juice of the\ngrape is wine, wherefore it has not the nature of water. Sometimes,\nhowever, there may be a natural change of the water, without\ndestruction of species: and this, both by alteration, as we may see\nin the case of water heated by the sun; and by mixture, as when the\nwater of a river has become muddy by being mixed with particles of\nearth.\n\nWe must therefore say that any water may be used for Baptism, no\nmatter how much it may be changed, as long as the species of water is\nnot destroyed; but if the species of water be destroyed, it cannot be\nused for Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The change in sea-water and in other waters which we\nhave to hand, is not so great as to destroy the species of water. And\ntherefore such waters may be used for Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Chrism does not destroy the nature of the water by\nbeing mixed with it: just as neither is water changed wherein meat\nand the like are boiled: except the substance boiled be so dissolved\nthat the liquor be of a nature foreign to water; in this we may be\nguided by the specific gravity (_spissitudine_). If, however, from\nthe liquor thus thickened plain water be strained, it can be used for\nBaptism: just as water strained from mud, although mud cannot be used\nfor baptizing.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The water which flowed from the side of Christ hanging\non the cross, was not the phlegmatic humor, as some have supposed.\nFor a liquid of this kind cannot be used for Baptism, as neither can\nthe blood of an animal, or wine, or any liquid extracted from plants.\nIt was pure water gushing forth miraculously like the blood from a\ndead body, to prove the reality of our Lord's body, and confute the\nerror of the Manichees: water, which is one of the four elements,\nshowing Christ's body to be composed of the four elements; blood,\nproving that it was composed of the four humors.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Baptism may be conferred with lye and the waters of\nSulphur Baths: because such like waters are not incorporated,\nartificially or naturally, with certain mixed bodies, and suffer only\na certain alteration by passing through certain bodies.\n\nReply Obj. 5: Rose-water is a liquid distilled from roses:\nconsequently it cannot be used for Baptism. For the same reason\nchemical waters cannot be used, as neither can wine. Nor does the\ncomparison hold with rain-water, which for the most part is formed by\nthe condensing of vapors, themselves formed from water, and contains\na minimum of the liquid matter from mixed bodies; which liquid matter\nby the force of nature, which is stronger than art, is transformed in\nthis process of condensation into real water, a result which cannot\nbe produced artificially. Consequently rain-water retains no\nproperties of any mixed body; which cannot be said of rose-water or\nchemical waters.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 5]\n\nWhether This Be a Suitable Form of Baptism: \"I Baptize Thee in the\nName of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost\"?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this is not a suitable form of Baptism: \"I\nbaptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost.\" For action should be ascribed to the principal agent\nrather than to the minister. Now the minister of a sacrament acts as\nan instrument, as stated above (Q. 64, A. 1); while the principal\nagent in Baptism is Christ, according to John 1:33, \"He upon Whom\nthou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is\nthat baptizeth.\" It is therefore unbecoming for the minister to say,\n\"I baptize thee\": the more so that _Ego_ (I) is understood in the\nword _baptizo_ (I baptize), so that it seems redundant.\n\nObj. 2: Further, there is no need for a man who does an action, to\nmake mention of the action done; thus he who teaches, need not say,\n\"I teach you.\" Now our Lord gave at the same time the precepts both\nof baptizing and of teaching, when He said (Matt. 28:19): \"Going,\nteach ye all nations,\" etc. Therefore there is no need in the form of\nBaptism to mention the action of baptizing.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the person baptized sometimes does not understand\nthe words; for instance, if he be deaf, or a child. But it is useless\nto address such a one; according to Ecclus. 32:6: \"Where there is no\nhearing, pour not out words.\" Therefore it is unfitting to address\nthe person baptized with these words: \"I baptize thee.\"\n\nObj. 4: Further, it may happen that several are baptized by several\nat the same time; thus the apostles on one day baptized three\nthousand, and on another, five thousand (Acts 2, 4). Therefore the\nform of Baptism should not be limited to the singular number in the\nwords, \"I baptize thee\": but one should be able to say, \"We baptize\nyou.\"\n\nObj. 5: Further, Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion. But\nBaptism is sanctified by the form. Therefore it seems that Christ's\nPassion should be mentioned in the form of Baptism.\n\nObj. 6: Further, a name signifies a thing's property. But there are\nthree Personal Properties of the Divine Persons, as stated in the\nFirst Part (Q. 32, A. 3). Therefore we should not say, \"in the name,\"\nbut \"in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost.\"\n\nObj. 7: Further, the Person of the Father is designated not only by\nthe name Father, but also by that of \"Unbegotten and Begetter\"; and\nthe Son by those of \"Word,\" \"Image,\" and \"Begotten\"; and the Holy\nGhost by those of \"Gift,\" \"Love,\" and the \"Proceeding One.\" Therefore\nit seems that Baptism is valid if conferred in these names.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Matt. 28:19): \"Going . . . teach ye\nall nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Baptism receives its consecration from its form,\naccording to Eph. 5:26: \"Cleansing it by the laver of water in the\nword of life.\" And Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo iv) that\n\"Baptism is consecrated by the words of the Gospel.\" Consequently the\ncause of Baptism needs to be expressed in the baptismal form. Now\nthis cause is twofold; the principal cause from which it derives its\nvirtue, and this is the Blessed Trinity; and the instrumental cause,\nviz. the minister who confers the sacrament outwardly. Wherefore both\ncauses should be expressed in the form of Baptism. Now the minister\nis designated by the words, \"I baptize thee\"; and the principal cause\nin the words, \"in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost.\" Therefore this is the suitable form of Baptism: \"I\nbaptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Action is attributed to an instrument as to the\nimmediate agent; but to the principal agent inasmuch as the\ninstrument acts in virtue thereof. Consequently it is fitting that in\nthe baptismal form the minister should be mentioned as performing the\nact of baptizing, in the words, \"I baptize thee\"; indeed, our Lord\nattributed to the ministers the act of baptizing, when He said:\n\"Baptizing them,\" etc. But the principal cause is indicated as\nconferring the sacrament by His own power, in the words, \"in the name\nof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost\": for Christ\ndoes not baptize without the Father and the Holy Ghost.\n\nThe Greeks, however, do not attribute the act of baptizing to the\nminister, in order to avoid the error of those who in the past\nascribed the baptismal power to the baptizers, saying (1 Cor. 1:12):\n\"I am of Paul . . . and I of Cephas.\" Wherefore they use the form:\n\"May the servant of Christ, N . . ., be baptized, in the name of the\nFather,\" etc. And since the action performed by the minister is\nexpressed with the invocation of the Trinity, the sacrament is\nvalidly conferred. As to the addition of \"Ego\" in our form, it is not\nessential; but it is added in order to lay greater stress on the\nintention.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Since a man may be washed with water for several\nreasons, the purpose for which it is done must be expressed by the\nwords of the form. And this is not done by saying: \"In the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost\"; because we are\nbound to do all things in that Name (Col. 3:17). Wherefore unless the\nact of baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do,\nthe sacrament is not valid; according to the decretal of Alexander\nIII: \"If anyone dip a child thrice in the water in the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen, without saying,\nI baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost, Amen, the child is not baptized.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The words which are uttered in the sacramental forms,\nare said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also for\nthe purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from that\nWord, by Whom \"all things were made.\" Consequently they are\nbecomingly addressed not only to men, but also to insensible\ncreatures; for instance, when we say: \"I exorcize thee, creature\nsalt\" (Roman Ritual).\n\nReply Obj. 4: Several cannot baptize one at the same time: because an\naction is multiplied according to the number of the agents, if it be\ndone perfectly by each. So that if two were to combine, of whom one\nwere mute, and unable to utter the words, and the other were without\nhands, and unable to perform the action, they could not both baptize\nat the same time, one saying the words and the other performing the\naction.\n\nOn the other hand, in a case of necessity, several could be baptized\nat the same time; for no single one of them would receive more than\none baptism. But it would be necessary, in that case, to say: \"I\nbaptize ye.\" Nor would this be a change of form, because \"ye\" is the\nsame as \"thee and thee.\" Whereas \"we\" does not mean \"I and I,\" but \"I\nand thou\"; so that this would be a change of form.\n\nLikewise it would be a change of form to say, \"I baptize myself\":\nconsequently no one can baptize himself. For this reason did Christ\nchoose to be baptized by John (Extra, De Baptismo et ejus effectu,\ncap. Debitum).\n\nReply Obj. 5: Although Christ's Passion is the principal cause as\ncompared to the minister, yet it is an instrumental cause as compared\nto the Blessed Trinity. For this reason the Trinity is mentioned\nrather than Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 6: Although there are three personal names of the three\nPersons, there is but one essential name. Now the Divine power which\nworks in Baptism, pertains to the Essence; and therefore we say, \"in\nthe name,\" and not, \"in the names.\"\n\nReply Obj. 7: Just as water is used in Baptism, because it is more\ncommonly employed in washing, so for the purpose of designating the\nthree Persons, in the form of Baptism, those names are chosen, which\nare generally used, in a particular language, to signify the Persons.\nNor is the sacrament valid if conferred in any other names.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Baptism Can Be Conferred in the Name of Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Baptism can be conferred in the name of\nChrist. For just as there is \"one Faith,\" so is there \"one Baptism\"\n(Eph. 4:5). But it is related (Acts 8:12) that \"in the name of Jesus\nChrist they were baptized, both men and women.\" Therefore now also\ncan Baptism be conferred in the name of Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i): \"If you mention\nChrist, you designate both the Father by Whom He was anointed, and\nthe Son Himself, Who was anointed, and the Holy Ghost with Whom He\nwas anointed.\" But Baptism can be conferred in the name of the\nTrinity: therefore also in the name of Christ.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Pope Nicholas I, answering questions put to him by\nthe Bulgars, said: \"Those who have been baptized in the name of the\nTrinity, or only in the name of Christ, as we read in the Acts of the\nApostles (it is all the same, as Blessed Ambrose saith), must not be\nrebaptized.\" But they would be baptized again if they had not been\nvalidly baptized with that form. Therefore Baptism can be celebrated\nin the name of Christ by using this form: \"I baptize thee in the name\nof Christ.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Pelagius II wrote to the Bishop Gaudentius:\n\"If any people living in your Worship's neighborhood, avow that they\nhave been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any\nhesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity,\nwhen they come in quest of the Catholic Faith.\" Didymus, too, says\n(De Spir. Sanct.): \"If indeed there be such a one with a mind so\nforeign to faith as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid\nnames,\" viz. of the three Persons, \"he baptizes invalidly.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 64, A. 3), the sacraments derive\ntheir efficacy from Christ's institution. Consequently, if any of\nthose things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a\nsacrament, it is invalid; save by special dispensation of Him Who did\nnot bind His power to the sacraments. Now Christ commanded the\nsacrament of Baptism to be given with the invocation of the Trinity.\nAnd consequently whatever is lacking to the full invocation of the\nTrinity, destroys the integrity of Baptism.\n\nNor does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied,\nas the name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he\nwho mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the\nThree; because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does\nit require a sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament\nit is not enough to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the\nTrinity be expressed in sensible words. For this reason at Christ's\nBaptism, wherein was the source of the sanctification of our Baptism,\nthe Trinity was present in sensible signs: viz. the Father in the\nvoice, the Son in the human nature, the Holy Ghost in the dove.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It was by a special revelation from Christ that in the\nprimitive Church the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; in\norder that the name of Christ, which was hateful to Jews and\nGentiles, might become an object of veneration, in that the Holy\nGhost was given in Baptism at the invocation of that Name.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Ambrose here gives this reason why exception could,\nwithout inconsistency, be allowed in the primitive Church; namely,\nbecause the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and\ntherefore the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in\nits integrity, at least implicitly.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Pope Nicolas confirms his words by quoting the two\nauthorities given in the preceding objections: wherefore the answer\nto this is clear from the two solutions given above.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 7]\n\nWhether Immersion in Water Is Necessary for Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that immersion in water is necessary for\nBaptism. Because it is written (Eph. 4:5): \"One faith, one baptism.\"\nBut in many parts of the world the ordinary way of baptizing is by\nimmersion. Therefore it seems that there can be no Baptism without\nimmersion.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3, 4): \"All we who are\nbaptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are\nburied together with Him, by Baptism into death.\" But this is done by\nimmersion: for Chrysostom says on John 3:5: \"Unless a man be born\nagain of water and the Holy Ghost,\" etc.: \"When we dip our heads\nunder the water as in a kind of tomb, our old man is buried, and\nbeing submerged, is hidden below, and thence he rises again renewed.\"\nTherefore it seems that immersion is essential to Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if Baptism is valid without total immersion of the\nbody, it would follow that it would be equally sufficient to pour\nwater over any part of the body. But this seems unreasonable; since\noriginal sin, to remedy which is the principal purpose of Baptism, is\nnot in only one part of the body. Therefore it seems that immersion\nis necessary for Baptism, and that mere sprinkling is not enough.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Heb. 10:22): \"Let us draw near with\na true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an\nevil conscience, and our bodies washed with clean water.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ In the sacrament of Baptism water is put to the use\nof a washing of the body, whereby to signify the inward washing away\nof sins. Now washing may be done with water not only by immersion,\nbut also by sprinkling or pouring. And, therefore, although it is\nsafer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary\nfashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by\npouring, according to Ezech. 36:25: \"I will pour upon you clean\nwater,\" as also the Blessed Lawrence is related to have baptized. And\nthis especially in cases of urgency: either because there is a great\nnumber to be baptized, as was clearly the case in Acts 2 and 4, where\nwe read that on one day three thousand believed, and on another five\nthousand: or through there being but a small supply of water, or\nthrough feebleness of the minister, who cannot hold up the candidate\nfor Baptism; or through feebleness of the candidate, whose life might\nbe endangered by immersion. We must therefore conclude that immersion\nis not necessary for Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 1: What is accidental to a thing does not diversify its\nessence. Now bodily washing with water is essential to Baptism:\nwherefore Baptism is called a \"laver,\" according to Eph. 5:26:\n\"Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.\" But that\nthe washing be done this or that way, is accidental to Baptism. And\nconsequently such diversity does not destroy the oneness of Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's burial is more clearly represented by\nimmersion: wherefore this manner of baptizing is more frequently in\nuse and more commendable. Yet in the other ways of baptizing it is\nrepresented after a fashion, albeit not so clearly; for no matter how\nthe washing is done, the body of a man, or some part thereof, is put\nunder water, just as Christ's body was put under the earth.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The principal part of the body, especially in relation\nto the exterior members, is the head, wherein all the senses, both\ninterior and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body\ncannot be covered with water, because of the scarcity of water, or\nbecause of some other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the\nhead, in which the principle of animal life is made manifest.\n\nAnd although original sin is transmitted through the members that\nserve for procreation, yet those members are not to be sprinkled in\npreference to the head, because by Baptism the transmission of\noriginal sin to the offspring by the act of procreation is not\ndeleted, but the soul is freed from the stain and debt of sin which\nit has contracted. Consequently that part of the body should be\nwashed in preference, in which the works of the soul are made\nmanifest.\n\nNevertheless in the Old Law the remedy against original sin was\naffixed to the member of procreation; because He through Whom\noriginal sin was to be removed, was yet to be born of the seed of\nAbraham, whose faith was signified by circumcision according to Rom.\n4:11.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Trine Immersion Is Essential to Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism.\nFor Augustine says in a sermon on the Symbol, addressed to the\nNeophytes: \"Rightly were you dipped three times, since you were\nbaptized in the name of the Trinity. Rightly were you dipped three\ntimes, because you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Who on\nthe third day rose again from the dead. For that thrice repeated\nimmersion reproduces the burial of the Lord by which you were buried\nwith Christ in Baptism.\" Now both seem to be essential to Baptism,\nnamely, that in Baptism the Trinity of Persons should be signified,\nand that we should be conformed to Christ's burial. Therefore it\nseems that trine immersion is essential to Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's\nmandate. But trine immersion was commanded by Christ: for Pope\nPelagius II wrote to Bishop Gaudentius: \"The Gospel precept given by\nour Lord God Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ, admonishes us to\nconfer the sacrament of Baptism to each one in the name of the\nTrinity and also with trine immersion.\" Therefore, just as it is\nessential to Baptism to call on the name of the Trinity, so is it\nessential to baptize by trine immersion.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if trine immersion be not essential to Baptism, it\nfollows that the sacrament of Baptism is conferred at the first\nimmersion; so that if a second or third immersion be added, it seems\nthat Baptism is conferred a second or third time, which is absurd.\nTherefore one immersion does not suffice for the sacrament of\nBaptism, and trine immersion is essential thereto.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Gregory wrote to the Bishop Leander: \"It cannot be\nin any way reprehensible to baptize an infant with either a trine or\na single immersion: since the Trinity can be represented in the three\nimmersions, and the unity of the Godhead in one immersion.\"\n\nI answer that As stated above (A. 7, ad 1), washing with water is of\nitself required for Baptism, being essential to the sacrament:\nwhereas the mode of washing is accidental to the sacrament.\nConsequently, as Gregory in the words above quoted explains, both\nsingle and trine immersion are lawful considered in themselves; since\none immersion signifies the oneness of Christ's death and of the\nGodhead; while trine immersion signifies the three days of Christ's\nburial, and also the Trinity of Persons.\n\nBut for various reasons, according as the Church has ordained, one\nmode has been in practice, at one time, the other at another time.\nFor since from the very earliest days of the Church some have had\nfalse notions concerning the Trinity, holding that Christ is a mere\nman, and that He is not called the \"Son of God\" or \"God\" except by\nreason of His merit, which was chiefly in His death; for this reason\nthey did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, but in memory of\nChrist's death, and with one immersion. And this was condemned in the\nearly Church. Wherefore in the Apostolic Canons (xlix) we read: \"If\nany priest or bishop confer baptism not with the trine immersion in\nthe one administration, but with one immersion, which baptism is said\nto be conferred by some in the death of the Lord, let him be\ndeposed\": for our Lord did not say, \"Baptize ye in My death,\" but \"In\nthe name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nLater on, however, there arose the error of certain schismatics and\nheretics who rebaptized: as Augustine (Super. Joan., cf. De Haeres.\nlxix) relates of the Donatists. Wherefore, in detestation of their\nerror, only one immersion was ordered to be made, by the (fourth)\ncouncil of Toledo, in the acts of which we read: \"In order to avoid\nthe scandal of schism or the practice of heretical teaching let us\nhold to the single baptismal immersion.\"\n\nBut now that this motive has ceased, trine immersion is universally\nobserved in Baptism: and consequently anyone baptizing otherwise\nwould sin gravely, through not following the ritual of the Church. It\nwould, however, be valid Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Trinity acts as principal agent in Baptism. Now the\nlikeness of the agent enters into the effect, in regard to the form\nand not in regard to the matter. Wherefore the Trinity is signified\nin Baptism by the words of the form. Nor is it essential for the\nTrinity to be signified by the manner in which the matter is used;\nalthough this is done to make the signification clearer.\n\nIn like manner Christ's death is sufficiently represented in the one\nimmersion. And the three days of His burial were not necessary for\nour salvation, because even if He had been buried or dead for one\nday, this would have been enough to consummate our redemption: yet\nthose three days were ordained unto the manifestation of the reality\nof His death, as stated above (Q. 53, A. 2). It is therefore clear\nthat neither on the part of the Trinity, nor on the part of Christ's\nPassion, is the trine immersion essential to the sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Pope Pelagius understood the trine immersion to be\nordained by Christ in its equivalent; in the sense that Christ\ncommanded Baptism to be conferred \"in the name of the Father, and of\nthe Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\" Nor can we argue from the form to\nthe use of the matter, as stated above (ad 1).\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 64, A. 8), the intention is\nessential to Baptism. Consequently, one Baptism results from the\nintention of the Church's minister, who intends to confer one Baptism\nby a trine immersion. Wherefore Jerome says on Eph. 4:5, 6: \"Though\nthe Baptism,\" i.e. the immersion, \"be thrice repeated, on account of\nthe mystery of the Trinity, yet it is reputed as one Baptism.\"\n\nIf, however, the intention were to confer one Baptism at each\nimmersion together with the repetition of the words of the form, it\nwould be a sin, in itself, because it would be a repetition of\nBaptism.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 9]\n\nWhether Baptism May Be Reiterated?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Baptism may be reiterated. For Baptism was\ninstituted, seemingly, in order to wash away sins. But sins are\nreiterated. Therefore much more should Baptism be reiterated: because\nChrist's mercy surpasses man's guilt.\n\nObj. 2: Further, John the Baptist received special commendation from\nChrist, Who said of him (Matt. 11:11): \"There hath not risen among\nthem that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist.\" But\nthose whom John had baptized were baptized again, according to Acts\n19:1-7, where it is stated that Paul rebaptized those who had\nreceived the Baptism of John. Much more, therefore, should those be\nrebaptized, who have been baptized by heretics or sinners.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it was decreed in the Council of Nicaea (Can. xix)\nthat if \"any of the Paulianists or Cataphrygians should be converted\nto the Catholic Church, they were to be baptized\": and this seemingly\nshould be said in regard to other heretics. Therefore those whom the\nheretics have baptized, should be baptized again.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Baptism is necessary for salvation. But sometimes\nthere is a doubt about the baptism of those who really have been\nbaptized. Therefore it seems that they should be baptized again.\n\nObj. 5: Further, the Eucharist is a more perfect sacrament than\nBaptism, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 3). But the sacrament of the\nEucharist is reiterated. Much more reason, therefore, is there for\nBaptism to be reiterated.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written, (Eph. 4:5): \"One faith, one Baptism.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Baptism cannot be reiterated.\n\nFirst, because Baptism is a spiritual regeneration; inasmuch as a man\ndies to the old life, and begins to lead the new life. Whence it is\nwritten (John 3:5): \"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy\nGhost, He cannot see [Vulg.: 'enter into'] the kingdom of God.\" Now\none man can be begotten but once. Wherefore Baptism cannot be\nreiterated, just as neither can carnal generation. Hence Augustine\nsays on John 3:4: \"'Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb\nand be born again': So thou,\" says he, \"must understand the birth of\nthe Spirit, as Nicodemus understood the birth of the flesh . . . . As\nthere is no return to the womb, so neither is there to Baptism.\"\n\nSecondly, because \"we are baptized in Christ's death,\" by which we\ndie unto sin and rise again unto \"newness of life\" (cf. Rom. 6:3, 4).\nNow \"Christ died\" but \"once\" (Rom. 6:10). Wherefore neither should\nBaptism be reiterated. For this reason (Heb. 6:6) is it said against\nsome who wished to be baptized again: \"Crucifying again to themselves\nthe Son of God\"; on which the gloss observes: \"Christ's one death\nhallowed the one Baptism.\"\n\nThirdly, because Baptism imprints a character, which is indelible,\nand is conferred with a certain consecration. Wherefore, just as\nother consecrations are not reiterated in the Church, so neither is\nBaptism. This is the view expressed by Augustine, who says (Contra\nEpist. Parmen. ii) that \"the military character is not renewed\": and\nthat \"the sacrament of Christ is not less enduring than this bodily\nmark, since we see that not even apostates are deprived of Baptism,\nsince when they repent and return they are not baptized anew.\"\n\nFourthly, because Baptism is conferred principally as a remedy\nagainst original sin. Wherefore, just as original sin is not renewed,\nso neither is Baptism reiterated, for as it is written (Rom. 5:18),\n\"as by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation, so also by\nthe justice of one, unto all men to justification of life.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Baptism derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion, as\nstated above (A. 2, ad 1). Wherefore, just as subsequent sins do not\ncancel the virtue of Christ's Passion, so neither do they cancel\nBaptism, so as to call for its repetition. On the other hand the sin\nwhich hindered the effect of Baptism is blotted out on being\nsubmitted to Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says on John 1:33: \"'And I knew Him not':\nBehold; after John had baptized, Baptism was administered; after a\nmurderer has baptized, it is not administered: because John gave his\nown Baptism; the murderer, Christ's; for that sacrament is so sacred,\nthat not even a murderer's administration contaminates it.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Paulianists and Cataphrygians used not to baptize\nin the name of the Trinity. Wherefore Gregory, writing to the Bishop\nQuiricus, says: \"Those heretics who are not baptized in the name of\nthe Trinity, such as the Bonosians and Cataphrygians\" (who were of\nthe same mind as the Paulianists), \"since the former believe not that\nChrist is God\" (holding Him to be a mere man), \"while the latter,\"\ni.e. the Cataphrygians, \"are so perverse as to deem a mere man,\" viz.\nMontanus, \"to be the Holy Ghost: all these are baptized when they\ncome to holy Church, for the baptism which they received while in\nthat state of error was no Baptism at all, not being conferred in the\nname of the Trinity.\" On the other hand, as set down in De Eccles.\nDogm. xxii: \"Those heretics who have been baptized in the confession\nof the name of the Trinity are to be received as already baptized\nwhen they come to the Catholic Faith.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: According to the Decretal of Alexander III: \"Those\nabout whose Baptism there is a doubt are to be baptized with these\nwords prefixed to the form: 'If thou art baptized, I do not rebaptize\nthee; but if thou art not baptized, I baptize thee,' etc.: for that\ndoes not appear to be repeated, which is not known to have been done.\"\n\nReply Obj. 5: Both sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Eucharist, are a\nrepresentation of our Lord's death and Passion, but not in the same\nway. For Baptism is a commemoration of Christ's death in so far as\nman dies with Christ, that he may be born again into a new life. But\nthe Eucharist is a commemoration of Christ's death, in so far as the\nsuffering Christ Himself is offered to us as the Paschal banquet,\naccording to 1 Cor. 5:7, 8: \"Christ our pasch is sacrificed;\ntherefore let us feast.\" And forasmuch as man is born once, whereas\nhe eats many times, so is Baptism given once, but the Eucharist\nfrequently.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 10]\n\nWhether the Church Observes a Suitable Rite in Baptizing?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the Church observes an unsuitable rite in\nbaptizing. For as Chrysostom (Chromatius, in Matth. 3:15) says: \"The\nwaters of Baptism would never avail to purge the sins of them that\nbelieve, had they not been hallowed by the touch of our Lord's body.\"\nNow this took place at Christ's Baptism, which is commemorated in the\nFeast of the Epiphany. Therefore solemn Baptism should be celebrated\nat the Feast of the Epiphany rather than on the eves of Easter and\nWhitsunday.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it seems that several matters should not be used in\nthe same sacrament. But water is used for washing in Baptism.\nTherefore it is unfitting that the person baptized should be anointed\nthrice with holy oil first on the breast, and then between the\nshoulders, and a third time with chrism on the top of the head.\n\nObj. 3: Further, \"in Christ Jesus . . . there is neither male nor\nfemale\" (Gal. 3:23) . . . \"neither Barbarian nor Scythian\" (Col.\n3:11), nor, in like manner, any other such like distinctions. Much\nless, therefore can a difference of clothing have any efficacy in the\nFaith of Christ. It is consequently unfitting to bestow a white\ngarment on those who have been baptized.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Baptism can be celebrated without such like\nceremonies. Therefore it seems that those mentioned above are\nsuperfluous; and consequently that they are unsuitably inserted by\nthe Church in the baptismal rite.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Church is ruled by the Holy Ghost, Who does\nnothing inordinate.\n\n_I answer that,_ In the sacrament of Baptism something is done which\nis essential to the sacrament, and something which belongs to a\ncertain solemnity of the sacrament. Essential indeed, to the\nsacrament are both the form which designates the principal cause of\nthe sacrament; and the minister who is the instrumental cause; and\nthe use of the matter, namely, washing with water, which designates\nthe principal sacramental effect. But all the other things which the\nChurch observes in the baptismal rite, belong rather to a certain\nsolemnity of the sacrament.\n\nAnd these, indeed, are used in conjunction with the sacrament for\nthree reasons. First, in order to arouse the devotion of the\nfaithful, and their reverence for the sacrament. For if there were\nnothing done but a mere washing with water, without any solemnity,\nsome might easily think it to be an ordinary washing.\n\nSecondly, for the instruction of the faithful. Because simple and\nunlettered folk need to be taught by some sensible signs, for\ninstance, pictures and the like. And in this way by means of the\nsacramental ceremonies they are either instructed, or urged to seek\nthe signification of such like sensible signs. And consequently,\nsince, besides the principal sacramental effect, other things should\nbe known about Baptism, it was fitting that these also should be\nrepresented by some outward signs.\n\nThirdly, because the power of the devil is restrained, by prayers,\nblessings, and the like, from hindering the sacramental effect.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ was baptized on the Epiphany with the Baptism of\nJohn, as stated above (Q. 39, A. 2), with which baptism, indeed, the\nfaithful are not baptized, rather are they baptized with Christ's\nBaptism. This has its efficacy from the Passion of Christ, according\nto Rom. 6:3: \"We who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in\nHis death\"; and in the Holy Ghost, according to John 3:5: \"Unless a\nman be born again of water and the Holy Ghost.\" Therefore it is that\nsolemn Baptism is held in the Church, both on Easter Eve, when we\ncommemorate our Lord's burial and resurrection; for which reason our\nLord gave His disciples the commandment concerning Baptism as related\nby Matthew (28:19): and on Whitsun-eve, when the celebration of the\nFeast of the Holy Ghost begins; for which reason the apostles are\nsaid to have baptized three thousand on the very day of Pentecost\nwhen they had received the Holy Ghost.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The use of water in Baptism is part of the substance of\nthe sacrament; but the use of oil or chrism is part of the solemnity.\nFor the candidate is first of all anointed with Holy oil on the\nbreast and between the shoulders, as \"one who wrestles for God,\" to\nuse Ambrose's expression (De Sacram. i): thus are prize-fighters wont\nto besmear themselves with oil. Or, as Innocent III says in a\ndecretal on the Holy Unction: \"The candidate is anointed on the\nbreast, in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, to cast off\nerror and ignorance, and to acknowledge the true faith, since 'the\njust man liveth by faith'; while he is anointed between the\nshoulders, that he may be clothed with the grace of the Holy Ghost,\nlay aside indifference and sloth, and become active in good works; so\nthat the sacrament of faith may purify the thoughts of his heart, and\nstrengthen his shoulders for the burden of labor.\" But after Baptism,\nas Rabanus says (De Sacram. iii), \"he is forthwith anointed on the\nhead by the priest with Holy Chrism, who proceeds at once to offer up\na prayer that the neophyte may have a share in Christ's kingdom, and\nbe called a Christian after Christ.\" Or, as Ambrose says (De Sacram.\niii), his head is anointed, because \"the senses of a wise man are in\nhis head\" (Eccl 2:14): to wit, that he may \"be ready to satisfy\neveryone that asketh\" him to give \"a reason of his faith\" (cf. 1 Pet.\n3:15; Innocent III, Decretal on Holy Unction).\n\nReply Obj. 3: This white garment is given, not as though it were\nunlawful for the neophyte to use others: but as a sign of the\nglorious resurrection, unto which men are born again by Baptism; and\nin order to designate the purity of life, to which he will be bound\nafter being baptized, according to Rom. 6:4: \"That we may walk in\nnewness of life.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Although those things that belong to the solemnity of\na sacrament are not essential to it, yet are they not superfluous,\nsince they pertain to the sacrament's wellbeing, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 11]\n\nWhether Three Kinds of Baptism Are Fittingly Described--viz. Baptism\nof Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not\nfittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit,\ni.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Eph. 4:5): \"One\nFaith, one Baptism.\" Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there\nshould not be three Baptisms.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above\n(Q. 65, A. 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament.\nTherefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several\nother kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three\nBaptisms.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on Heb. 6:2, \"Of the doctrine of Baptisms,\" the\ngloss says: \"He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water,\nof Repentance, and of Blood.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 62, A. 5), Baptism of Water has\nits efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by\nBaptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although\nthe effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the\neffect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without\nBaptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's\nPassion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him.\nHence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): \"These are they who are come out of\ngreat tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them\nwhite in the blood of the Lamb.\" In like manner a man receives the\neffect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without\nBaptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his\nheart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to\nrepent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of\nRepentance. Of this it is written (Isa. 4:4): \"If the Lord shall wash\naway the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the\nblood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of\njudgment, and by the spirit of burning.\" Thus, therefore, each of\nthese other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the\nplace of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo\nParvulorum iv): \"The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason\nfrom the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today\nshalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place\nof Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I\nperceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply\nfor what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of\nheart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the\ncelebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of\nWater, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and\nfrom the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of\nBaptism is not destroyed.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated above (Q. 60, A. 1), a sacrament is a kind\nof sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not,\nindeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect.\nConsequently they are not sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For\ninstance, \"the Deluge\" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the\nsalvation of the faithful in the Church; since then \"a few . . .\nsouls were saved in the ark [Vulg.: 'by water'],\" according to 1 Pet.\n3:20. He also mentions \"the crossing of the Red Sea\": which was a\nfigure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of\nsin; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2) that \"all . . . were\nbaptized in the cloud and in the sea.\" And again he mentions \"the\nvarious washings which were customary under the Old Law,\" which were\nfigures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also \"the\nBaptism of John,\" which prepared the way for our Baptism.\n_______________________\n\nTWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 66, Art. 12]\n\nWhether the Baptism of Blood Is the Most Excellent of These?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the Baptism of Blood is not the most\nexcellent of these three. For the Baptism of Water impresses a\ncharacter; which the Baptism of Blood cannot do. Therefore the\nBaptism of Blood is not more excellent than the Baptism of Water.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Baptism of Blood is of no avail without the\nBaptism of the Spirit, which is by charity; for it is written (1 Cor.\n13:3): \"If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not\ncharity, it profiteth me nothing.\" But the Baptism of the Spirit\navails without the Baptism of Blood; for not only the martyrs are\nsaved. Therefore the Baptism of Blood is not the most excellent.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy\nfrom Christ's Passion, to which, as stated above (A. 11), the Baptism\nof Blood corresponds, so Christ's Passion derives its efficacy from\nthe Holy Ghost, according to Heb. 9:14: \"The Blood of Christ, Who by\nthe Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our\nconscience from dead works,\" etc. Therefore the Baptism of the Spirit\nis more excellent than the Baptism of Blood. Therefore the Baptism of\nBlood is not the most excellent.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the\ncomparison between Baptisms says: \"The newly baptized confesses his\nfaith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of\nthe persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has\nconfessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy\nGhost by the imposition of the bishop's hands; the latter is made the\ntemple of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 11), the shedding of blood for\nChrist's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called\nbaptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of\nWater. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's\nPassion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (A. 11). These two\ncauses act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently,\nhowever, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the\nBaptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the\nBaptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire; but in the\nBaptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like\nmanner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water\nthrough a certain hidden power; in the Baptism of Repentance by\nmoving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree\nof fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: \"Greater\nlove than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his\nfriends.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: A character is both reality and a sacrament. And we do\nnot say that the Baptism of Blood is more excellent, considering the\nnature of a sacrament; but considering the sacramental effect.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The shedding of blood is not in the nature of a Baptism\nif it be without charity. Hence it is clear that the Baptism of Blood\nincludes the Baptism of the Spirit, but not conversely. And from this\nit is proved to be more perfect.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Baptism owes its pre-eminence not only to Christ's\nPassion, but also to the Holy Ghost, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 67\n\nOF THE MINISTERS BY WHOM THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM IS CONFERRED\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the ministers by whom the sacrament of\nBaptism is conferred. And concerning this there are eight points of\ninquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it belongs to a deacon to baptize?\n\n(2) Whether this belongs to a priest, or to a bishop only?\n\n(3) Whether a layman can confer the sacrament of Baptism?\n\n(4) Whether a woman can do this?\n\n(5) Whether an unbaptized person can baptize?\n\n(6) Whether several can at the same time baptize one and the same\nperson?\n\n(7) Whether it is essential that someone should raise the person\nbaptized from the sacred font?\n\n(8) Whether he who raises someone from the sacred font is bound to\ninstruct him?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 1]\n\nWhether It Is Part of a Deacon's Duty to Baptize?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that it is part of a deacon's duty to baptize.\nBecause the duties of preaching and of baptizing were enjoined by our\nLord at the same time, according to Matt. 28:19: \"Going . . . teach\nye all nations, baptizing them,\" etc. But it is part of a deacon's\nduty to preach the gospel. Therefore it seems that it is also part of\na deacon's duty to baptize.\n\nObj. 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) to \"cleanse\"\nis part of the deacon's duty. But cleansing from sins is effected\nspecially by Baptism, according to Eph. 5:26: \"Cleansing it by the\nlaver of water in the word of life.\" Therefore it seems that it\nbelongs to a deacon to baptize.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is told of Blessed Laurence, who was a deacon,\nthat he baptized many. Therefore it seems that it belongs to deacons\nto baptize.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Gelasius I says (the passage is to be found\nin the Decrees, dist. 93): \"We order the deacons to keep within their\nown province\"; and further on: \"Without bishop or priest they must\nnot dare to baptize, except in cases of extreme urgency, when the\naforesaid are a long way off.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Just as the properties and duties of the heavenly\norders are gathered from their names, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier.\nvi), so can we gather, from the names of the ecclesiastical orders,\nwhat belongs to each order. Now \"deacons\" are so called from being\n\"ministers\"; because, to wit, it is not in the deacon's province to\nbe the chief and official celebrant in conferring a sacrament, but to\nminister to others, his elders, in the sacramental dispensations. And\nso it does not belong to a deacon to confer the sacrament of Baptism\nofficially as it were; but to assist and serve his elders in the\nbestowal of this and other sacraments. Hence Isidore says (Epist. ad\nLudifred.): \"It is a deacon's duty to assist and serve the priests,\nin all the rites of Christ's sacraments, viz. those of Baptism, of\nthe Chrism, of the Paten and Chalice.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: It is the deacon's duty to read the Gospel in church,\nand to preach it as one catechizing; hence Dionysius says (Eccl.\nHier. v) that a deacon's office involves power over the unclean among\nwhom he includes the catechumens. But to teach, i.e. to expound the\nGospel, is the proper office of a bishop, whose action is \"to\nperfect,\" as Dionysius teaches (Eccl. Hier. v); and \"to perfect\" is\nthe same as \"to teach.\" Consequently, it does not follow that the\noffice of baptizing belongs to deacons.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii), Baptism has a power\nnot only of \"cleansing\" but also of \"enlightening.\" Consequently, it\nis outside the province of the deacon whose duty it is to cleanse\nonly: viz. either by driving away the unclean, or by preparing them\nfor the reception of a sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Because Baptism is a necessary sacrament, deacons are\nallowed to baptize in cases of urgency when their elders are not at\nhand; as appears from the authority of Gelasius quoted above. And it\nwas thus that Blessed Laurence, being but a deacon, baptized.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 2]\n\nWhether to Baptize Is Part of the Priestly Office, or Proper to That\nof Bishops?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that to baptize is not part of the priestly\noffice, but proper to that of bishops. Because, as stated above (A.\n1, Obj. 1), the duties of teaching and baptizing are enjoined in the\nsame precept (Matt. 28:19). But to teach, which is \"to perfect,\"\nbelongs to the office of bishop, as Dionysius declares (Eccl. Hier.\nv, vi). Therefore to baptize also belongs to the episcopal office.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by Baptism a man is admitted to the body of the\nChristian people: and to do this seems consistent with no other than\nthe princely office. Now the bishops hold the position of princes in\nthe Church, as the gloss observes on Luke 10:1: indeed, they even\ntake the place of the apostles, of whom it is written (Ps. 44:17):\n\"Thou shalt make them princes over all the earth.\" Therefore it seems\nthat to baptize belongs exclusively to the office of bishops.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that \"it belongs\nto the bishop to consecrate churches, to anoint altars, to consecrate\n(_conficere_) the chrism; he it is that confers the ecclesiastical\norders, and blesses the consecrated virgins.\" But the sacrament of\nBaptism is greater than all these. Therefore much more reason is\nthere why to baptize should belong exclusively to the episcopal\noffice.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Isidore says (De Officiis. ii): \"It is certain\nthat Baptism was entrusted to priests alone.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Priests are consecrated for the purpose of\ncelebrating the sacrament of Christ's Body, as stated above (Q. 65,\nA. 3). Now that is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity, according\nto the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:17): \"We, being many, are one bread, one\nbody, all that partake of one bread and one chalice.\" Moreover, by\nBaptism a man becomes a participator in ecclesiastical unity,\nwherefore also he receives the right to approach our Lord's Table.\nConsequently, just as it belongs to a priest to consecrate the\nEucharist, which is the principal purpose of the priesthood, so it is\nthe proper office of a priest to baptize: since it seems to belong to\none and the same, to produce the whole and to dispose the part in the\nwhole.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Our Lord enjoined on the apostles, whose place is taken\nby the bishops, both duties, namely, of teaching and of baptizing,\nbut in different ways. Because Christ committed to them the duty of\nteaching, that they might exercise it themselves as being the most\nimportant duty of all: wherefore the apostles themselves said (Acts\n6:2): \"It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and\nserve tables.\" On the other hand, He entrusted the apostles with the\noffice of baptizing, to be exercised vicariously; wherefore the\nApostle says (1 Cor. 1:17): \"Christ sent me not to baptize, but to\npreach the Gospel.\" And the reason for this was that the merit and\nwisdom of the minister have no bearing on the baptismal effect, as\nthey have in teaching, as may be seen from what we have stated above\n(Q. 64, A. 1, ad 2; AA. 5, 9). A proof of this is found also in the\nfact that our Lord Himself did not baptize, but His disciples, as\nJohn relates (4:2). Nor does it follow from this that bishops cannot\nbaptize; since what a lower power can do, that can also a higher\npower. Wherefore also the Apostle says (1 Cor. 1:14, 16) that he had\nbaptized some.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In every commonwealth minor affairs are entrusted to\nlower officials, while greater affairs are restricted to higher\nofficials; according to Ex. 18:22: \"When any great matter soever\nshall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the\nlesser matters only.\" Consequently it belongs to the lower officials\nof the state to decide matters concerning the lower orders; while to\nthe highest it belongs to set in order those matters that regard the\nhigher orders of the state. Now by Baptism a man attains only to the\nlowest rank among the Christian people: and consequently it belongs\nto the lesser officials of the Church to baptize, namely, the\npriests, who hold the place of the seventy-two disciples of Christ,\nas the gloss says in the passage quoted from Luke 10.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 65, A. 3), the sacrament of Baptism\nholds the first place in the order of necessity; but in the order of\nperfection there are other greater sacraments which are reserved to\nbishops.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 3]\n\nWhether a Layman Can Baptize?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a layman cannot baptize. Because, as\nstated above (A. 2), to baptize belongs properly to the priestly\norder. But those things which belong to an order cannot be entrusted\nto one that is not ordained. Therefore it seems that a layman, who\nhas no orders, cannot baptize.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is a greater thing to baptize, than to perform\nthe other sacramental rites of Baptism, such as to catechize, to\nexorcize, and to bless the baptismal water. But these things cannot\nbe done by laymen, but only by priests. Therefore it seems that much\nless can laymen baptize.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as Baptism is a necessary sacrament, so is\nPenance. But a layman cannot absolve in the tribunal of Penance.\nNeither, therefore, can he baptize.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Gelasius I and Isidore say that \"it is often\npermissible for Christian laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent\nnecessity.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It is due to the mercy of Him \"Who will have all men\nto be saved\" (1 Tim. 2:4) that in those things which are necessary\nfor salvation, man can easily find the remedy. Now the most necessary\namong all the sacraments is Baptism, which is man's regeneration unto\nspiritual life: since for children there is no substitute, while\nadults cannot otherwise than by Baptism receive a full remission both\nof guilt and of its punishment. Consequently, lest man should have to\ngo without so necessary a remedy, it was ordained, both that the\nmatter of Baptism should be something common that is easily\nobtainable by all, i.e. water; and that the minister of Baptism\nshould be anyone, even not in orders, lest from lack of being\nbaptized, man should suffer loss of his salvation.\n\nReply Obj. 1: To baptize belongs to the priestly order by reason of a\ncertain appropriateness and solemnity; but this is not essential to\nthe sacrament. Consequently, if a layman were to baptize even outside\na case of urgency; he would sin, yet he would confer the sacrament;\nnor would the person thus baptized have to be baptized again.\n\nReply Obj. 2: These sacramental rites of Baptism belong to the\nsolemnity of, and are not essential to, Baptism. And therefore they\nneither should nor can be done by a layman, but only by a priest,\nwhose office it is to baptize solemnly.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 65, AA. 3, 4), Penance is not so\nnecessary as Baptism; since contrition can supply the defect of the\npriestly absolution which does not free from the whole punishment,\nnor again is it given to children. Therefore the comparison with\nBaptism does not stand, because its effect cannot be supplied by\nanything else.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 4]\n\nWhether a Woman Can Baptize?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a woman cannot baptize. For we read in the\nacts of the Council of Carthage (iv): \"However learned and holy a\nwoman may be, she must not presume to teach men in the church, or to\nbaptize.\" But in no case is a woman allowed to teach in church,\naccording to 1 Cor. 14:35: \"It is a shame for a woman to speak in the\nchurch.\" Therefore it seems that neither is a woman in any\ncircumstances permitted to baptize.\n\nObj. 2: Further, to baptize belongs to those having authority.\nwherefore baptism should be conferred by priests having charge of\nsouls. But women are not qualified for this; according to 1 Tim.\n2:12: \"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over man,\nbut to be subject to him [Vulg.: 'but to be in silence'].\" Therefore\na woman cannot baptize.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the spiritual regeneration water seems to hold\nthe place of the mother's womb, as Augustine says on John 3:4, \"Can\"\na man \"enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born\nagain?\" While he who baptizes seems to hold rather the position of\nfather. But this is unfitting for a woman. Therefore a woman cannot\nbaptize.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Urban II says (Decreta xxx): \"In reply to the\nquestions asked by your beatitude, we consider that the following\nanswer should be given: that the baptism is valid when, in cases of\nnecessity, a woman baptizes a child in the name of the Trinity.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ is the chief Baptizer, according to John\n1:33: \"He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and\nremaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth.\" For it is written in\nCol. 3 (cf. Gal. 3:28), that in Christ there is neither male nor\nfemale. Consequently, just as a layman can baptize, as Christ's\nminister, so can a woman.\n\nBut since \"the head of the woman is the man,\" and \"the head of . . .\nman, is Christ\" (1 Cor. 11:3), a woman should not baptize if a man be\navailable for the purpose; just as neither should a layman in the\npresence of a cleric, nor a cleric in the presence of a priest. The\nlast, however, can baptize in the presence of a bishop, because it is\npart of the priestly office.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Just as a woman is not suffered to teach in public, but\nis allowed to instruct and admonish privately; so she is not\npermitted to baptize publicly and solemnly, and yet she can baptize\nin a case of urgency.\n\nReply Obj. 2: When Baptism is celebrated solemnly and with due form,\nit should be conferred by a priest having charge of souls, or by one\nrepresenting him. But this is not required in cases of urgency, when\na woman may baptize.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In carnal generation male and female co-operate\naccording to the power of their proper nature; wherefore the female\ncannot be the active, but only the passive, principle of generation.\nBut in spiritual generation they do not act, either of them, by their\nproper power, but only instrumentally by the power of Christ.\nConsequently, on the same grounds either man or woman can baptize in\na case of urgency.\n\nIf, however, a woman were to baptize without any urgency for so\ndoing, there would be no need of rebaptism: as we have said in regard\nto laymen (A. 3, ad 1). But the baptizer herself would sin, as also\nthose who took part with her therein, either by receiving Baptism\nfrom her, or by bringing someone to her to be baptized.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 5]\n\nWhether One That Is Not Baptized Can Confer the Sacrament of Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that one that is not baptized cannot confer the\nsacrament of Baptism. For \"none gives what he has not.\" But a\nnon-baptized person has not the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore he\ncannot give it.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a man confers the sacrament of Baptism inasmuch as\nhe is a minister of the Church. But one that is not baptized, belongs\nnowise to the Church, i.e. neither really nor sacramentally.\nTherefore he cannot confer the sacrament of Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is more to confer a sacrament than to receive it.\nBut one that is not baptized, cannot receive the other sacraments.\nMuch less, therefore, can he confer any sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Isidore says: \"The Roman Pontiff does not consider\nit to be the man who baptizes, but that the Holy Ghost confers the\ngrace of Baptism, though he that baptizes be a pagan.\" But he who is\nbaptized, is not called a pagan. Therefore he who is not baptized can\nconfer the sacrament of Baptism.\n\n_I answer that,_ Augustine left this question without deciding it.\nFor he says (Contra Ep. Parmen. ii): \"This is indeed another\nquestion, whether even those can baptize who were never Christians;\nnor should anything be rashly asserted hereupon, without the\nauthority of a sacred council such as suffices for so great a\nmatter.\" But afterwards it was decided by the Church that the\nunbaptized, whether Jews or pagans, can confer the sacrament of\nBaptism, provided they baptize in the form of the Church. Wherefore\nPope Nicolas I replies to the questions propounded by the Bulgars:\n\"You say that many in your country have been baptized by someone,\nwhether Christian or pagan you know not. If these were baptized in\nthe name of the Trinity, they must not be rebaptized.\" But if the\nform of the Church be not observed, the sacrament of Baptism is not\nconferred. And thus is to be explained what Gregory II [*Gregory III]\nwrites to Bishop Boniface: \"Those whom you assert to have been\nbaptized by pagans,\" namely, with a form not recognized by the\nChurch, \"we command you to rebaptize in the name of the Trinity.\" And\nthe reason of this is that, just as on the part of the matter, as far\nas the essentials of the sacrament are concerned, any water will\nsuffice, so, on the part of the minister, any man is competent.\nConsequently, an unbaptized person can baptize in a case of urgency.\nSo that two unbaptized persons may baptize one another, one baptizing\nthe other and being afterwards baptized by him: and each would\nreceive not only the sacrament but also the reality of the sacrament.\nBut if this were done outside a case of urgency, each would sin\ngrievously, both the baptizer and the baptized, and thus the\nbaptismal effect would be frustrated, although the sacrament itself\nwould not be invalidated.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The man who baptizes offers but his outward\nministration; whereas Christ it is Who baptizes inwardly, Who can use\nall men to whatever purpose He wills. Consequently, the unbaptized\ncan baptize: because, as Pope Nicolas I says, \"the Baptism is not\ntheirs,\" i.e. the baptizers', \"but His,\" i.e. Christ's.\n\nReply Obj. 2: He who is not baptized, though he belongs not to the\nChurch either in reality or sacramentally, can nevertheless belong to\nher in intention and by similarity of action, namely, in so far as he\nintends to do what the Church does, and in baptizing observes the\nChurch's form, and thus acts as the minister of Christ, Who did not\nconfine His power to those that are baptized, as neither did He to\nthe sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The other sacraments are not so necessary as Baptism.\nAnd therefore it is allowable that an unbaptized person should\nbaptize rather than that he should receive other sacraments.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Several Can Baptize at the Same Time?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that several can baptize at the same time. For\nunity is contained in multitude, but not _vice versa._ Wherefore it\nseems that many can do whatever one can but not _vice versa:_ thus\nmany draw a ship which one could draw. But one man can baptize.\nTherefore several, too, can baptize one at the same time.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is more difficult for one agent to act on many\nthings, than for many to act at the same time on one. But one man can\nbaptize several at the same time. Much more, therefore, can many\nbaptize one at the same time.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Baptism is a sacrament of the greatest necessity.\nNow in certain cases it seems necessary for several to baptize one at\nthe same time; for instance, suppose a child to be in danger of\ndeath, and two persons present, one of whom is dumb, and the other\nwithout hands or arms; for then the mutilated person would have to\npronounce the words, and the dumb person would have to perform the\nact of baptizing. Therefore it seems that several can baptize one at\nthe same time.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Where there is one agent there is one action. If,\ntherefore, several were to baptize one, it seems to follow that there\nwould be several baptisms: and this is contrary to Eph. 4:5: \"one\nFaith, one Baptism.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The Sacrament of Baptism derives its power\nprincipally from its form, which the Apostle calls \"the word of life\"\n(Eph. 5:26). Consequently, if several were to baptize one at the same\ntime, we must consider what form they would use. For were they to\nsay: \"We baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of\nthe Holy Ghost,\" some maintain that the sacrament of Baptism would\nnot be conferred, because the form of the Church would not be\nobserved, i.e. \"I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the\nSon and of the Holy Ghost.\" But this reasoning is disproved by the\nform observed in the Greek Church. For they might say: \"The servant\nof God, N . . ., is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son\nand of the Holy Ghost,\" under which form the Greeks receive the\nsacrament of Baptism: and yet this form differs far more from the\nform that we use, than does this: \"We baptize thee.\"\n\nThe point to be observed, however, is this, that by this form, \"We\nbaptize thee,\" the intention expressed is that several concur in\nconferring one Baptism: and this seems contrary to the notion of a\nminister; for a man does not baptize save as a minister of Christ,\nand as standing in His place; wherefore just as there is one Christ,\nso should there be one minister to represent Christ. Hence the\nApostle says pointedly (Eph. 4:5): \"one Lord, one Faith, one\nBaptism.\" Consequently, an intention which is in opposition to this\nseems to annul the sacrament of Baptism.\n\nOn the other hand, if each were to say: \"I baptize thee in the name\nof the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,\" each would\nsignify his intention as though he were conferring Baptism\nindependently of the other. This might occur in the case where both\nwere striving to baptize someone; and then it is clear that whichever\npronounced the words first would confer the sacrament of Baptism;\nwhile the other, however great his right to baptize, if he presume to\nutter the words, would be liable to be punished as a rebaptizer. If,\nhowever, they were to pronounce the words absolutely at the same\ntime, and dipped or sprinkled the man together, they should be\npunished for baptizing in an improper manner, but not for\nrebaptizing: because each would intend to baptize an unbaptized\nperson, and each, so far as he is concerned, would baptize. Nor would\nthey confer several sacraments: but the one Christ baptizing inwardly\nwould confer one sacrament by means of both together.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument avails in those agents that act by their\nown power. But men do not baptize by their own, but by Christ's\npower, Who, since He is one, perfects His work by means of one\nminister.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In a case of necessity one could baptize several at the\nsame time under this form: \"I baptize ye\": for instance, if they were\nthreatened by a falling house, or by the sword or something of the\nkind, so as not to allow of the delay involved by baptizing them\nsingly. Nor would this cause a change in the Church's form, since the\nplural is nothing but the singular doubled: especially as we find the\nplural expressed in Matt. 28:19: \"Baptizing them,\" etc. Nor is there\nparity between the baptizer and the baptized; since Christ, the\nbaptizer in chief, is one: while many are made one in Christ by\nBaptism.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 66, A. 1), the integrity of Baptism\nconsists in the form of words and the use of the matter.\nConsequently, neither he who only pronounces the words, baptizes, nor\nhe who dips. Wherefore if one pronounces the words and the other\ndips, no form of words can be fitting. For neither could he say: \"I\nbaptize thee\": since he dips not, and therefore baptizes not. Nor\ncould they say: \"We baptize thee\": since neither baptizes. For if of\ntwo men, one write one part of a book, and the other write the other,\nit would not be a proper form of speech to say: \"We wrote this book,\"\nbut the figure of synecdoche in which the whole is put for the part.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 7]\n\nWhether in Baptism It Is Necessary for Someone to Raise the Baptized\nfrom the Sacred Font?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that in Baptism it is not necessary for someone\nto raise the baptized from the sacred font. For our Baptism is\nconsecrated by Christ's Baptism and is conformed thereto. But Christ\nwhen baptized was not raised by anyone from the font, but according\nto Matt. 3:16, \"Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the\nwater.\" Therefore it seems that neither when others are baptized\nshould anyone raise the baptized from the sacred font.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, as stated above\n(A. 3). But in carnal generation nothing else is required but the\nactive principle, i.e. the father, and the passive principle, i.e.\nthe mother. Since, then, in Baptism he that baptizes takes the place\nof the father, while the very water of Baptism takes the place of the\nmother, as Augustine says in a sermon on the Epiphany (cxxxv); it\nseems that there is no further need for someone to raise the baptized\nfrom the sacred font.\n\nObj. 3: Further, nothing ridiculous should be observed in the\nsacraments of the Church. But it seems ridiculous that after being\nbaptized, adults who can stand up of themselves and leave the sacred\nfont, should be held up by another. Therefore there seems no need for\nanyone, especially in the Baptism of adults, to raise the baptized\nfrom the sacred font.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that \"the priests\ntaking the baptized hand him over to his sponsor and guide.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The spiritual regeneration, which takes place in\nBaptism, is in a certain manner likened to carnal generation:\nwherefore it is written (1 Pet. 2:2): \"As new-born babes, endowed\nwith reason desire milk [Vulg.: 'desire reasonable milk'] without\nguile.\" Now, in carnal generation the new-born child needs\nnourishment and guidance: wherefore, in spiritual generation also,\nsomeone is needed to undertake the office of nurse and tutor by\nforming and instructing one who is yet a novice in the Faith,\nconcerning things pertaining to Christian faith and mode of life,\nwhich the clergy have not the leisure to do through being busy with\nwatching over the people generally: because little children and\nnovices need more than ordinary care. Consequently someone is needed\nto receive the baptized from the sacred font as though for the\npurpose of instructing and guiding them. It is to this that Dionysius\nrefers (Eccl. Hier. xi) saying: \"It occurred to our heavenly guides,\"\ni.e. the Apostles, \"and they decided, that infants should be taken\ncharge of thus: that the parents of the child should hand it over to\nsome instructor versed in holy things, who would thenceforth take\ncharge of the child, and be to it a spiritual father and a guide in\nthe road of salvation.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ was baptized not that He might be regenerated,\nbut that He might regenerate others: wherefore after His Baptism He\nneeded no tutor like other children.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In carnal generation nothing is essential besides a\nfather and a mother: yet to ease the latter in her travail, there is\nneed for a midwife; and for the child to be suitably brought up there\nis need for a nurse and a tutor: while their place is taken in\nBaptism by him who raises the child from the sacred font.\nConsequently this is not essential to the sacrament, and in a case of\nnecessity one alone can baptize with water.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It is not on account of bodily weakness that the\nbaptized is raised from the sacred font by the godparent, but on\naccount of spiritual weakness, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 67, Art. 8]\n\nWhether He Who Raises Anyone from the Sacred Font Is Bound to\nInstruct Him?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that he who raises anyone from the sacred font\nis not bound to instruct him. For none but those who are themselves\ninstructed can give instruction. But even the uneducated and\nill-instructed are allowed to raise people from the sacred font.\nTherefore he who raises a baptized person from the font is not bound\nto instruct him.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a son is instructed by his father better than by a\nstranger: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii), a son receives\nfrom his father, \"being, food, and education.\" If, therefore,\ngodparents are bound to instruct their godchildren, it would be\nfitting for the carnal father, rather than another, to be the\ngodparent of his own child. And yet this seems to be forbidden, as\nmay be seen in the Decretals (xxx, qu. 1, Cap. Pervenit and Dictum\nest).\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is better for several to instruct than for one\nonly. If, therefore, godparents are bound to instruct their\ngodchildren, it would be better to have several godparents than only\none. Yet this is forbidden in a decree of Pope Leo, who says: \"A\nchild should not have more than one godparent, be this a man or a\nwoman.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in a sermon for Easter (clxviii):\n\"In the first place I admonish you, both men and women, who have\nraised children in Baptism, that ye stand before God as sureties for\nthose whom you have been seen to raise from the sacred font.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Every man is bound to fulfil those duties which he\nhas undertaken to perform. Now it has been stated above (A. 7) that\ngodparents take upon themselves the duties of a tutor. Consequently\nthey are bound to watch over their godchildren when there is need for\nthem to do so: for instance when and where children are brought up\namong unbelievers. But if they are brought up among Catholic\nChristians, the godparents may well be excused from this\nresponsibility, since it may be presumed that the children will be\ncarefully instructed by their parents. If, however, they perceive in\nany way that the contrary is the case, they would be bound, as far as\nthey are able, to see to the spiritual welfare of their godchildren.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Where the danger is imminent, the godparent, as\nDionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vii), should be someone \"versed in holy\nthings.\" But where the danger is not imminent, by reason of the\nchildren being brought up among Catholics, anyone is admitted to this\nposition, because the things pertaining to the Christian rule of life\nand faith are known openly by all. Nevertheless an unbaptized person\ncannot be a godparent, as was decreed in the Council of Mainz,\nalthough an unbaptized person: because the person baptizing is\nessential to the sacrament, wherefore as the godparent is not, as\nstated above (A. 7, ad 2).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Just as spiritual generation is distinct from carnal\ngeneration, so is spiritual education distinct from that of the body;\naccording to Heb. 12:9: \"Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh\nfor instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey\nthe Father of Spirits, and live?\" Therefore the spiritual father\nshould be distinct from the carnal father, unless necessity demanded\notherwise.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Education would be full of confusion if there were more\nthan one head instructor. Wherefore there should be one principal\nsponsor in Baptism: but others can be allowed as assistants.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 68\n\nOF THOSE WHO RECEIVE BAPTISM\n(In Twelve Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider those who receive Baptism; concerning which\nthere are twelve points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether all are bound to receive Baptism?\n\n(2) Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?\n\n(3) Whether Baptism should be deferred?\n\n(4) Whether sinners should be baptized?\n\n(5) Whether works of satisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that\nhave been baptized?\n\n(6) Whether Confession of sins is necessary?\n\n(7) Whether an intention is required on the part of the one baptized?\n\n(8) Whether faith is necessary?\n\n(9) Whether infants should be baptized?\n\n(10) Whether the children of Jews should be baptized against the will\nof their parents?\n\n(11) Whether anyone should be baptized in the mother's womb?\n\n(12) Whether madmen and imbeciles should be baptized?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 1]\n\nWhether All Are Bound to Receive Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that not all are bound to receive Baptism. For\nChrist did not narrow man's road to salvation. But before Christ's\ncoming men could be saved without Baptism: therefore also after\nChrist's coming.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Baptism seems to have been instituted principally as\na remedy for original sin. Now, since a man who is baptized is\nwithout original sin, it seems that he cannot transmit it to his\nchildren. Therefore it seems that the children of those who have been\nbaptized, should not themselves be baptized.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Baptism is given in order that a man may, through\ngrace, be cleansed from sin. But those who are sanctified in the\nwomb, obtain this without Baptism. Therefore they are not bound to\nreceive Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 3:5): \"Unless a man be born\nagain of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom\nof God.\" Again it is stated in De Eccl. Dogm. xli, that \"we believe\nthe way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Men are bound to that without which they cannot\nobtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation\nbut through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): \"As by\nthe offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the\njustice of one, unto all men unto justification of life.\" But for\nthis end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated\nthereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member:\nwherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): \"As many of you as have been\nbaptized in Christ, have put on Christ.\" Consequently it is manifest\nthat all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is\nno salvation for men.\n\nReply Obj. 1: At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could\nmen be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is\nwritten (Acts 4:12), \"there is no other name under heaven given to\nmen, whereby we must be saved.\" But before Christ's coming, men were\nincorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith\ncircumcision was the \"seal,\" as the Apostle calls it (Rom. 4:11):\nwhereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in\nChrist by \"faith alone,\" as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with\nthe offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made\nprofession of their faith. Again, since Christ's coming, men are\nincorporated in Christ by faith; according to Eph. 3:17: \"That Christ\nmay dwell by faith in your hearts.\" But faith in a thing already\npresent is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was\nmanifested when that thing was yet in the future: just as we use\nother parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the\nfuture. Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not\nalways necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the\nsacrament, was always necessary.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As we have stated in the I-II, Q. 81, A. 3, ad 2, those\nwho are baptized are renewed in spirit by Baptism, while their body\nremains subject to the oldness of sin, according to Rom. 8:10: \"The\nbody, indeed, is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because\nof justification.\" Wherefore Augustine (Contra Julian. vi) proves\nthat \"not everything that is in man is baptized.\" Now it is manifest\nthat in carnal generation man does not beget in respect of his soul,\nbut in respect of his body. Consequently the children of those who\nare baptized are born with original sin; wherefore they need to be\nbaptized.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed\ngrace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not\ntherefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to\nChrist. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now,\nthey would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's\nother members by receiving the character.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 2]\n\nWhether a Man Can Be Saved Without Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For\nour Lord said (John 3:5): \"Unless a man be born again of water and\nthe Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.\" But those alone\nare saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved\nwithout Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy\nGhost.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: \"We\nbelieve that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will\nhave eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the\nsacramental virtue of Baptism.\" But if it were possible for anyone to\nbe saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with\ncatechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have\nthe \"faith that worketh by charity\" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems\nthat none can be saved without Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 65, A. 4), the sacrament\nof Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary \"without\nwhich something cannot be\" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none\ncan obtain salvation without Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that \"some\nhave received the invisible sanctification without visible\nsacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have\nthe visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament,\nwithout the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit.\"\nSince, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible\nsanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the\nsacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.\n\n_I answer that,_ The sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone\nin two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case\nwith those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which\nclearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who\nhave the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is\nwanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally\nnor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can\nsalvation be obtained.\n\nSecondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in\nreality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be\nbaptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before\nreceiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being\nactually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire\nis the outcome of \"faith that worketh by charity,\" whereby God, Whose\npower is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.\nHence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen:\n\"I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace\nhe prayed for.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As it is written (1 Kings 16:7), \"man seeth those\nthings that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.\" Now a man who\ndesires to be \"born again of water and the Holy Ghost\" by Baptism, is\nregenerated in heart though not in body. Thus the Apostle says (Rom.\n2:29) that \"the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not\nin the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all\nguilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given\nwhen a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason\nis it stated that martyrdom \"contains all the sacramental virtue of\nBaptism,\" i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment.\nSuppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else\nhe could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be\nwithout \"faith that worketh by charity\"), such a one, were he to die,\nwould not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment\nfor his past sins, \"but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire\"\nas is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for\nsalvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism\nof desire; \"which, with God, counts for the deed\" (Augustine, Enarr.\nin Ps. 57).\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Baptism Should Be Deferred?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Baptism should be deferred. For Pope Leo\nsays (Epist. xvi): \"Two seasons,\" i.e. Easter and Whitsuntide, \"are\nfixed by the Roman Pontiff for the celebration of Baptism. Wherefore\nwe admonish your Beatitude not to add any other days to this custom.\"\nTherefore it seems that Baptism should be conferred not at once, but\ndelayed until the aforesaid seasons.\n\nObj. 2: Further, we read in the decrees of the Council of Agde (Can.\nxxxiv): \"If Jews whose bad faith often 'returns to the vomit,' wish\nto submit to the Law of the Catholic Church, let them for eight\nmonths enter the porch of the church with the catechumens; and if\nthey are found to come in good faith then at last they may deserve\nthe grace of Baptism.\" Therefore men should not be baptized at once,\nand Baptism should be deferred for a certain fixed time.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as we read in Isa. 27:9, \"this is all the fruit,\nthat the sin . . . should be taken away.\" Now sin seems to be taken\naway, or at any rate lessened, if Baptism be deferred. First, because\nthose who sin after Baptism, sin more grievously, according to Heb.\n10:29: \"How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments,\nwho hath . . . esteemed the blood of the testament,\" i.e. Baptism,\n\"unclean, by which he was sanctified?\" Secondly, because Baptism\ntakes away past, but not future, sins: wherefore the more it is\ndeferred, the more sins it takes away. Therefore it seems that\nBaptism should be deferred for a long time.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 5:8): \"Delay not to be\nconverted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day.\" But the\nperfect conversion to God is of those who are regenerated in Christ\nby Baptism. Therefore Baptism should not be deferred from day to day.\n\n_I answer that,_ In this matter we must make a distinction and see\nwhether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if\nthey be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in\nthem we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion.\nSecondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is\navailable for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.\n\nOn the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for\nBaptism, as stated above (A. 2). And therefore Baptism should not be\nconferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be\ndeferred until some fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church,\nlest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under\nfalse pretenses, according to 1 John 4:1: \"Believe not every spirit,\nbut try the spirits, if they be of God.\" And those who approach\nBaptism are put to this test, when their faith and morals are\nsubjected to proof for a space of time. Secondly, this is needful as\nbeing useful for those who are baptized; for they require a certain\nspace of time in order to be fully instructed in the faith, and to be\ndrilled in those things that pertain to the Christian mode of life.\nThirdly, a certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay\nwhereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal festivities,\nviz. of Easter and Pentecost, the result being that they receive the\nsacrament with greater devotion.\n\nThere are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. First, when\nthose who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly instructed in the\nfaith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once\n(Acts 8); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts 10).\nSecondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death.\nWherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): \"Those who are threatened by\ndeath, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized\nat any time.\" Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no\ntime to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed\nby the Church, he is saved, yet \"so as by fire,\" as stated above (A.\n2, ad 2). Nevertheless he sins if he defer being baptized beyond the\ntime appointed by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause\nand with the permission of the authorities of the Church. But even\nthis sin, with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent\ncontrition, which takes the place of Baptism, as stated above (Q. 66,\nA. 11).\n\nReply Obj. 1: This decree of Pope Leo, concerning the celebration of\nBaptism at two seasons, is to be understood \"with the exception of\nthe danger of death\" (which is always to be feared in children) as\nstated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This decree concerning the Jews was for a safeguard to\nthe Church, lest they corrupt the faith of simple people, if they be\nnot fully converted. Nevertheless, as the same passage reads further\non, \"if within the appointed time they are threatened with danger of\nsickness, they should be baptized.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Baptism, by the grace which it bestows, removes not\nonly past sins, but hinders the commission of future sins. Now this\nis the point to be considered--that men may not sin: it is a\nsecondary consideration that their sins be less grievous, or that\ntheir sins be washed away, according to 1 John 2:1, 2: \"My little\nchildren, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if\nany man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the\njust; and He is the propitiation for our sins.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Sinners Should Be Baptized?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that sinners should be baptized. For it is\nwritten (Zech. 13:1): \"In that day there shall be a fountain open to\nthe House of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: for the\nwashing of the sinner and of the unclean woman\": and this is to be\nunderstood of the fountain of Baptism. Therefore it seems that the\nsacrament of Baptism should be offered even to sinners.\n\nObj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 9:12): \"They that are in health\nneed not a physician, but they that are ill.\" But they that are ill\nare sinners. Therefore since Baptism is the remedy of Christ the\nphysician of our souls, it seems that this sacrament should be\noffered to sinners.\n\nObj. 3: Further, no assistance should be withdrawn from sinners. But\nsinners who have been baptized derive spiritual assistance from the\nvery character of Baptism, since it is a disposition to grace.\nTherefore it seems that the sacrament of Baptism should be offered to\nsinners.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Serm. clxix): \"He Who created thee\nwithout thee, will not justify thee without thee.\" But since a\nsinner's will is ill-disposed, he does not co-operate with God.\nTherefore it is useless to employ Baptism as a means of justification.\n\n_I answer that,_ A man may be said to be a sinner in two ways. First,\non account of the stain and the debt of punishment incurred in the\npast: and on sinners in this sense the sacrament of Baptism should be\nconferred, since it is instituted specially for this purpose, that by\nit the uncleanness of sin may be washed away, according to Eph. 5:26:\n\"Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life.\"\n\nSecondly, a man may be called a sinner because he wills to sin and\npurposes to remain in sin: and on sinners in this sense the sacrament\nof Baptism should not be conferred. First, indeed, because by Baptism\nmen are incorporated in Christ, according to Gal. 3:27: \"As many of\nyou as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.\" Now so long\nas a man wills to sin, he cannot be united to Christ, according to 2\nCor. 6:14: \"What participation hath justice with injustice?\"\nWherefore Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli) that\n\"no man who has the use of free-will can begin the new life, except\nhe repent of his former life.\" Secondly, because there should be\nnothing useless in the works of Christ and of the Church. Now that is\nuseless which does not reach the end to which it is ordained; and, on\nthe other hand, no one having the will to sin can, at the same time,\nbe cleansed from sin, which is the purpose of Baptism; for this would\nbe to combine two contradictory things. Thirdly, because there should\nbe no falsehood in the sacramental signs. Now a sign is false if it\ndoes not correspond with the thing signified. But the very fact that\na man presents himself to be cleansed by Baptism, signifies that he\nprepares himself for the inward cleansing: while this cannot be the\ncase with one who purposes to remain in sin. Therefore it is manifest\nthat on such a man the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The words quoted are to be understood of those sinners\nwhose will is set on renouncing sin.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The physician of souls, i.e. Christ, works in two ways.\nFirst, inwardly, by Himself: and thus He prepares man's will so that\nit wills good and hates evil. Secondly, He works through ministers,\nby the outward application of the sacraments: and in this way His\nwork consists in perfecting what was begun outwardly. Therefore the\nsacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred save on those in whom\nthere appears some sign of their interior conversion: just as neither\nis bodily medicine given to a sick man, unless he show some sign of\nlife.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Baptism is the sacrament of faith. Now dead faith does\nnot suffice for salvation; nor is it the foundation, but living faith\nalone, \"that worketh by charity\" (Gal. 5:6), as Augustine says (De\nFide et oper.). Neither, therefore, can the sacrament of Baptism give\nsalvation to a man whose will is set on sinning, and hence expels the\nform of faith. Moreover, the impression of the baptismal character\ncannot dispose a man for grace as long as he retains the will to sin;\nfor \"God compels no man to be virtuous,\" as Damascene says (De Fide\nOrth. ii).\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Works of Satisfaction Should Be Enjoined on Sinners That Have\nBeen Baptized?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that works of satisfaction should be enjoined\non sinners that have been baptized. For God's justice seems to demand\nthat a man should be punished for every sin of his, according to\nEccles. 12:14: \"All things that are done, God will bring into\njudgment.\" But works of satisfaction are enjoined on sinners in\npunishment of past sins. Therefore it seems that works of\nsatisfaction should be enjoined on sinners that have been baptized.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by means of works of satisfaction sinners recently\nconverted are drilled into righteousness, and are made to avoid the\noccasions of sin: \"for satisfaction consists in extirpating the\ncauses of vice, and closing the doors to sin\" (De Eccl. Dogm. iv).\nBut this is most necessary in the case of those who have been\nbaptized recently. Therefore it seems that works of satisfaction\nshould be enjoined on sinners.\n\nObj. 3: Further, man owes satisfaction to God not less than to his\nneighbor. But if those who were recently baptized have injured their\nneighbor, they should be told to make reparation to God by works of\npenance.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose commenting on Rom. 11:29: \"The gifts and\nthe calling of God are without repentance,\" says: \"The grace of God\nrequires neither sighs nor groans in Baptism, nor indeed any work at\nall, but faith alone; and remits all, gratis.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3, 4), \"all we who are\nbaptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death: for we are\nburied together with Him, by Baptism unto death\"; which is to say\nthat by Baptism man is incorporated in the very death of Christ. Now\nit is manifest from what has been said above (Q. 48, AA. 2, 4; Q. 49,\nA. 3) that Christ's death satisfied sufficiently for sins, \"not for\nours only, but also for those of the whole world,\" according to 1\nJohn 2:2. Consequently no kind of satisfaction should be enjoined on\none who is being baptized, for any sins whatever: and this would be\nto dishonor the Passion and death of Christ, as being insufficient\nfor the plenary satisfaction for the sins of those who were to be\nbaptized.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De\nPecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), \"the effect of Baptism is to make those,\nwho are baptized, to be incorporated in Christ as His members.\"\nWherefore the very pains of Christ were satisfactory for the sins of\nthose who were to be baptized; just as the pain of one member can be\nsatisfactory for the sin of another member. Hence it is written (Isa.\n53:4): \"Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Those who have been lately baptized should be drilled\ninto righteousness, not by penal, but by \"easy works, so as to\nadvance to perfection by taking exercise, as infants by taking milk,\"\nas a gloss says on Ps. 130:2: \"As a child that is weaned is towards\nhis mother.\" For this reason did our Lord excuse His disciples from\nfasting when they were recently converted, as we read in Matt. 9:14,\n15: and the same is written 1 Pet. 2:2: \"As new-born babes\ndesire . . . milk . . . that thereby you may grow unto salvation.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: To restore what has been ill taken from one's neighbor,\nand to make satisfaction for wrong done to him, is to cease from sin:\nfor the very fact of retaining what belongs to another and of not\nbeing reconciled to one's neighbor, is a sin. Wherefore those who are\nbaptized should be enjoined to make satisfaction to their neighbor,\nas also to desist from sin. But they are not to be enjoined to suffer\nany punishment for past sins.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Sinners Who Are Going to Be Baptized Are Bound to Confess\nTheir Sins?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that sinners who are going to be baptized are\nbound to confess their sins. For it is written (Matt. 3:6) that many\n\"were baptized\" by John \"in the Jordan confessing their sins.\" But\nChrist's Baptism is more perfect than John's. Therefore it seems that\nthere is yet greater reason why they who are about to receive\nChrist's Baptism should confess their sins.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 28:13): \"He that hideth his\nsins, shall not prosper; but he that shall confess and forsake them,\nshall obtain mercy.\" Now for this is a man baptized, that he may\nobtain mercy for his sins. Therefore those who are going to be\nbaptized should confess their sins.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Penance is required before Baptism, according to\nActs 2:38: \"Do penance and be baptized every one of you.\" But\nconfession is a part of Penance. Therefore it seems that confession\nof sins should take place before Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Confession of sins should be sorrowful: thus\nAugustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. xiv): \"All these\ncircumstances should be taken into account and deplored.\" Now, as\nAmbrose says on Rom. 11:29, \"the grace of God requires neither sighs\nnor groans in Baptism.\" Therefore confession of sins should not be\nrequired of those who are going to be baptized.\n\n_I answer that,_ Confession of sins is twofold. One is made inwardly\nto God: and such confession of sins is required before Baptism: in\nother words, man should call his sins to mind and sorrow for them;\nsince \"he cannot begin the new life, except he repent of his former\nlife,\" as Augustine says in his book on Penance (Serm. cccli). The\nother is the outward confession of sins, which is made to a priest;\nand such confession is not required before Baptism. First, because\nthis confession, since it is directed to the person of the minister,\nbelongs to the sacrament of Penance, which is not required before\nBaptism, which is the door of all the sacraments. Secondly, because\nthe reason why a man makes outward confession to a priest, is that\nthe priest may absolve him from his sins, and bind him to works of\nsatisfaction, which should not be enjoined on the baptized, as stated\nabove (A. 5). Moreover those who are being baptized do not need to be\nreleased from their sins by the keys of the Church, since all are\nforgiven them in Baptism. Thirdly, because the very act of confession\nmade to a man is penal, by reason of the shame it inflicts on the one\nconfessing: whereas no exterior punishment is enjoined on a man who\nis being baptized.\n\nTherefore no special confession of sins is required of those who are\nbeing baptized; but that general confession suffices which they make\nwhen in accordance with the Church's ritual they \"renounce Satan and\nall his works.\" And in this sense a gloss explains Matt. 3:6, saying\nthat in John's Baptism \"those who are going to be baptized learn that\nthey should confess their sins and promise to amend their life.\"\n\nIf, however, any persons about to be baptized, wish, out of devotion,\nto confess their sins, their confession should be heard; not for the\npurpose of enjoining them to do satisfaction, but in order to\ninstruct them in the spiritual life as a remedy against their vicious\nhabits.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Sins were not forgiven in John's Baptism, which,\nhowever, was the Baptism of Penance. Consequently it was fitting that\nthose who went to receive that Baptism, should confess their sins, so\nthat they should receive a penance in proportion to their sins. But\nChrist's Baptism is without outward penance, as Ambrose says (on Rom.\n11:29); and therefore there is no comparison.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It is enough that the baptized make inward confession\nto God, and also an outward general confession, for them to \"prosper\nand obtain mercy\": and they need no special outward confession, as\nstated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Confession is a part of sacramental Penance, which is\nnot required before Baptism, as stated above: but the inward virtue\nof Penance is required.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Intention of Receiving the Sacrament of Baptism Is\nRequired on the Part of the One Baptized?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the intention of receiving the sacrament\nof Baptism is not required on the part of the one baptized. For the\none baptized is, as it were, \"patient\" in the sacrament. But an\nintention is required not on the part of the patient but on the part\nof the agent. Therefore it seems that the intention of receiving\nBaptism is not required on the part of the one baptized.\n\nObj. 2: Further, if what is necessary for Baptism be omitted, the\nBaptism must be repeated; for instance, if the invocation of the\nTrinity be omitted, as stated above (Q. 66, A. 9, ad 3). But it does\nnot seem that a man should be rebaptized through not having had the\nintention of receiving Baptism: else, since his intention cannot be\nproved, anyone might ask to be baptized again on account of his lack\nof intention. Therefore it seems that no intention is required on the\npart of the one baptized, in order that he receive the sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Baptism is given as a remedy for original sin. But\noriginal sin is contracted without the intention of the person born.\nTherefore, seemingly, Baptism requires no intention on the part of\nthe person baptized.\n\n_On the contrary,_ According to the Church's ritual, those who are to\nbe baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and thus\nthey express their intention of receiving the sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and\nbegins a certain newness of life, according to Rom. 6:4: \"We are\nburied together with\" Christ \"by Baptism into death; that, as Christ\nis risen from the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life.\"\nConsequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who\nhas the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life,\n\"will to repent of his former life\"; so must he, of his own will,\nintend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the\nreceiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one\nbaptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of\nreceiving the sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: When a man is justified by Baptism, his passiveness is\nnot violent but voluntary: wherefore it is necessary for him to\nintend to receive that which is given him.\n\nReply Obj. 2: If an adult lack the intention of receiving the\nsacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this,\nthe form to be used should be: \"If thou art not baptized, I baptize\nthee.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Baptism is a remedy not only against original, but also\nagainst actual sins, which are caused by our will and intention.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Faith Is Required on the Part of the One Baptized?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that faith is required on the part of the one\nbaptized. For the sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ. But\nChrist, in giving the form of Baptism, makes faith to precede Baptism\n(Mk. 16:16): \"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.\"\nTherefore it seems that without faith there can be no sacrament of\nBaptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing useless is done in the sacraments of the\nChurch. But according to the Church's ritual, the man who comes to be\nbaptized is asked concerning his faith: \"Dost thou believe in God the\nFather Almighty?\" Therefore it seems that faith is required for\nBaptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the intention of receiving the sacrament is required\nfor Baptism. But this cannot be without right faith, since Baptism is\nthe sacrament of right faith: for thereby men \"are incorporated in\nChrist,\" as Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc.\nMerit. et Remiss. i); and this cannot be without right faith,\naccording to Eph. 3:17: \"That Christ may dwell by faith in your\nhearts.\" Therefore it seems that a man who has not right faith cannot\nreceive the sacrament of Baptism.\n\nObj. 4: Further, unbelief is a most grievous sin, as we have shown in\nthe Second Part (II-II, Q. 10, A. 3). But those who remain in sin\nshould not be baptized: therefore neither should those who remain in\nunbelief.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Gregory writing to the bishop Quiricus says: \"We\nhave learned from the ancient tradition of the Fathers that when\nheretics, baptized in the name of the Trinity, come back to Holy\nChurch, they are to be welcomed to her bosom, either with the\nanointing of chrism, or the imposition of hands, or the mere\nprofession of faith.\" But such would not be the case if faith were\nnecessary for a man to receive Baptism.\n\n_I answer that,_ As appears from what has been said above (Q. 63, A.\n6; Q. 66, A. 9) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz.\nthe character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be\nnecessary for Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which\nis the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus\nright faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from\nRom. 3:22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.\n\nSecondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because\nwithout it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted. And thus\nright faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the\none who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which\nare essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by\nthe righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but\nby the power of God.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to\nsalvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot be\nwithout right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: \"He that believeth\nand is baptized, shall be saved.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Church's intention in baptizing men is that they\nmay be cleansed from sin, according to Isa. 27:9: \"This is all the\nfruit, that the sin . . . should be taken away.\" And therefore, as\nfar as she is concerned, she does not intend to give Baptism save to\nthose who have right faith, without which there is no remission of\nsins. And for this reason she asks those who come to be baptized\nwhether they believe. If, on the contrary, anyone, without right\nfaith, receive Baptism outside the Church, he does not receive it\nunto salvation. Hence Augustine says (De Baptism. contr. Donat. iv):\n\"From the Church being compared to Paradise we learn that men can\nreceive her Baptism even outside her fold, but that elsewhere none\ncan receive or keep the salvation of the blessed.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Even he who has not right faith on other points, can\nhave right faith about the sacrament of Baptism: and so he is not\nhindered from having the intention of receiving that sacrament. Yet\neven if he think not aright concerning this sacrament, it is enough,\nfor the receiving of the sacrament, that he should have a general\nintention of receiving Baptism, according as Christ instituted, and\nas the Church bestows it.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Just as the sacrament of Baptism is not to be conferred\non a man who is unwilling to give up his other sins, so neither\nshould it be given to one who is unwilling to renounce his unbelief.\nYet each receives the sacrament if it be conferred on him, though not\nunto salvation.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 9]\n\nWhether Children Should Be Baptized?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that children should not be baptized. For the\nintention to receive the sacrament is required in one who is being\nbaptized, as stated above (A. 7). But children cannot have such an\nintention, since they have not the use of free-will. Therefore it\nseems that they cannot receive the sacrament of Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Baptism is the sacrament of faith, as stated above\n(Q. 39, A. 5; Q. 66, A. 1, ad 1). But children have not faith, which\ndemands an act of the will on the part of the believer, as Augustine\nsays (Super Joan. xxvi). Nor can it be said that their salvation is\nimplied in the faith of their parents; since the latter are sometimes\nunbelievers, and their unbelief would conduce rather to the damnation\nof their children. Therefore it seems that children cannot be\nbaptized.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (1 Pet. 3:21) that \"Baptism saveth\"\nmen; \"not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the\nexamination of a good conscience towards God.\" But children have no\nconscience, either good or bad, since they have not the use of\nreason: nor can they be fittingly examined, since they understand\nnot. Therefore children should not be baptized.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): \"Our heavenly\nguides,\" i.e. the Apostles, \"approved of infants being admitted to\nBaptism.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 5:17), \"if by one man's\noffense death reigned through one,\" namely Adam, \"much more they who\nreceive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall\nreign in life through one, Jesus Christ.\" Now children contract\noriginal sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact\nthat they are under the ban of death, which \"passed upon all\" on\naccount of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same\npassage (Rom. 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace\nthrough Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself\nsaid (John 3:5): \"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy\nGhost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.\" Consequently it\nbecame necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred\ndamnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain\nsalvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children\nshould receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in\nthings pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more\neasily persevere therein; according to Prov. 22:5: \"A young man\naccording to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from\nit.\" This reason is also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is\nsomewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while\nin the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but\nthrough the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the\nuse of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the\nChurch, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the\nChurch. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): \"The\nChurch, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that\nthey may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with\ntheir own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths\nconfess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe,\nbecause in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the\nwords of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent,\nsince by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their\nrenunciation of the devil and this world?\" For the same reason they\ncan be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at\ntimes they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them\nto be baptized.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep.\nPelag. i), \"in the Church of our Saviour little children believe\nthrough others, just as they contracted from others those sins which\nare remitted in Baptism.\" Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if\ntheir parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to\nthe same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), \"little children are offered that\nthey may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of\nthose that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and\nfaithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful.\nFor they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are\npleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united\nin communion with the Holy Ghost.\" And the unbelief of their own\nparents, even if after Baptism these strive to infect them with the\nworship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says\n(Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i) \"when once the child has been begotten by\nthe will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of\nanother's sin so long as he consent not with his will, according to\"\nEzech. 18:4: \"'As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son\nis mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.' Yet he\ncontracted from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this\nsacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate\nexistence.\" But the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits\nthe child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the\nChurch together, and communicates the goods of one member to another.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Just as a child, when he is being baptized, believes\nnot by himself but by others, so is he examined not by himself but\nthrough others, and these in answer confess the Church's faith in the\nchild's stead, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament of\nfaith. And the child acquires a good conscience in himself, not\nindeed as to the act, but as to the habit, by sanctifying grace.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 10]\n\nWhether Children of Jews or Other Unbelievers Should Be Baptized\nAgainst the Will of Their Parents?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that children of Jews or other unbelievers\nshould be baptized against the will of their parents. For it is a\nmatter of greater urgency to rescue a man from the danger of eternal\ndeath than from the danger of temporal death. But one ought to rescue\na child that is threatened by the danger of temporal death, even if\nits parents through malice try to prevent its being rescued.\nTherefore much more reason is there for rescuing the children of\nunbelievers from the danger of eternal death, even against their\nparents' will.\n\nObj. 2: The children of slaves are themselves slaves, and in the\npower of their masters. But Jews and all other unbelievers are the\nslaves of kings and rulers. Therefore without any injustice rulers\ncan have the children of Jews baptized, as well as those of other\nslaves who are unbelievers.\n\nObj. 3: Further, every man belongs more to God, from Whom he has his\nsoul, than to his carnal father, from whom he has his body. Therefore\nit is not unjust if the children of unbelievers are taken away from\ntheir carnal parents, and consecrated to God by Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written in the Decretals (Dist. xlv),\nquoting the council of Toledo: \"In regard to the Jews the holy synod\ncommands that henceforward none of them be forced to believe: for\nsuch are not to be saved against their will, but willingly, that\ntheir righteousness may be without flaw.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The children of unbelievers either have the use of\nreason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to\ncontrol their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural\nlaw. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their\nparents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract\nmarriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to\nbe baptized.\n\nIf, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the\nnatural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they\ncannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the\nchildren of the ancients \"were saved through the faith of their\nparents.\" Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such\nchildren were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would\nbe if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will.\nMoreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the\nchildren of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into\nunbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents.\nTherefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children\nof unbelievers against their parents' will.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It is not right to rescue a man from death of the body\nagainst the order of civil law: for instance, if a man be condemned\nto death by the judge who has tried him, none should use force in\norder to rescue him from death. Consequently, neither should anyone\ninfringe the order of the natural law, in virtue of which a child is\nunder the care of its father, in order to rescue it from the danger\nof eternal death.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Jews are slaves of rulers by civil slavery, which does\nnot exclude the order of the natural and Divine law.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Man is ordained unto God through his reason, by which\nhe can know God. Wherefore a child, before it has the use of reason,\nis ordained to God, by a natural order, through the reason of its\nparents, under whose care it naturally lies, and it is according to\ntheir ordering that things pertaining to God are to be done in\nrespect of the child.\n_______________________\n\nELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 11]\n\nWhether a Child Can Be Baptized While Yet in Its Mother's Womb?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a child can be baptized while yet in its\nmother's womb. For the gift of Christ is more efficacious unto\nsalvation than Adam's sin unto condemnation, as the Apostle says\n(Rom. 5:15). But a child while yet in its mother's womb is under\nsentence of condemnation on account of Adam's sin. For much more\nreason, therefore, can it be saved through the gift of Christ, which\nis bestowed by means of Baptism. Therefore a child can be baptized\nwhile yet in its mother's womb.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a child, while yet in its mother's womb, seems to be\npart of its mother. Now, when the mother is baptized, whatever is in\nher and part of her, is baptized. Therefore it seems that when the\nmother is baptized, the child in her womb is baptized.\n\nObj. 3: Further, eternal death is a greater evil than death of the\nbody. But of two evils the less should be chosen. If, therefore, the\nchild in the mother's womb cannot be baptized, it would be better for\nthe mother to be opened, and the child to be taken out by force and\nbaptized, than that the child should be eternally damned through\ndying without Baptism.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it happens at times that some part of the child\ncomes forth first, as we read in Gen. 38:27: \"In the very delivery of\nthe infants, one put forth a hand, whereon the midwife tied a scarlet\nthread, saying: This shall come forth the first. But he drawing back\nhis hand, the other came forth.\" Now sometimes in such cases there is\ndanger of death. Therefore it seems that that part should be\nbaptized, while the child is yet in its mother's womb.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Ep. ad Dardan.): \"No one can be\nborn a second time unless he be born first.\" But Baptism is a\nspiritual regeneration. Therefore no one should be baptized before he\nis born from the womb.\n\n_I answer that,_ It is essential to Baptism that some part of the\nbody of the person baptized be in some way washed with water, since\nBaptism is a kind of washing, as stated above (Q. 66, A. 1). But an\ninfant's body, before being born from the womb, can nowise be washed\nwith water; unless perchance it be said that the baptismal water,\nwith which the mother's body is washed, reaches the child while yet\nin its mother's womb. But this is impossible: both because the\nchild's soul, to the sanctification of which Baptism is ordained, is\ndistinct from the soul of the mother; and because the body of the\nanimated infant is already formed, and consequently distinct from the\nbody of the mother. Therefore the Baptism which the mother receives\ndoes not overflow on to the child which is in her womb. Hence\nAugustine says (Cont. Julian. vi): \"If what is conceived within a\nmother belonged to her body, so as to be considered a part thereof,\nwe should not baptize an infant whose mother, through danger of\ndeath, was baptized while she bore it in her womb. Since, then, it,\"\ni.e. the infant, \"is baptized, it certainly did not belong to the\nmother's body while it was in the womb.\" It follows, therefore, that\na child can nowise be baptized while in its mother's womb.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come\nforth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they\ncannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the\nsacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be\nsubject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a\nkind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the\ncase with those who were sanctified in the womb.\n\nReply Obj. 2: An internal member of the mother is something of hers\nby continuity and material union of the part with the whole: whereas\na child while in its mother's womb is something of hers through being\njoined with, and yet distinct from her. Wherefore there is no\ncomparison.\n\nReply Obj. 3: We should \"not do evil that there may come good\" (Rom.\n3:8). Therefore it is wrong to kill a mother that her child may be\nbaptized. If, however, the mother die while the child lives yet in\nher womb, she should be opened that the child may be baptized.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Unless death be imminent, we should wait until the\nchild has entirely come forth from the womb before baptizing it. If,\nhowever, the head, wherein the senses are rooted, appear first, it\nshould be baptized, in cases of danger: nor should it be baptized\nagain, if perfect birth should ensue. And seemingly the same should\nbe done in cases of danger no matter what part of the body appear\nfirst. But as none of the exterior parts of the body belong to its\nintegrity in the same degree as the head, some hold that since the\nmatter is doubtful, whenever any other part of the body has been\nbaptized, the child, when perfect birth has taken place, should be\nbaptized with the form: \"If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee,\"\netc.\n_______________________\n\nTWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 68, Art. 12]\n\nWhether Madmen and Imbeciles Should Be Baptized?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that madmen and imbeciles should not be\nbaptized. For in order to receive Baptism, the person baptized must\nhave the intention, as stated above (A. 7). But since madmen and\nimbeciles lack the use of reason, they can have but a disorderly\nintention. Therefore they should not be baptized.\n\nObj. 2: Further, man excels irrational animals in that he has reason.\nBut madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason, indeed in some cases\nwe do not expect them ever to have it, as we do in the case of\nchildren. It seems, therefore, that just as irrational animals are\nnot baptized, so neither should madmen and imbeciles in those cases\nbe baptized.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the use of reason is suspended in madmen and\nimbeciles more than it is in one who sleeps. But it is not customary\nto baptize people while they sleep. Therefore it should not be given\nto madmen and imbeciles.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Confess. iv) of his friend that\n\"he was baptized when his recovery was despaired of\": and yet Baptism\nwas efficacious with him. Therefore Baptism should sometimes be given\nto those who lack the use of reason.\n\n_I answer that,_ In the matter of madmen and imbeciles a distinction\nis to be made. For some are so from birth, and have no lucid\nintervals, and show no signs of the use of reason. And with regard to\nthese it seems that we should come to the same decision as with\nregard to children who are baptized in the Faith of the Church, as\nstated above (A. 9, ad 2).\n\nBut there are others who have fallen from a state of sanity into a\nstate of insanity. And with regard to these we must be guided by\ntheir wishes as expressed by them when sane: so that, if then they\nmanifested a desire to receive Baptism, it should be given to them\nwhen in a state of madness or imbecility, even though then they\nrefuse. If, on the other hand, while sane they showed no desire to\nreceive Baptism, they must not be baptized.\n\nAgain, there are some who, though mad or imbecile from birth, have,\nnevertheless, lucid intervals, in which they can make right use of\nreason. Wherefore, if then they express a desire for Baptism, they\ncan be baptized though they be actually in a state of madness. And in\nthis case the sacrament should be bestowed on them if there be fear\nof danger otherwise it is better to wait until the time when they are\nsane, so that they may receive the sacrament more devoutly. But if\nduring the interval of lucidity they manifest no desire to receive\nBaptism, they should not be baptized while in a state of insanity.\n\nLastly there are others who, though not altogether sane, yet can use\ntheir reason so far as to think about their salvation, and understand\nthe power of the sacrament. And these are to be treated the same as\nthose who are sane, and who are baptized if they be willing, but not\nagainst their will.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Imbeciles who never had, and have not now, the use of\nreason, are baptized, according to the Church's intention, just as\naccording to the Church's ritual, they believe and repent; as we have\nstated above of children (A. 9, ad Obj.). But those who have had the\nuse of reason at some time, or have now, are baptized according to\ntheir own intention, which they have now, or had when they were sane.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Madmen and imbeciles lack the use of reason\naccidentally, i.e. through some impediment in a bodily organ; but not\nlike irrational animals through want of a rational soul. Consequently\nthe comparison does not hold.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A person should not be baptized while asleep, except he\nbe threatened with the danger of death. In which case he should be\nbaptized, if previously he has manifested a desire to receive\nBaptism, as we have stated in reference to imbeciles: thus Augustine\nrelates of his friend that \"he was baptized while unconscious,\"\nbecause he was in danger of death (Confess. iv).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 69\n\nOF THE EFFECTS OF BAPTISM\n(In Ten Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the effects of Baptism, concerning which there\nare ten points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether all sins are taken away by Baptism?\n\n(2) Whether man is freed from all punishment by Baptism?\n\n(3) Whether Baptism takes away the penalties of sin that belong to\nthis life?\n\n(4) Whether grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism?\n\n(5) Of the effects of virtue which are conferred by Baptism?\n\n(6) Whether even children receive grace and virtues in Baptism?\n\n(7) Whether Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to those\nwho are baptized?\n\n(8) Whether Baptism produces an equal effect in all who are baptized?\n\n(9) Whether insincerity hinders the effect of Baptism?\n\n(10) Whether Baptism takes effect when the insincerity ceases?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 1]\n\nWhether All Sins Are Taken Away by Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that not all sins are taken away by Baptism.\nFor Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, which corresponds to carnal\ngeneration. But by carnal generation man contracts none but original\nsin. Therefore none but original sin is taken away by Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Penance is a sufficient cause of the remission of\nactual sins. But penance is required in adults before Baptism,\naccording to Acts 2:38: \"Do penance and be baptized every one of\nyou.\" Therefore Baptism has nothing to do with the remission of\nactual sins.\n\nObj. 3: Further, various diseases demand various remedies: because as\nJerome says on Mk. 9:27, 28: \"What is a cure for the heel is no cure\nfor the eye.\" But original sin, which is taken away by Baptism, is\ngenerically distinct from actual sin. Therefore not all sins are\ntaken away by Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 36:25): \"I will pour upon\nyou clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3), \"all we, who are\nbaptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in His death.\" And further on\nhe concludes (Rom. 6:11): \"So do you also reckon that you are dead to\nsin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord.\" Hence it is clear\nthat by Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live\nunto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive\noldness. Consequently every sin is taken away by Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15, 16), the sin of Adam\nwas not so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, which is bestowed in\nBaptism: \"for judgment was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of\nmany offenses, unto justification.\" Wherefore Augustine says in his\nbook on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that \"in\ncarnal generation, original sin alone is contracted; but when we are\nborn again of the Spirit, not only original sin but also wilful sin\nis forgiven.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: No sin can be forgiven save by the power of Christ's\nPassion: hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:22) that \"without shedding of\nblood there is no remission.\" Consequently no movement of the human\nwill suffices for the remission of sin, unless there be faith in\nChrist's Passion, and the purpose of participating in it, either by\nreceiving Baptism, or by submitting to the keys of the Church.\nTherefore when an adult approaches Baptism, he does indeed receive\nthe forgiveness of all his sins through his purpose of being\nbaptized, but more perfectly through the actual reception of Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This argument is true of special remedies. But Baptism\noperates by the power of Christ's Passion, which is the universal\nremedy for all sins; and so by Baptism all sins are loosed.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Man Is Freed by Baptism from All Debt of Punishment Due to\nSin?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that man is not freed by Baptism from all debt\nof punishment due to sin. For the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1): \"Those\nthings that are of God are well ordered [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are\nordained of God'].\" But guilt is not set in order save by punishment,\nas Augustine says (Ep. cxl). Therefore Baptism does not take away the\ndebt of punishment due to sins already committed.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the effect of a sacrament has a certain likeness to\nthe sacrament itself; since the sacraments of the New Law \"effect\nwhat they signify,\" as stated above (Q. 62, A. 1, ad 1). But the\nwashing of Baptism has indeed a certain likeness with the cleansing\nfrom the stain of sin, but none, seemingly, with the remission of the\ndebt of punishment. Therefore the debt of punishment is not taken\naway by Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, when the debt of punishment has been remitted, a man\nno longer deserves to be punished, and so it would be unjust to\npunish him. If, therefore, the debt of punishment be remitted by\nBaptism, it would be unjust, after Baptism, to hang a thief who had\ncommitted murder before. Consequently the severity of human\nlegislation would be relaxed on account of Baptism; which is\nundesirable. Therefore Baptism does not remit the debt of punishment.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose, commenting on Rom. 11:29, \"The gifts and\nthe calling of God ate without repentance,\" says: \"The grace of God\nin Baptism remits all, gratis.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 49, A. 3, ad 2; Q. 68, AA. 1, 4,\n5) by Baptism a man is incorporated in the Passion and death of\nChrist, according to Rom. 6:8: \"If we be dead with Christ, we believe\nthat we shall live also together with Christ.\" Hence it is clear that\nthe Passion of Christ is communicated to every baptized person, so\nthat he is healed just as if he himself had suffered and died. Now\nChrist's Passion, as stated above (Q. 68, A. 5), is a sufficient\nsatisfaction for all the sins of all men. Consequently he who is\nbaptized, is freed from the debt of all punishment due to him for his\nsins, just as if he himself had offered sufficient satisfaction for\nall his sins.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Since the pains of Christ's Passion are communicated to\nthe person baptized, inasmuch as he is made a member of Christ, just\nas if he himself had borne those pains, his sins are set in order by\nthe pains of Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Water not only cleanses but also refreshes. And thus by\nrefreshing it signifies the remission of the debt of punishment, just\nas by cleansing it signifies the washing away of guilt.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In punishments inflicted by a human tribunal, we have\nto consider not only what punishment a man deserves in respect of\nGod, but also to what extent he is indebted to men who are hurt and\nscandalized by another's sin. Consequently, although a murderer is\nfreed by Baptism from his debt of punishment in respect of God, he\nremains, nevertheless, in debt to men; and it is right that they\nshould be edified at his punishment, since they were scandalized at\nhis sin. But the sovereign may remit the penalty to such like out of\nkindness.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Baptism Should Take Away the Penalties of Sin That Belong to\nThis Life?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Baptism should take away the penalties of\nsin that belong to this life. For as the Apostle says (Rom. 5:15),\nthe gift of Christ is farther-reaching than the sin of Adam. But\nthrough Adam's sin, as the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12), \"death entered\ninto this world,\" and, consequently, all the other penalties of the\npresent life. Much more, therefore, should man be freed from the\npenalties of the present life, by the gift of Christ which is\nreceived in Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Baptism takes away the guilt of both original and\nactual sin. Now it takes away the guilt of actual sin in such a way\nas to free man from all debt of punishment resulting therefrom.\nTherefore it also frees man from the penalties of the present life,\nwhich are a punishment of original sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But\nthe cause of these penalties is original sin, which is taken away by\nBaptism. Therefore such like penalties should not remain.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on Rom. 6:6, \"that the body of sin may be\ndestroyed,\" a gloss says: \"The effect of Baptism is that the old man\nis crucified, and the body of sin destroyed, not as though the living\nflesh of man were delivered by the destruction of that concupiscence\nwith which it has been bespattered from its birth; but that it may\nnot hurt him, when dead, though it was in him when he was born.\"\nTherefore for the same reason neither are the other penalties taken\naway by Baptism.\n\n_I answer that,_ Baptism has the power to take away the penalties of\nthe present life yet it does not take them away during the present\nlife, but by its power they will be taken away from the just in the\nresurrection when \"this mortal hath put on immortality\" (1 Cor.\n15:54). And this is reasonable. First, because, by Baptism, man is\nincorporated in Christ, and is made His member, as stated above (A.\n3; Q. 68, A. 5). Consequently it is fitting that what takes place in\nthe Head should take place also in the member incorporated. Now, from\nthe very beginning of His conception Christ was \"full of grace and\ntruth,\" yet He had a passible body, which through His Passion and\ndeath was raised up to a life of glory. Wherefore a Christian\nreceives grace in Baptism, as to his soul; but he retains a passible\nbody, so that he may suffer for Christ therein: yet at length he will\nbe raised up to a life of impassibility. Hence the Apostle says (Rom.\n8:11): \"He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken\nalso our [Vulg.: 'your'] mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that\ndwelleth in us [Vulg.: 'you']\": and further on in the same chapter\n(Rom. 8:17): \"Heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet\nso, if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him.\"\n\nSecondly, this is suitable for our spiritual training: namely, in\norder that, by fighting against concupiscence and other defects to\nwhich he is subject, man may receive the crown of victory. Wherefore\non Rom. 6:6, \"that the body of sin may be destroyed,\" a gloss says:\n\"If a man after Baptism live in the flesh, he has concupiscence to\nfight against, and to conquer by God's help.\" In sign of which it is\nwritten (Judges 3:1, 2): \"These are the nations which the Lord left,\nthat by them He might instruct Israel . . . that afterwards their\nchildren might learn to fight with their enemies, and to be trained\nup to war.\"\n\nThirdly, this was suitable, lest men might seek to be baptized for\nthe sake of impassibility in the present life, and not for the sake\nof the glory of life eternal. Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor.\n15:19): \"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all\nmen most miserable.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As a gloss says on Rom. 6:6, \"that we may serve sin no\nlonger--Like a man who, having captured a redoubtable enemy, slays\nhim not forthwith, but suffers him to live for a little time in shame\nand suffering; so did Christ first of all fetter our punishment, but\nat a future time He will destroy it.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As the gloss says on the same passage (cf. ad 1), \"the\npunishment of sin is twofold, the punishment of hell, and temporal\npunishment. Christ entirely abolished the punishment of hell, so that\nthose who are baptized and truly repent, should not be subject to it.\nHe did not, however, altogether abolish temporal punishment yet\nawhile; for hunger, thirst, and death still remain. But He overthrew\nits kingdom and power\" in the sense that man should no longer be in\nfear of them: \"and at length He will altogether exterminate it at the\nlast day.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: As we stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 81, A. 1; Q.\n82, A. 1, ad 2), original sin spread in this way, that at first the\nperson infected the nature, and afterwards the nature infected the\nperson. Whereas Christ in reverse order at first repairs what regards\nthe person, and afterwards will simultaneously repair what pertains\nto the nature in all men. Consequently by Baptism He takes away from\nman forthwith the guilt of original sin and the punishment of being\ndeprived of the heavenly vision. But the penalties of the present\nlife, such as death, hunger, thirst, and the like, pertain to the\nnature, from the principles of which they arise, inasmuch as it is\ndeprived of original justice. Therefore these defects will not be\ntaken away until the ultimate restoration of nature through the\nglorious resurrection.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Grace and Virtues Are Bestowed on Man by Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man\nby Baptism. Because, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 1, ad 1), the\nsacraments of the New Law \"effect what they signify.\" But the\nbaptismal cleansing signifies the cleansing of the soul from guilt,\nand not the fashioning of the soul with grace and virtues. Therefore\nit seems that grace and virtues are not bestowed on man by Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, one does not need to receive what one has already\nacquired. But some approach Baptism who have already grace and\nvirtues: thus we read (Acts 10:1, 2): \"There was a certain man in\nCesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called the\nItalian band, a religious man and fearing God\"; who, nevertheless,\nwas afterwards baptized by Peter. Therefore grace and virtues are not\nbestowed by Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, virtue is a habit: which is defined as a \"quality\nnot easily removed, by which one may act easily and pleasurably.\" But\nafter Baptism man retains proneness to evil which removes virtue; and\nexperiences difficulty in doing good, in which the act of virtue\nconsists. Therefore man does not acquire grace and virtue in Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Titus 3:5, 6): \"He saved us by\nthe laver of regeneration,\" i.e. by Baptism, \"and renovation of the\nHoly Ghost, Whom He hath poured forth upon us abundantly,\" i.e. \"unto\nthe remission of sins and the fulness of virtues,\" as a gloss\nexpounds. Therefore the grace of the Holy Ghost and the fulness of\nvirtues are given in Baptism.\n\n_I answer that,_ As Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De\nPecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) \"the effect of Baptism is that the\nbaptized are incorporated in Christ as His members.\" Now the fulness\nof grace and virtues flows from Christ the Head to all His members,\naccording to John 1:16: \"Of His fulness we all have received.\" Hence\nit is clear that man receives grace and virtues in Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As the baptismal water by its cleansing signifies the\nwashing away of guilt, and by its refreshment the remission of\npunishment, so by its natural clearness it signifies the splendor of\ngrace and virtues.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated above (A. 1, ad 2; Q. 68, A. 2) man receives\nthe forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of\ndesire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives\nBaptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the\nentire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like\nhim receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their\ndesire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when\nbaptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues.\nHence in Ps. 22:2, \"He hath brought me up on the water of\nrefreshment,\" a gloss says: \"He has brought us up by an increase of\nvirtue and good deeds in Baptism.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Difficulty in doing good and proneness to evil are in\nthe baptized, not through their lacking the habits of the virtues,\nbut through concupiscence which is not taken away in Baptism. But\njust as concupiscence is diminished by Baptism, so as not to enslave\nus, so also are both the aforesaid defects diminished, so that man be\nnot overcome by them.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Certain Acts of the Virtues Are Fittingly Set Down As Effects\nof Baptism, to Wit--Incorporation in Christ, Enlightenment, and\nFruitfulness?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that certain acts of the virtues are\nunfittingly set down as effects of Baptism, to wit--\"incorporation in\nChrist, enlightenment, and fruitfulness.\" For Baptism is not given to\nan adult, except he believe; according to Mk. 16:16: \"He that\nbelieveth and is baptized, shall be saved.\" But it is by faith that\nman is incorporated in Christ, according to Eph. 3:17: \"That Christ\nmay dwell by faith in your hearts.\" Therefore no one is baptized\nexcept he be already incorporated in Christ. Therefore incorporation\nwith Christ is not the effect of Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, enlightenment is caused by teaching, according to\nEph. 3:8, 9: \"To me the least of all the saints, is given this grace\n. . . to enlighten all men,\" etc. But teaching by the catechism\nprecedes Baptism. Therefore it is not the effect of Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, fruitfulness pertains to active generation. But a\nman is regenerated spiritually by Baptism. Therefore fruitfulness is\nnot an effect of Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in the book on Infant Baptism (De\nPecc. Merit. et Remiss. i) that \"the effect of Baptism is that the\nbaptized are incorporated in Christ.\" And Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. ii)\nascribes enlightenment to Baptism. And on Ps. 22:2, \"He hath brought\nme up on the water of refreshment,\" a gloss says that \"the sinner's\nsoul, sterilized by drought, is made fruitful by Baptism.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ By Baptism man is born again unto the spiritual\nlife, which is proper to the faithful of Christ, as the Apostle says\n(Gal. 2:20): \"And that I live now in the flesh; I live in the faith\nof the Son of God.\" Now life is only in those members that are united\nto the head, from which they derive sense and movement. And therefore\nit follows of necessity that by Baptism man is incorporated in\nChrist, as one of His members. Again, just as the members derive\nsense and movement from the material head, so from their spiritual\nHead, i.e. Christ, do His members derive spiritual sense consisting\nin the knowledge of truth, and spiritual movement which results from\nthe instinct of grace. Hence it is written (John 1:14, 16): \"We have\nseen Him . . . full of grace and truth; and of His fulness we all\nhave received.\" And it follows from this that the baptized are\nenlightened by Christ as to the knowledge of truth, and made fruitful\nby Him with the fruitfulness of good works by the infusion of grace.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Adults who already believe in Christ are incorporated\nin Him mentally. But afterwards, when they are baptized, they are\nincorporated in Him, corporally, as it were, i.e. by the visible\nsacrament; without the desire of which they could not have been\nincorporated in Him even mentally.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The teacher enlightens outwardly and ministerially by\ncatechizing: but God enlightens the baptized inwardly, by preparing\ntheir hearts for the reception of the doctrines of truth, according\nto John 6:45: \"It is written in the prophets . . . They shall all be\ntaught of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The fruitfulness which I ascribed as an effect of\nBaptism is that by which man brings forth good works; not that by\nwhich he begets others in Christ, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:15):\n\"In Christ Jesus by the Gospel I have begotten you.\"\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Children Receive Grace and Virtue in Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that children do not receive grace and virtues\nin Baptism. For grace and virtues are not possessed without faith and\ncharity. But faith, as Augustine says (Ep. xcviii), \"depends on the\nwill of the believer\": and in like manner charity depends on the will\nof the lover. Now children have not the use of the will, and\nconsequently they have neither faith nor charity. Therefore children\ndo not receive grace and virtues in Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, on John 14:12, \"Greater than these shall he do,\"\nAugustine says that in order for the ungodly to be made righteous\n\"Christ worketh in him, but not without him.\" But a child, through\nnot having the use of free-will, does not co-operate with Christ unto\nits justification: indeed at times it does its best to resist.\nTherefore it is not justified by grace and virtues.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Rom. 4:5): \"To him that worketh not,\nyet believing in Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is\nreputed to justice according to the purpose of the grace of God.\" But\na child believeth not \"in Him that justifieth the ungodly.\" Therefore\na child receives neither sanctifying grace nor virtues.\n\nObj. 4: Further, what is done with a carnal intention does not seem\nto have a spiritual effect. But sometimes children are taken to\nBaptism with a carnal intention, to wit, that their bodies may be\nhealed. Therefore they do not receive the spiritual effect consisting\nin grace and virtue.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion lii): \"When little\nchildren are baptized, they die to that sin which they contracted in\nbirth: so that to them also may be applied the words: 'We are buried\ntogether with Him by Baptism unto death'\": (and he continues thus)\n\"'that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father,\nso we also may walk in newness of life.'\" Now newness of life is\nthrough grace and virtues. Therefore children receive grace and\nvirtues in Baptism.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some of the early writers held that children do not\nreceive grace and virtues in Baptism, but that they receive the\nimprint of the character of Christ, by the power of which they\nreceive grace and virtue when they arrive at the perfect age. But\nthis is evidently false, for two reasons. First, because children,\nlike adults, are made members of Christ in Baptism; hence they must,\nof necessity, receive an influx of grace and virtues from the Head.\nSecondly, because, if this were true, children that die after\nBaptism, would not come to eternal life; since according to Rom.\n6:23, \"the grace of God is life everlasting.\" And consequently\nBaptism would not have profited them unto salvation.\n\nNow the source of their error was that they did not recognize the\ndistinction between habit and act. And so, seeing children to be\nincapable of acts of virtue, they thought that they had no virtues at\nall after Baptism. But this inability of children to act is not due\nto the absence of habits, but to an impediment on the part of the\nbody: thus also when a man is asleep, though he may have the habits\nof virtue, yet is he hindered from virtuous acts through being asleep.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Faith and charity depend on man's will, yet so that the\nhabits of these and other virtues require the power of the will which\nis in children; whereas acts of virtue require an act of the will,\nwhich is not in children. In this sense Augustine says in the book on\nInfant Baptism (Ep. xcviii): \"The little child is made a believer,\nnot as yet by that faith which depends on the will of the believer,\nbut by the sacrament of faith itself,\" which causes the habit of\nfaith.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says in his book on Charity (Ep. Joan. ad\nParth. iii), \"no man is born of water and the Holy Ghost unwillingly\nwhich is to be understood not of little children but of adults.\" In\nlike manner we are to understand as applying to adults, that man\n\"without himself is not justified by Christ.\" Moreover, if little\nchildren who are about to be baptized resist as much as they can,\n\"this is not imputed to them, since so little do they know what they\ndo, that they seem not to do it at all\": as Augustine says in a book\non the Presence of God, addressed to Dardanus (Ep. clxxxvii).\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Serm. clxxvi): \"Mother Church lends\nother feet to the little children that they may come; another heart\nthat they may believe; another tongue that they may confess.\" So that\nchildren believe, not by their own act, but by the faith of the\nChurch, which is applied to them: by the power of which faith, grace\nand virtues are bestowed on them.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The carnal intention of those who take children to be\nbaptized does not hurt the latter, as neither does one's sin hurt\nanother, unless he consent. Hence Augustine says in his letter to\nBoniface (Ep. xcviii): \"Be not disturbed because some bring children\nto be baptized, not in the hope that they may be born again to\neternal life by the spiritual grace, but because they think it to be\na remedy whereby they may preserve or recover health. For they are\nnot deprived of regeneration, through not being brought for this\nintention.\"\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Effect of Baptism Is to Open the Gates of the Heavenly\nKingdom?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that it is not the effect of Baptism, to open\nthe gates of the heavenly kingdom. For what is already opened needs\nno opening. But the gates of the heavenly kingdom were opened by\nChrist's Passion: hence it is written (Apoc. 4:1): \"After these\nthings I looked and behold (a great) door was opened in heaven.\"\nTherefore it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the\nheavenly kingdom.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Baptism has had its effects ever since it was\ninstituted. But some were baptized with Christ's Baptism, before His\nPassion, according to John 3:22, 26: and if they had died then, the\ngates of the heavenly kingdom would not have been opened to them,\nsince none entered therein before Christ, according to Mic. 2:13: \"He\nwent up [Vulg.: 'shall go up'] that shall open the way before them.\"\nTherefore it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the\nheavenly kingdom.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the baptized are still subject to death and the\nother penalties of the present life, as stated above (A. 3). But\nentrance to the heavenly kingdom is opened to none that are subject\nto punishment: as is clear in regard to those who are in purgatory.\nTherefore it is not the effect of Baptism, to open the gates of the\nheavenly kingdom.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on Luke 3:21, \"Heaven was opened,\" the gloss of\nBede says: \"We see here the power of Baptism; from which when a man\ncomes forth, the gates of the heavenly kingdom are opened unto him.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ To open the gates of the heavenly kingdom is to\nremove the obstacle that prevents one from entering therein. Now this\nobstacle is guilt and the debt of punishment. But it has been shown\nabove (AA. 1, 2) that all guilt and also all debt of punishment are\ntaken away by Baptism. It follows, therefore, that the effect of\nBaptism is to open the gates of the heavenly kingdom.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Baptism opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom to the\nbaptized in so far as it incorporates them in the Passion of Christ,\nby applying its power to man.\n\nReply Obj. 2: When Christ's Passion was not as yet consummated\nactually but only in the faith of believers, Baptism proportionately\ncaused the gates to be opened, not in fact but in hope. For the\nbaptized who died then looked forward, with a sure hope, to enter the\nheavenly kingdom.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The baptized are subject to death and the penalties of\nthe present life, not by reason of a personal debt of punishment but\nby reason of the state of their nature. And therefore this is no bar\nto their entrance to the heavenly kingdom, when death severs the soul\nfrom the body; since they have paid, as it were, the debt of nature.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Baptism Has an Equal Effect in All?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Baptism has not an equal effect in all.\nFor the effect of Baptism is to remove guilt. But in some it takes\naway more sins than in others; for in children it takes away only\noriginal sins, whereas in adults it takes away actual sins, in some\nmany, in others few. Therefore Baptism has not an equal effect in all.\n\nObj. 2: Further, grace and virtues are bestowed on man by Baptism.\nBut some, after Baptism, seem to have more grace and more perfect\nvirtue than others who have been baptized. Therefore Baptism has not\nan equal effect in all.\n\nObj. 3: Further, nature is perfected by grace, as matter by form. But\na form is received into matter according to its capacity. Therefore,\nsince some of the baptized, even children, have greater capacity for\nnatural gifts than others have, it seems that some receive greater\ngrace than others.\n\nObj. 4: Further, in Baptism some receive not only spiritual, but also\nbodily health; thus Constantine was cleansed in Baptism from leprosy.\nBut all the infirm do not receive bodily health in Baptism. Therefore\nit has not an equal effect in all.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Eph. 4:5): \"One Faith, one\nBaptism.\" But a uniform cause has a uniform effect. Therefore Baptism\nhas an equal effect in all.\n\n_I answer that,_ The effect of Baptism is twofold, the essential\neffect, and the accidental. The essential effect of Baptism is that\nfor which Baptism was instituted, namely, the begetting of men unto\nspiritual life. Therefore, since all children are equally disposed to\nBaptism, because they are baptized not in their own faith, but in\nthat of the Church, they all receive an equal effect in Baptism.\nWhereas adults, who approach Baptism in their own faith, are not\nequally disposed to Baptism; for some approach thereto with greater,\nsome with less, devotion. And therefore some receive a greater, some\na smaller share of the grace of newness; just as from the same fire,\nhe receives more heat who approaches nearest to it, although the\nfire, as far as it is concerned, sends forth its heat equally to all.\n\nBut the accidental effect of Baptism, is that to which Baptism is not\nordained, but which the Divine power produces miraculously in\nBaptism: thus on Rom. 6:6, \"that we may serve sin no longer,\" a gloss\nsays: \"this is not bestowed in Baptism, save by an ineffable miracle\nof the Creator, so that the law of sin, which is in our members, be\nabsolutely destroyed.\" And such like effects are not equally received\nby all the baptized, even if they approach with equal devotion: but\nthey are bestowed according to the ordering of Divine providence.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The least baptismal grace suffices to blot out all\nsins. Wherefore that in some more sins are loosed than in others is\nnot due to the greater efficacy of Baptism, but to the condition of\nthe recipient: for in each one it looses whatever it finds.\n\nReply Obj. 2: That greater or lesser grace appears in the baptized,\nmay occur in two ways. First, because one receives greater grace in\nBaptism than another, on account of his greater devotion, as stated\nabove. Secondly, because, though they receive equal grace, they do\nnot make an equal use of it, but one applies himself more to advance\ntherein, while another by his negligence baffles grace.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The various degrees of capacity in men arise, not from\na variety in the mind which is renewed by Baptism (since all men,\nbeing of one species, are of one form), but from the diversity of\nbodies. But it is otherwise with the angels, who differ in species.\nAnd therefore gratuitous gifts are bestowed on the angels according\nto their diverse capacity for natural gifts, but not on men.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Bodily health is not the essential effect of Baptism,\nbut a miraculous work of Divine providence.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 9]\n\nWhether Insincerity Hinders the Effect of Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that insincerity does not hinder the effect of\nBaptism. For the Apostle says (Gal. 3:27): \"As many of you as have\nbeen baptized in Christ Jesus, have put on Christ.\" But all that\nreceive the Baptism of Christ, are baptized in Christ. Therefore they\nall put on Christ: and this is to receive the effect of Baptism.\nConsequently insincerity does not hinder the effect of Baptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Divine power which can change man's will to that\nwhich is better, works in Baptism. But the effect of the efficient\ncause cannot be hindered by that which can be removed by that cause.\nTherefore insincerity cannot hinder the effect of Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the effect of Baptism is grace, to which sin is in\nopposition. But many other sins are more grievous than insincerity,\nwhich are not said to hinder the effect of Baptism. Therefore neither\ndoes insincerity.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 1:5): \"The Holy Spirit of\ndiscipline will flee from the deceitful.\" But the effect of Baptism\nis from the Holy Ghost. Therefore insincerity hinders the effect of\nBaptism.\n\n_I answer that,_ As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), \"God does not\ncompel man to be righteous.\" Consequently in order that a man be\njustified by Baptism, his will must needs embrace both Baptism and\nthe baptismal effect. Now, a man is said to be insincere by reason of\nhis will being in contradiction with either Baptism or its effect.\nFor, according to Augustine (De Bapt. cont. Donat. vii), a man is\nsaid to be insincere, in four ways: first, because he does not\nbelieve, whereas Baptism is the sacrament of Faith; secondly, through\nscorning the sacrament itself; thirdly, through observing a rite\nwhich differs from that prescribed by the Church in conferring the\nsacrament; fourthly, through approaching the sacrament without\ndevotion. Wherefore it is manifest that insincerity hinders the\neffect of Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 1: \"To be baptized in Christ,\" may be taken in two ways.\nFirst, \"in Christ,\" i.e. \"in conformity with Christ.\" And thus\nwhoever is baptized in Christ so as to be conformed to Him by Faith\nand Charity, puts on Christ by grace. Secondly, a man is said to be\nbaptized in Christ, in so far as he receives Christ's sacrament. And\nthus all put on Christ, through being configured to Him by the\ncharacter, but not through being conformed to Him by grace.\n\nReply Obj. 2: When God changes man's will from evil to good, man does\nnot approach with insincerity. But God does not always do this. Nor\nis this the purpose of the sacrament, that an insincere man be made\nsincere; but that he who comes in sincerity, be justified.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A man is said to be insincere who makes a show of\nwilling what he wills not. Now whoever approaches Baptism, by that\nvery fact makes a show of having right faith in Christ, of veneration\nfor this sacrament, and of wishing to conform to the Church, and to\nrenounce sin. Consequently, to whatever sin a man wishes to cleave,\nif he approach Baptism, he approaches insincerely, which is the same\nas to approach without devotion. But this must be understood of\nmortal sin, which is in opposition to grace: but not of venial sin.\nConsequently, here insincerity includes, in a way, every sin.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 69, Art. 10]\n\nWhether Baptism Produces Its Effect When the Insincerity Ceases?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Baptism does not produce its effect, when\nthe insincerity ceases. For a dead work, which is void of charity,\ncan never come to life. But he who approaches Baptism insincerely,\nreceives the sacrament without charity. Therefore it can never come\nto life so as to bestow grace.\n\nObj. 2: Further, insincerity seems to be stronger than Baptism,\nbecause it hinders its effect. But the stronger is not removed by the\nweaker. Therefore the sin of insincerity cannot be taken away by\nBaptism which has been hindered by insincerity. And thus Baptism will\nnot receive its full effect, which is the remission of all sins.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it may happen that a man approach Baptism\ninsincerely, and afterwards commit a number of sins. And yet these\nsins will not be taken away by Baptism; because Baptism washes away\npast, not future, sins. Such a Baptism, therefore, will never have\nits effect, which is the remission of all sins.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Bapt. cont. Donat. i): \"Then\ndoes Baptism begin to have its salutary effect, when truthful\nconfession takes the place of that insincerity which hindered sins\nfrom being washed away, so long as the heart persisted in malice and\nsacrilege.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 66, A. 9), Baptism is a\nspiritual regeneration. Now when a thing is generated, it receives\ntogether with the form, the form's effect, unless there be an\nobstacle; and when this is removed, the form of the thing generated\nproduces its effect: thus at the same time as a weighty body is\ngenerated, it has a downward movement, unless something prevent this;\nand when the obstacle is removed, it begins forthwith to move\ndownwards. In like manner when a man is baptized, he receives the\ncharacter, which is like a form; and he receives in consequence its\nproper effect, which is grace whereby all his sins are remitted. But\nthis effect is sometimes hindered by insincerity. Wherefore, when\nthis obstacle is removed by Penance, Baptism forthwith produces its\neffect.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The sacrament of Baptism is the work of God, not of\nman. Consequently, it is not dead in the man, who being insincere, is\nbaptized without charity.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Insincerity is not removed by Baptism but by Penance:\nand when it is removed, Baptism takes away all guilt, and all debt of\npunishment due to sins, whether committed before Baptism, or even\nco-existent with Baptism. Hence Augustine says (De Bapt. cont. Donat.\ni): \"Yesterday is blotted out, and whatever remains over and above,\neven the very last hour and moment preceding Baptism, the very moment\nof Baptism. But from that moment forward he is bound by his\nobligations.\" And so both Baptism and Penance concur in producing the\neffect of Baptism, but Baptism as the direct efficient cause, Penance\nas the indirect cause, i.e. as removing the obstacle.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The effect of Baptism is to take away not future, but\npresent and past sins. And consequently, when the insincerity passes\naway, subsequent sins are indeed remitted, but by Penance, not by\nBaptism. Wherefore they are not remitted, like the sins which\npreceded Baptism, as to the whole debt of punishment.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 70\n\nOF CIRCUMCISION\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider things that are preparatory to Baptism: and\n(1) that which preceded Baptism, viz. Circumcision, (2) those which\naccompany Baptism, viz. Catechism and Exorcism.\n\nConcerning the first there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of,\nBaptism?\n\n(2) Its institution;\n\n(3) Its rite;\n\n(4) Its effect.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 70, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Circumcision Was a Preparation For, and a Figure of Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that circumcision was not a preparation for,\nand a figure of Baptism. For every figure has some likeness to that\nwhich it foreshadows. But circumcision has no likeness to Baptism.\nTherefore it seems that it was not a preparation for, and a figure of\nBaptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of old, says (1\nCor. 10:2), that \"all were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea\":\nbut not that they were baptized in circumcision. Therefore the\nprotecting pillar of a cloud, and the crossing of the Red Sea, rather\nthan circumcision, were a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it was stated above (Q. 38, AA. 1, 3) that the\nbaptism of John was a preparation for Christ's. Consequently, if\ncircumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Christ's Baptism,\nit seems that John's baptism was superfluous: which is unseemly.\nTherefore circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of\nBaptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Col. 2:11, 12): \"You are\ncircumcised with circumcision, not made by hand in despoiling the\nbody of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him\nin Baptism.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith; in so far,\nto wit, as in Baptism man makes a profession of faith, and by Baptism\nis aggregated to the congregation of the faithful. Now our faith is\nthe same as that of the Fathers of old, according to the Apostle (2\nCor. 4:13): \"Having the same spirit of faith . . . we . . . believe.\"\nBut circumcision was a protestation of faith; wherefore by\ncircumcision also men of old were aggregated to the body of the\nfaithful. Consequently, it is manifest that circumcision was a\npreparation for Baptism and a figure thereof, forasmuch as \"all\nthings happened\" to the Fathers of old \"in figure\" (1 Cor. 10:11);\njust as their faith regarded things to come.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Circumcision was like Baptism as to the spiritual\neffect of the latter. For just as circumcision removed a carnal\npellicule, so Baptism despoils man of carnal behavior.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The protecting pillar of cloud and the crossing of the\nRed Sea were indeed figures of our Baptism, whereby we are born again\nof water, signified by the Red Sea; and of the Holy Ghost, signified\nby the pillar of cloud: yet man did not make, by means of these, a\nprofession of faith, as by circumcision; so that these two things\nwere figures but not sacraments. But circumcision was a sacrament,\nand a preparation for Baptism; although less clearly figurative of\nBaptism, as to externals, than the aforesaid. And for this reason the\nApostle mentions them rather than circumcision.\n\nReply Obj. 3: John's baptism was a preparation for Christ's as to the\nact done: but circumcision, as to the profession of faith, which is\nrequired in Baptism, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 70, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Circumcision Was Instituted in a Fitting Manner?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that circumcision was instituted in an\nunfitting manner. For as stated above (A. 1) a profession of faith\nwas made in circumcision. But none could ever be delivered from the\nfirst man's sin, except by faith in Christ's Passion, according to\nRom. 3:25: \"Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through\nfaith in His blood.\" Therefore circumcision should have been\ninstituted forthwith after the first man's sin, and not at the time\nof Abraham.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in circumcision man made profession of keeping the\nOld Law, just as in Baptism he makes profession of keeping the New\nLaw; wherefore the Apostle says (Gal. 5:3): \"I testify . . . to every\nman circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law.\"\nBut the observance of the Law was not promulgated at the time of\nAbraham, but rather at the time of Moses. Therefore it was unfitting\nfor circumcision to be instituted at the time of Abraham.\n\nObj. 3: Further, circumcision was a figure of, and a preparation for,\nBaptism. But Baptism is offered to all nations, according to Matt.\n28:19: \"Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them.\" Therefore\ncircumcision should have been instituted as binding, not the Jews\nonly, but also all nations.\n\nObj. 4: Further, carnal circumcision should correspond to spiritual\ncircumcision, as the shadow to the reality. But spiritual\ncircumcision which is of Christ, regards indifferently both sexes,\nsince \"in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female,\" as is\nwritten Col. 3 [*Gal. 3:28]. Therefore the institution of\ncircumcision which concerns only males, was unfitting.\n\n_On the contrary,_ We read (Gen. 17) that circumcision was instituted\nby God, Whose \"works are perfect\" (Deut. 32:4).\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1) circumcision was a\npreparation for Baptism, inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in\nChrist, which we also profess in Baptism. Now among the Fathers of\nold, Abraham was the first to receive the promise of the future birth\nof Christ, when it was said to him: \"In thy seed shall all the\nnations of the earth be blessed\" (Gen. 22:18). Moreover, he was the\nfirst to cut himself off from the society of unbelievers, in\naccordance with the commandment of the Lord, Who said to him (Gen.\n13:1): \"Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred.\" Therefore\ncircumcision was fittingly instituted in the person of Abraham.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Immediately after the sin of our first parent, on\naccount of the knowledge possessed by Adam, who was fully instructed\nabout Divine things, both faith and natural reason flourished in man\nto such an extent, that there was no need for any signs of faith and\nsalvation to be prescribed to him, but each one was wont to make\nprotestation of his faith, by outward signs of his profession,\naccording as he thought best. But about the time of Abraham faith was\non the wane, many being given over to idolatry. Moreover, by the\ngrowth of carnal concupiscence natural reason was clouded even in\nregard to sins against nature. And therefore it was fitting that\nthen, and not before, circumcision should be instituted, as a\nprofession of faith and a remedy against carnal concupiscence.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The observance of the Law was not to be promulgated\nuntil the people were already gathered together: because the law is\nordained to the public good, as we have stated in the Second Part\n(I-II, Q. 90, A. 2). Now it behooved the body of the faithful to be\ngathered together by a sensible sign, which is necessary in order\nthat men be united together in any religion, as Augustine says\n(Contra Faust. xix). Consequently, it was necessary for circumcision\nto be instituted before the giving of the Law. Those Fathers,\nhowever, who lived before the Law, taught their families concerning\nDivine things by way of paternal admonition. Hence the Lord said of\nAbraham (Gen. 18:19): \"I know that he will command his children, and\nhis household after him to keep the way of the Lord.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation,\nto which God calls all men, according to 1 Tim. 2:4: \"Who will have\nall men to be saved.\" Wherefore Baptism is offered to all nations. On\nthe other hand circumcision did not contain the perfection of\nsalvation, but signified it as to be achieved by Christ, Who was to\nbe born of the Jewish nation. For this reason circumcision was given\nto that nation alone.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The institution of circumcision is as a sign of\nAbraham's faith, who believed that himself would be the father of\nChrist Who was promised to him: and for this reason it was suitable\nthat it should be for males only. Again, original sin, against which\ncircumcision was specially ordained, is contracted from the father,\nnot from the mother, as was stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 81,\nA. 5). But Baptism contains the power of Christ, Who is the universal\ncause of salvation for all, and is \"The Remission of all sins\"\n(Post-Communion, Tuesday in Whitweek).\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 70, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Rite of Circumcision Was Fitting?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the rite of circumcision was unfitting.\nFor circumcision, as stated above (AA. 1, 2), was a profession of\nfaith. But faith is in the apprehensive power, whose operations\nappear mostly in the head. Therefore the sign of circumcision should\nhave been conferred on the head rather than on the virile member.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in the sacraments we make use of such things as are\nin more frequent use; for instance, water, which is used for washing,\nand bread, which we use for nourishment. But, in cutting, we use an\niron knife more commonly than a stone knife. Therefore circumcision\nshould not have been performed with a stone knife.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as Baptism was instituted as a remedy against\noriginal sin, so also was circumcision, as Bede says (Hom. in\nCircum.). But now Baptism is not put off until the eighth day, lest\nchildren should be in danger of loss on account of original sin, if\nthey should die before being baptized. On the other hand, sometimes\nBaptism is put off until after the eighth day. Therefore the eighth\nday should not have been fixed for circumcision, but this day should\nhave been anticipated, just as sometimes it was deferred.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The aforesaid rite of circumcision is fixed by a\ngloss on Rom. 4:11: \"And he received the sign of circumcision.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), circumcision was\nestablished, as a sign of faith, by God \"of\" Whose \"wisdom there is\nno number\" (Ps. 146:5). Now to determine suitable signs is a work of\nwisdom. Consequently, it must be allowed that the rite of\ncircumcision was fitting.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It was fitting for circumcision to be performed on the\nvirile member. First, because it was a sign of that faith whereby\nAbraham believed that Christ would be born of his seed. Secondly,\nbecause it was to be a remedy against original sin, which is\ncontracted through the act of generation. Thirdly, because it was\nordained as a remedy for carnal concupiscence, which thrives\nprincipally in those members, by reason of the abundance of venereal\npleasure.\n\nReply Obj. 2: A stone knife was not essential to circumcision.\nWherefore we do not find that an instrument of this description is\nrequired by any divine precept; nor did the Jews, as a rule, make use\nof such a knife for circumcision; indeed, neither do they now.\nNevertheless, certain well-known circumcisions are related as having\nbeen performed with a stone knife, thus (Ex. 4:25) we read that\n\"Sephora took a very sharp stone and circumcised the foreskin of her\nson,\" and (Joshua 5:2): \"Make thee knives of stone, and circumcise\nthe second time the children of Israel.\" Which signified that\nspiritual circumcision would be done by Christ, of Whom it is written\n(1 Cor. 10:4): \"Now the rock was Christ.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The eighth day was fixed for circumcision: first,\nbecause of the mystery; since, Christ, by taking away from the elect,\nnot only guilt but also all penalties, will perfect the spiritual\ncircumcision, in the eighth age (which is the age of those that rise\nagain), as it were, on the eighth day. Secondly, on account of the\ntenderness of the infant before the eighth day. Wherefore even in\nregard to other animals it is prescribed (Lev. 22:27): \"When a\nbullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, they shall be seven\ndays under the udder of their dam: but the eighth day and\nthenceforth, they may be offered to the Lord.\"\n\nMoreover, the eighth day was necessary for the fulfilment of the\nprecept; so that, to wit, those who delayed beyond the eighth day,\nsinned, even though it were the sabbath, according to John 7:23:\n\"(If) a man receives circumcision on the sabbath-day, that the Law of\nMoses may not be broken.\" But it was not necessary for the validity\nof the sacrament: because if anyone delayed beyond the eighth day,\nthey could be circumcised afterwards.\n\nSome also say that in imminent danger of death, it was allowable to\nanticipate the eighth day. But this cannot be proved either from the\nauthority of Scripture or from the custom of the Jews. Wherefore it\nis better to say with Hugh of St. Victor (De Sacram. i) that the\neighth day was never anticipated for any motive, however urgent.\nHence on Prov. 4:3: \"I was . . . an only son in the sight of my\nmother,\" a gloss says, that Bersabee's other baby boy did not count\nbecause through dying before the eighth day it received no name; and\nconsequently neither was it circumcised.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 70, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Circumcision Bestowed Sanctifying Grace?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that circumcision did not bestow sanctifying\ngrace. For the Apostle says (Gal. 2:21): \"If justice be by the Law,\nthen Christ died in vain,\" i.e. without cause. But circumcision was\nan obligation imposed by the Law, according to Gal. 5:3: \"I\ntestify . . . to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor\nto do the whole law.\" Therefore, if justice be by circumcision,\n\"Christ died in vain,\" i.e. without cause. But this cannot be\nallowed. Therefore circumcision did not confer grace whereby the\nsinner is made righteous.\n\nObj. 2: Further, before the institution of circumcision faith alone\nsufficed for justification; hence Gregory says (Moral. iv): \"Faith\nalone did of old in behalf of infants that for which the water of\nBaptism avails with us.\" But faith has lost nothing of its strength\nthrough the commandment of circumcision. Therefore faith alone\njustified little ones, and not circumcision.\n\nObj. 3: Further, we read (Joshua 5:5, 6) that \"the people that were\nborn in the desert, during the forty years . . . were uncircumcised.\"\nIf, therefore, original sin was taken away by circumcision, it seems\nthat all who died in the desert, both little children and adults,\nwere lost. And the same argument avails in regard to those who died\nbefore the eighth day, which was that of circumcision, which day\ncould not be anticipated, as stated above (A. 3, ad 3).\n\nObj. 4: Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly\nkingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly kingdom\nwas closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from\nsin by circumcision.\n\nObj. 5: Further, original sin is not remitted without actual sin\nbeing remitted also: because \"it is wicked to hope for half\nforgiveness from God,\" as Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit.\nix). But we read nowhere of circumcision as remitting actual sin.\nTherefore neither did it remit original sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to\nJulian (De Nup. et Concup. ii): \"From the time that circumcision was\ninstituted among God's people, as 'a seal of the justice of the\nfaith,' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing\nthem from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the\ntime of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of man.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ All are agreed in saying that original sin was\nremitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred,\nand that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this\nopinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Rom. 4:11. But this is\nimpossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to\nRom. 3:2: \"Being justified freely by His grace,\" etc.\n\nWherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to\nthat effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its\npositive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace\nbestowed in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts\nof the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was\nunnecessary. But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by\ncircumcision children received the power of obtaining glory at the\nallotted time, which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly,\nbecause, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally\nprecede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in\nthe order of the material cause: since a form does not remove a\nprivation save by informing the subject.\n\nConsequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision,\nalso as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy\nof eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not\nsuffice for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes, nor\nagain for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my\nopinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1; Q. 2, A. 4). But if one consider\nthe matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because the\nleast grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every\nmortal sin, that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the\nLaw; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity\nloves \"thousands of gold and silver\" (Ps. 118:72).\n\nWe must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to\nall the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism\ngrace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power\nBaptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion already\nconsummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was\na sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was\ncircumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an\nadult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone\nelse made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Rom.\n4:11), that Abraham \"received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the\njustice of the faith\": because, to wit, justice was of faith\nsignified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates\ninstrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision\ndoes not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates\nman in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does\ncircumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present,\nthan of the hope thereof.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument would prove if justice were of\ncircumcision otherwise than through faith in Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith\nin Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after\nits institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive\nof this faith; because as yet believers had not begun to be united\ntogether apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is\nprobable, however, that parents who were believers offered up some\nprayers to God for their children, especially if these were in any\ndanger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a \"seal of faith\"; just\nas the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves.\n\nReply Obj. 3: There was an excuse for the people in the desert\nfailing to fulfil the precept of circumcision, both because they knew\nnot when the camp was removed, and because, as Damascene says (De\nFide Orth. iv) they needed no distinctive sign while they dwelt apart\nfrom other nations. Nevertheless, as Augustine says (QQ. in Josue\nvi), those were guilty of disobedience who failed to obey through\ncontempt.\n\nIt seems, however, that none of the uncircumcised died in the desert,\nfor it is written (Ps. 104:37): \"There was not among their tribes one\nthat was feeble\": and that those alone died in the desert, who had\nbeen circumcised in Egypt. If, however, some of the uncircumcised did\ndie there, the same applies to them as to those who died before the\ninstitution of circumcision. And this applies also to those children\nwho, at the time of the Law, died before the eighth day.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard\nto the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained\nthe obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle\nwas removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before Christ's\nPassion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were\ncircumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance\nto the kingdom.\n\nReply Obj. 5: When adults were circumcised, they received remission\nnot only of original, but also of actual sin: yet not so as to be\ndelivered from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which grace\nis conferred more copiously.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 71\n\nOF THE PREPARATIONS THAT ACCOMPANY BAPTISM\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the preparations that accompany Baptism:\nconcerning which there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether catechism should precede Baptism?\n\n(2) Whether exorcism should precede Baptism?\n\n(3) Whether what is done in catechizing and exorcizing, effects\nanything, or is a mere sign?\n\n(4) Whether those who are to be baptized should be catechized or\nexorcized by priests?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 71, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Catechism Should Precede Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that catechism should not precede Baptism. For\nby Baptism men are regenerated unto the spiritual life. But man\nbegins to live before being taught. Therefore man should not be\ncatechized, i.e. taught, before being baptized.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Baptism is given not only to adults, but also to\nchildren, who are not capable of being taught, since they have not\nthe use of reason. Therefore it is absurd to catechize them.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a man, when catechized, confesses his faith. Now a\nchild cannot confess its faith by itself, nor can anyone else in its\nstead; both because no one can bind another to do anything; and\nbecause one cannot know whether the child, having come to the right\nage, will give its assent to faith. Therefore catechism should not\nprecede Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): \"Before\nBaptism man should be prepared by catechism, in order that the\ncatechumen may receive the rudiments of faith.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 70, A. 1), Baptism is the\nSacrament of Faith: since it is a profession of the Christian faith.\nNow in order that a man receive the faith, he must be instructed\ntherein, according to Rom. 10:14: \"How shall they believe Him, of\nWhom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a\npreacher?\" And therefore it is fitting that catechism should precede\nBaptism. Hence when our Lord bade His disciples to baptize, He made\nteaching to precede Baptism, saying: \"Go ye . . . and teach all\nnations, baptizing them,\" etc.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The life of grace unto which a man is regenerated,\npresupposes the life of the rational nature, in which man is capable\nof receiving instruction.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Just as Mother Church, as stated above (Q. 69, A. 6, ad\n3), lends children another's feet that they may come, and another's\nheart that they may believe, so, too, she lends them another's ears,\nthat they may hear, and another's mind, that through others they may\nbe taught. And therefore, as they are to be baptized, on the same\ngrounds they are to be instructed.\n\nReply Obj. 3: He who answers in the child's stead: \"I do believe,\"\ndoes not foretell that the child will believe when it comes to the\nright age, else he would say: \"He will believe\"; but in the child's\nstead he professes the Church's faith which is communicated to that\nchild, the sacrament of which faith is bestowed on it, and to which\nfaith he is bound by another. For there is nothing unfitting in a\nperson being bound by another in things necessary for salvation. In\nlike manner the sponsor, in answering for the child, promises to use\nhis endeavors that the child may believe. This, however, would not be\nsufficient in the case of adults having the use of reason.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 71, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Exorcism Should Precede Baptism?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that exorcism should not precede Baptism. For\nexorcism is ordained against energumens or those who are possessed.\nBut not all are such like. Therefore exorcism should not precede\nBaptism.\n\nObj. 2: Further, so long as man is a subject of sin, the devil has\npower over him, according to John 8:34: \"Whosoever committeth sin is\nthe servant of sin.\" But sin is taken away by Baptism. Therefore men\nshould not be exorcized before Baptism.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Holy water was introduced in order to ward off the\npower of the demons. Therefore exorcism was not needed as a further\nremedy.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Celestine says (Epist. ad Episcop. Galliae):\n\"Whether children or young people approach the sacrament of\nregeneration, they should not come to the fount of life before the\nunclean spirit has been expelled from them by the exorcisms and\nbreathings of the clerics.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes\nthe obstacles to his work; hence it is written (Jer. 4:3): \"Break up\nanew your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns.\" Now the devil is\nthe enemy of man's salvation, which man acquires by Baptism; and he\nhas a certain power over man from the very fact that the latter is\nsubject to original, or even actual, sin. Consequently it is fitting\nthat before Baptism the demons should be cast out by exorcisms, lest\nthey impede man's salvation. Which expulsion is signified by the\n(priest) breathing (upon the person to be baptized); while the\nblessing, with the imposition of hands, bars the way against the\nreturn of him who was cast out. Then the salt which is put in the\nmouth, and the anointing of the nose and ears with spittle, signify\nthe receiving of doctrine, as to the ears; consent thereto as to the\nnose; and confession thereof, as to the mouth. And the anointing with\noil signifies man's ability to fight against the demons.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The energumens are so-called from \"laboring inwardly\"\nunder the outward operation of the devil. And though not all that\napproach Baptism are troubled by him in their bodies, yet all who are\nnot baptized are subject to the power of the demons, at least on\naccount of the guilt of original sin.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The power of the devil in so far as he hinders man from\nobtaining glory, is expelled from man by the baptismal ablution; but\nin so far as he hinders man from receiving the sacrament, his power\nis cast out by the exorcisms.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Holy water is used against the assaults of demons from\nwithout. But exorcisms are directed against those assaults of the\ndemons which are from within. Hence those who are exorcized are\ncalled energumens, as it were \"laboring inwardly.\"\n\nOr we may say that just as Penance is given as a further remedy\nagainst sin, because Baptism is not repeated; so Holy Water is given\nas a further remedy against the assaults of demons, because the\nbaptismal exorcisms are not given a second time.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 71, Art. 3]\n\nWhether What Is Done in the Exorcism Effects Anything, or Is a Mere\nSign?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that what is done in the exorcism does not\neffect anything, but is a mere sign. For if a child die after the\nexorcisms, before being baptized, it is not saved. But the effects of\nwhat is done in the sacraments are ordained to the salvation of man;\nhence it is written (Mk. 16:16): \"He that believeth and is baptized\nshall be saved.\" Therefore what is done in the exorcism effects\nnothing, but is a mere sign.\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing is required for a sacrament of the New Law,\nbut that it should be a sign and a cause, as stated above (Q. 62, A.\n1). If, therefore, the things done in the exorcism effect anything,\nit seems that each of them is a sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as the exorcism is ordained to Baptism, so if\nanything be effected in the exorcism, it is ordained to the effect of\nBaptism. But disposition must needs precede the perfect form: because\nform is not received save into matter already disposed. It would\nfollow, therefore, that none could obtain the effect of Baptism\nunless he were previously exorcized; which is clearly false.\nTherefore what is done in the exorcisms has no effect.\n\nObj. 4: Further, just as some things are done in the exorcism before\nBaptism, so are some things done after Baptism; for instance, the\npriest anoints the baptized on the top of the head. But what is done\nafter Baptism seems to have no effect; for, if it had, the effect of\nBaptism would be imperfect. Therefore neither have those things an\neffect, which are done in exorcism before Baptism.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Symbolo I): \"Little children\nare breathed upon and exorcized, in order to expel from them the\ndevil's hostile power, which deceived man.\" But the Church does\nnothing in vain. Therefore the effect of these breathings is that the\npower of the devils is expelled.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some say that the things done in the exorcism have\nno effect, but are mere signs. But this is clearly false; since in\nexorcizing, the Church uses words of command to cast out the devil's\npower, for instance, when she says: \"Therefore, accursed devil, go\nout from him,\" etc.\n\nTherefore we must say that they have some effect, but, other than\nthat of Baptism. For Baptism gives man grace unto the full remission\nof sins. But those things that are done in the exorcism remove the\ntwofold impediment against the reception of saving grace. Of these,\none is the outward impediment, so far as the demons strive to hinder\nman's salvation. And this impediment is removed by the breathings,\nwhereby the demon's power is cast out, as appears from the passage\nquoted from Augustine, i.e. as to the devil not placing obstacles\nagainst the reception of the sacrament. Nevertheless, the demon's\npower over man remains as to the stain of sin, and the debt of\npunishment, until sin be washed away by Baptism. And in this sense\nCyprian says (Epist. lxxvi): \"Know that the devil's evil power\nremains until the pouring of the saving water: but in Baptism he\nloses it all.\"\n\nThe other impediment is within, forasmuch as, from having contracted\noriginal sin, man's sense is closed to the perception of the\nmysteries of salvation. Hence Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i)\nthat \"by means of the typifying spittle and the touch of the priest,\nthe Divine wisdom and power brings salvation to the catechumen, that\nhis nostrils being opened he may perceive the odor of the knowledge\nof God, that his ears be opened to hear the commandments of God, that\nhis senses be opened in his inmost heart to respond.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: What is done in the exorcism does not take away the sin\nfor which man is punished after death; but only the impediments\nagainst his receiving the remission of sin through the sacrament.\nWherefore exorcism avails a man nothing after death if he has not\nbeen baptized.\n\nPraepositivus, however, says that children who die after being\nexorcized but before being baptized are subjected to lesser darkness.\nBut this does not seem to be true: because that darkness consists in\nprivation of the vision of God, which cannot be greater or lesser.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It is essential to a sacrament to produce its principal\neffect, which is grace that remits sin, or supplies some defect in\nman. But those things that are done in the exorcism do not effect\nthis; they merely remove these impediments. Consequently, they are\nnot sacraments but sacramentals.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The disposition that suffices for receiving the\nbaptismal grace is the faith and intention, either of the one\nbaptized, if it be an adult, or of the Church, if it be a child. But\nthese things that are done in the exorcism, are directed to the\nremoval of the impediments. And therefore one may receive the effect\nof Baptism without them.\n\nYet they are not to be omitted save in a case of necessity. And then,\nif the danger pass, they should be supplied, that uniformity in\nBaptism may be observed. Nor are they supplied to no purpose after\nBaptism: because, just as the effect of Baptism may be hindered\nbefore it is received, so can it be hindered after it has been\nreceived.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Of those things that are done after Baptism in respect\nof the person baptized, something is done which is not a mere sign,\nbut produces an effect, for instance, the anointing on the top of the\nhead, the effect of which is the preservation of baptismal grace. And\nthere is something which has no effect, but is a mere sign, for\ninstance, the baptized are given a white garment to signify the\nnewness of life.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 71, Art. 4]\n\nWhether It Belongs to a Priest to Catechize and Exorcize the Person\nto Be Baptized?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that it does not belong to a priest to\ncatechize and exorcize the person to be baptized. For it belongs to\nthe office of ministers to operate on the unclean, as Dionysius says\n(Eccl. Hier. v). But catechumens who are instructed by catechism, and\n\"energumens\" who are cleansed by exorcism, are counted among the\nunclean, as Dionysius says in the same place. Therefore to catechize\nand to exorcize do not belong to the office of the priests, but\nrather to that of the ministers.\n\nObj. 2: Further, catechumens are instructed in the Faith by the Holy\nScripture which is read in the church by ministers: for just as the\nOld Testament is recited by the Readers, so the New Testament is read\nby the Deacons and Subdeacons. And thus it belongs to the ministers\nto catechize. In like manner it belongs, seemingly, to the ministers\nto exorcize. For Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.): \"The exorcist\nshould know the exorcisms by heart, and impose his hands on the\nenergumens and catechumens during the exorcism.\" Therefore it belongs\nnot to the priestly office to catechize and exorcize.\n\nObj. 3: Further, \"to catechize\" is the same as \"to teach,\" and this\nis the same as \"to perfect.\" Now this belongs to the office of a\nbishop, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v). Therefore it does not\nbelong to the priestly office.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Nicolas I says: \"The catechizing of those who\nare to be baptized can be undertaken by the priests attached to each\nchurch.\" And Gregory says (Hom. xxix super Ezech.): \"When priests\nplace their hands on believers for the grace of exorcism, what else\ndo they but cast out the devils?\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The minister compared to the priest, is as a\nsecondary and instrumental agent to the principal agent: as is\nimplied in the very word \"minister.\" Now the secondary agent does\nnothing without the principal agent in operating. And the more mighty\nthe operation, so much the mightier instruments does the principal\nagent require. But the operation of the priest in conferring the\nsacrament itself is mightier than in those things that are\npreparatory to the sacrament. And so the highest ministers who are\ncalled deacons co-operate with the priest in bestowing the sacraments\nthemselves: for Isidore says (Epist. ad Ludifred.) that \"it belongs\nto the deacons to assist the priests in all things that are done in\nChrist's sacraments, in Baptism, to wit, in the Chrism, in the Paten\nand Chalice\"; while the inferior ministers assist the priest in those\nthings which are preparatory to the sacraments: the readers, for\ninstance, in catechizing; the exorcists in exorcizing.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The minister's operation in regard to the unclean is\nministerial and, as it were, instrumental, but the priest's is\nprincipal.\n\nReply Obj. 2: To readers and exorcists belongs the duty of\ncatechizing and exorcizing, not, indeed, principally, but as\nministers of the priest in these things.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Instruction is manifold. One leads to the embracing of\nthe Faith; and is ascribed by Dionysius to bishops (Eccl. Hier. ii)\nand can be undertaken by any preacher, or even by any believer.\nAnother is that by which a man is taught the rudiments of faith, and\nhow to comport himself in receiving the sacraments: this belongs\nsecondarily to the ministers, primarily to the priests. A third is\ninstruction in the mode of Christian life: and this belongs to the\nsponsors. A fourth is the instruction in the profound mysteries of\nfaith, and on the perfection of Christian life: this belongs to\nbishops _ex officio,_ in virtue of their office.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 72\n\nOF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION\n(In Twelve Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the Sacrament of Confirmation. Concerning\nthis there are twelve points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Confirmation is a sacrament?\n\n(2) Its matter;\n\n(3) Whether it is essential to the sacrament that the chrism should\nhave been previously consecrated by a bishop?\n\n(4) Its form;\n\n(5) Whether it imprints a character?\n\n(6) Whether the character of Confirmation presupposes the character\nof Baptism?\n\n(7) Whether it bestows grace?\n\n(8) Who is competent to receive this sacrament?\n\n(9) In what part of the body?\n\n(10) Whether someone is required to stand for the person to be\nconfirmed?\n\n(11) Whether this sacrament is given by bishops only?\n\n(12) Of its rite.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Confirmation Is a Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Confirmation is not a sacrament. For\nsacraments derive their efficacy from the Divine institution, as\nstated above (Q. 64, A. 2). But we read nowhere of Confirmation being\ninstituted by Christ. Therefore it is not a sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were foreshadowed in\nthe Old Law; thus the Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:2-4), that \"all in\nMoses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the\nsame spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink.\" But\nConfirmation was not foreshadowed in the old Testament. Therefore it\nis not a sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the sacraments are ordained unto man's salvation.\nBut man can be saved without Confirmation: since children that are\nbaptized, who die before being confirmed, are saved. Therefore\nConfirmation is not a sacrament.\n\nObj. 4: Further, by all the sacraments of the Church, man is\nconformed to Christ, Who is the Author of the sacraments. But man\ncannot be conformed to Christ by Confirmation, since we read nowhere\nof Christ being confirmed.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Melchiades wrote to the bishops of Spain:\n\"Concerning the point on which you sought to be informed, i.e.\nwhether the imposition of the bishop's hand were a greater sacrament\nthan Baptism, know that each is a great sacrament.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The sacraments of the New Law are ordained unto\nspecial effects of grace: and therefore where there is a special\neffect of grace, there we find a special sacrament ordained for the\npurpose. But since sensible and material things bear a likeness to\nthings spiritual and intelligible, from what occurs in the life of\nthe body, we can perceive that which is special to the spiritual\nlife. Now it is evident that in the life of the body a certain\nspecial perfection consists in man's attaining to the perfect age,\nand being able to perform the perfect actions of a man: hence the\nApostle says (1 Cor. 13:11): \"When I became a man, I put away the\nthings of a child.\" And thence it is that besides the movement of\ngeneration whereby man receives life of the body, there is the\nmovement of growth, whereby man is brought to the perfect age. So\ntherefore does man receive spiritual life in Baptism, which is a\nspiritual regeneration: while in Confirmation man arrives at the\nperfect age, as it were, of the spiritual life. Hence Pope Melchiades\nsays: \"The Holy Ghost, Who comes down on the waters of Baptism\nbearing salvation in His flight, bestows at the font, the fulness of\ninnocence; but in Confirmation He confers an increase of grace. In\nBaptism we are born again unto life; after Baptism we are\nstrengthened.\" And therefore it is evident that Confirmation is a\nspecial sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Concerning the institution of this sacrament there are\nthree opinions. Some (Alexander of Hales, Summa Theol. P. IV, Q. IX;\nSt. Bonaventure, Sent. iv, D, 7) have maintained that this sacrament\nwas instituted neither by Christ, nor by the apostles; but later in\nthe course of time by one of the councils. Others (Pierre de\nTarentaise, Sent. iv, D, 7) held that it was instituted by the\napostles. But this cannot be admitted; since the institution of a new\nsacrament belongs to the power of excellence, which belongs to Christ\nalone.\n\nAnd therefore we must say that Christ instituted this sacrament not\nby bestowing, but by promising it, according to John 16:7: \"If I go\nnot, the Paraclete will not come to you, but if I go, I will send Him\nto you.\" And this was because in this sacrament the fulness of the\nHoly Ghost is bestowed, which was not to be given before Christ's\nResurrection and Ascension; according to John 7:39: \"As yet the\nSpirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Confirmation is the sacrament of the fulness of grace:\nwherefore there could be nothing corresponding to it in the Old Law,\nsince \"the Law brought nothing to perfection\" (Heb. 7:19).\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 65, A. 4), all the sacraments are\nin some way necessary for salvation: but some, so that there is no\nsalvation without them; some as conducing to the perfection of\nsalvation; and thus it is that Confirmation is necessary for\nsalvation: although salvation is possible without it, provided it be\nnot omitted out of contempt.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Those who receive Confirmation, which is the sacrament\nof the fulness of grace, are conformed to Christ, inasmuch as from\nthe very first instant of His conception He was \"full of grace and\ntruth\" (John 1:14). This fulness was made known at His Baptism, when\n\"the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape . . . upon Him\" (Luke\n3:22). Hence (Luke 4:1) it is written that \"Jesus being full of the\nHoly Ghost, returned from the Jordan.\" Nor was it fitting to Christ's\ndignity, that He, Who is the Author of the sacraments, should receive\nthe fulness of grace from a sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Chrism Is a Fitting Matter for This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that chrism is not a fitting matter for this\nsacrament. For this sacrament, as stated above (A. 1, ad 1), was\ninstituted by Christ when He promised His disciples the Holy Ghost.\nBut He sent them the Holy Ghost without their being anointed with\nchrism. Moreover, the apostles themselves bestowed this sacrament\nwithout chrism, by the mere imposition of hands: for it is written\n(Acts 8:17) that the apostles \"laid their hands upon\" those who were\nbaptized, \"and they received the Holy Ghost.\" Therefore chrism is not\nthe matter of this sacrament: since the matter is essential to the\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Confirmation perfects, in a way, the sacrament of\nBaptism, as stated above (Q. 65, AA. 3, 4): and so it ought to be\nconformed to it as perfection to the thing perfected. But the matter,\nin Baptism, is a simple element, viz. water. Therefore chrism, which\nis made of oil and balm, is not a fitting matter for this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, oil is used as the matter of this sacrament for the\npurpose of anointing. But any oil will do for anointing: for\ninstance, oil made from nuts, and from anything else. Therefore not\nonly olive oil should be used for this sacrament.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it has been stated above (Q. 66, A. 3) that water is\nused as the matter of Baptism, because it is easily procured\neverywhere. But olive oil is not to be procured everywhere; and much\nless is balm. Therefore chrism, which is made of these, is not a\nfitting matter for this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Registr. iv): \"Let no priest dare to\nsign the baptized infants on the brow with the sacred chrism.\"\nTherefore chrism is the matter of this sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ Chrism is the fitting matter of this sacrament. For,\nas stated above (A. 1), in this sacrament the fulness of the Holy\nGhost is given for the spiritual strength which belongs to the\nperfect age. Now when man comes to perfect age he begins at once to\nhave intercourse with others; whereas until then he lives an\nindividual life, as it were, confined to himself. Now the grace of\nthe Holy Ghost is signified by oil; hence Christ is said to be\n\"anointed with the oil of gladness\" (Ps. 44:8), by reason of His\nbeing gifted with the fulness of the Holy Ghost. Consequently oil is\na suitable matter of this sacrament. And balm is mixed with the oil,\nby reason of its fragrant odor, which spreads about: hence the\nApostle says (2 Cor. 2:15): \"We are the good odor of Christ,\" etc.\nAnd though many other things be fragrant, yet preference is given to\nbalm, because it has a special odor of its own, and because it\nconfers incorruptibility: hence it is written (Ecclus. 24:21): \"My\nodor is as the purest balm.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ, by the power which He exercises in the\nsacraments, bestowed on the apostles the reality of this sacrament,\ni.e. the fulness of the Holy Ghost, without the sacrament itself,\nbecause they had received \"the first fruits of the Spirit\" (Rom.\n8:23). Nevertheless, something of keeping with the matter of this\nsacrament was displayed to the apostles in a sensible manner when\nthey received the Holy Ghost. For that the Holy Ghost came down upon\nthem in a sensible manner under the form of fire, refers to the same\nsignification as oil: except in so far as fire has an active power,\nwhile oil has a passive power, as being the matter and incentive of\nfire. And this was quite fitting: for it was through the apostles\nthat the grace of the Holy Ghost was to flow forth to others. Again,\nthe Holy Ghost came down on the apostles in the shape of a tongue.\nWhich refers to the same signification as balm: except in so far as\nthe tongue communicates with others by speech, but balm, by its odor.\nbecause, to wit, the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, as\nteachers of the Faith; but the rest of the believers, as doing that\nwhich gives edification to the faithful.\n\nIn like manner, too, when the apostles imposed their hands, and when\nthey preached, the fulness of the Holy Ghost came down under visible\nsigns on the faithful, just as, at the beginning, He came down on the\napostles: hence Peter said (Acts 11:15): \"When I had begun to speak,\nthe Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning.\"\nConsequently there was no need for sacramental sensible matter, where\nGod sent sensible signs miraculously.\n\nHowever, the apostles commonly made use of chrism in bestowing the\nsacrament, when such like visible signs were lacking. For Dionysius\nsays (Eccl. Hier. iv): \"There is a certain perfecting operation which\nour guides,\" i.e. the apostles, \"call the sacrifice of Chrism.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Baptism is bestowed that spiritual life may be received\nsimply; wherefore simple matter is fitting to it. But this sacrament\nis given that we may receive the fulness of the Holy Ghost, Whose\noperations are manifold, according to Wis. 7:22, \"In her is the\" Holy\n\"Spirit . . . one, manifold\"; and 1 Cor. 12:4, \"There are diversities\nof graces, but the same Spirit.\" Consequently a compound matter is\nappropriate to this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: These properties of oil, by reason of which it\nsymbolizes the Holy Ghost, are to be found in olive oil rather than\nin any other oil. In fact, the olive-tree itself, through being an\nevergreen, signifies the refreshing and merciful operation of the\nHoly Ghost.\n\nMoreover, this oil is called oil properly, and is very much in use,\nwherever it is to be had. And whatever other liquid is so called,\nderives its name from its likeness to this oil: nor are the latter\ncommonly used, unless it be to supply the want of olive oil.\nTherefore it is that this oil alone is used for this and certain\nother sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Baptism is the sacrament of absolute necessity; and so\nits matter should be at hand everywhere. But it is enough that the\nmatter of this sacrament, which is not of such great necessity, be\neasily sent to all parts of the world.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 3]\n\nWhether It Is Essential to This Sacrament That the Chrism Which Is\nIts Matter Be Previously Consecrated by a Bishop?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that it is not essential to this sacrament,\nthat the chrism, which is its matter, be previously consecrated by a\nbishop. For Baptism which bestows full remission of sins is not less\nefficacious than this sacrament. But, though the baptismal water\nreceives a kind of blessing before being used for Baptism; yet this\nis not essential to the sacrament: since in a case of necessity it\ncan be dispensed with. Therefore neither is it essential to this\nsacrament that the chrism should be previously consecrated by a\nbishop.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the same should not be consecrated twice. But the\nsacramental matter is sanctified, in the very conferring of the\nsacrament, by the form of words wherein the sacrament is bestowed;\nhence Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): \"The word is added to\nthe element, and this becomes a sacrament.\" Therefore the chrism\nshould not be consecrated before this sacrament is given.\n\nObj. 3: Further, every consecration employed in the sacraments is\nordained to the bestowal of grace. But the sensible matter composed\nof oil and balm is not receptive of grace. Therefore it should not be\nconsecrated.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Innocent I says (Ep. ad Decent.): \"Priests,\nwhen baptizing, may anoint the baptized with chrism, previously\nconsecrated by a bishop: but they must not sign the brow with the\nsame oil; this belongs to the bishop alone, when he gives the\nParaclete.\" Now this is done in this sacrament. Therefore it is\nnecessary for this sacrament that its matter be previously\nconsecrated by a bishop.\n\n_I answer that,_ The entire sanctification of the sacraments is\nderived from Christ, as stated above (Q. 64, A. 3). But it must be\nobserved that Christ did use certain sacraments having a corporeal\nmatter, viz. Baptism, and also the Eucharist. And consequently, from\nChrist's very act in using them, the matter of these sacraments\nreceived a certain aptitude to the perfection of the sacrament. Hence\nChrysostom (Chromatius, In Matth. 3:15) says that \"the waters of\nBaptism could never wash away the sins of believers, had they not\nbeen sanctified by contact with our Lord's body.\" And again, our Lord\nHimself \"taking bread . . . blessed . . . and in like manner the\nchalice\" (Matt. 26:26, 27; Luke 22:19, 20). For this reason there is\nno need for the matter of these sacraments to be blessed previously,\nsince Christ's blessing is enough. And if any blessing be used, it\nbelongs to the solemnity of the sacrament, not to its essence. But\nChrist did not make use of visible anointings, so as not to slight\nthe invisible unction whereby He was \"anointed above\" His \"fellows\"\n(Ps. 44:8). And hence both chrism, and the holy oil, and the oil of\nthe sick are blessed before being put to sacramental use. This\nsuffices for the reply to the First Objection.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Each consecration of the chrism has not the same\nobject. For just as an instrument derives instrumental power in two\nways, viz. when it receives the form of an instrument, and when it is\nmoved by the principal agent; so too the sacramental matter needs a\ntwofold sanctification, by one of which it becomes fit matter for the\nsacrament, while by the other it is applied to the production of the\neffect.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Corporeal matter is receptive of grace, not so as to be\nthe subject of grace, but only as the instrument of grace, as\nexplained above (Q. 62, A. 3). And this sacramental matter is\nconsecrated, either by Christ, or by a bishop, who, in the Church,\nimpersonates Christ.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Proper Form of This Sacrament Is: \"I Sign Thee with the\nSign of the Cross,\" Etc.?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the proper form of this sacrament is not:\n\"I sign thee with the sign of the cross, I confirm thee with the\nchrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of\nthe Holy Ghost. Amen.\" For the use of the sacraments is derived from\nChrist and the apostles. But neither did Christ institute this form,\nnor do we read of the apostles making use of it. Therefore it is not\nthe proper form of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, just as the sacrament is the same everywhere, so\nshould the form be the same: because everything has unity, just as it\nhas being, from its form. But this form is not used by all: for some\nsay: \"I confirm thee with the chrism of sanctification.\" Therefore\nthe above is not the proper form of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, this sacrament should be conformed to Baptism, as\nthe perfect to the thing perfected, as stated above (A. 2, Obj. 2).\nBut in the form of Baptism no mention is made of signing the\ncharacter; nor again of the cross of Christ, though in Baptism man\ndies with Christ, as the Apostle says (Rom. 6:3-8); nor of the effect\nwhich is salvation, though Baptism is necessary for salvation. Again,\nin the baptismal form, only one action is included; and the person of\nthe baptizer is expressed in the words: \"I baptize thee, whereas the\ncontrary is to be observed in the above form.\" Therefore this is not\nthe proper form of this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Is the authority of the Church, who always uses\nthis form.\n\n_I answer that,_ The above form is appropriate to this sacrament. For\njust as the form of a natural thing gives it its species, so a\nsacramental form should contain whatever belongs to the species of\nthe sacrament. Now as is evident from what has been already said (AA.\n1, 2), in this sacrament the Holy Ghost is given for strength in the\nspiritual combat. Wherefore in this sacrament three things are\nnecessary; and they are contained in the above form. The first of\nthese is the cause conferring fulness of spiritual strength which\ncause is the Blessed Trinity: and this is expressed in the words, \"In\nthe name of the Father,\" etc. The second is the spiritual strength\nitself bestowed on man unto salvation by the sacrament of visible\nmatter; and this is referred to in the words, \"I confirm thee with\nthe chrism of salvation.\" The third is the sign which is given to the\ncombatant, as in a bodily combat: thus are soldiers marked with the\nsign of their leaders. And to this refer the words, \"I sign thee with\nthe sign of the cross,\" in which sign, to wit, our King triumphed\n(cf. Col. 2:15).\n\nReply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 2, ad 1), sometimes the effect of\nthis sacrament, i.e. the fulness of the Holy Ghost, was given through\nthe ministry of the apostles, under certain visible signs, wrought\nmiraculously by God, Who can bestow the sacramental effect,\nindependently of the sacrament. In these cases there was no need for\neither the matter or the form of this sacrament. On the other hand,\nsometimes they bestowed this sacrament as ministers of the\nsacraments. And then, they used both matter and form according to\nChrist's command. For the apostles, in conferring the sacraments,\nobserved many things which are not handed down in those Scriptures\nthat are in general use. Hence Dionysius says at the end of his\ntreatise on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (chap. vii): \"It is not\nallowed to explain in writing the prayers which are used in the\nsacraments, and to publish their mystical meaning, or the power\nwhich, coming from God, gives them their efficacy; we learn these\nthings by holy tradition without any display,\"* i.e. secretly. [*The\npassage quoted in the text of the Summa differs slightly from the\nabove, which is translated directly from the works of Dionysius.]\nHence the Apostle, speaking of the celebration of the Eucharist,\nwrites (1 Cor. 11:34): \"The rest I will set in order, when I come.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Holiness is the cause of salvation. Therefore it comes\nto the same whether we say \"chrism of salvation\" or \"of\nsanctification.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Baptism is the regeneration unto the spiritual life,\nwhereby man lives in himself. And therefore in the baptismal form\nthat action alone is expressed which refers to the man to be\nsanctified. But this sacrament is ordained not only to the\nsanctification of man in himself, but also to strengthen him in his\noutward combat. Consequently not only is mention made of interior\nsanctification, in the words, \"I confirm thee with the chrism of\nsalvation\": but furthermore man is signed outwardly, as it were with\nthe standard of the cross, unto the outward spiritual combat; and\nthis is signified by the words, \"I sign thee with the sign of the\ncross.\"\n\nBut in the very word \"baptize,\" which signifies \"to cleanse,\" we can\nunderstand both the matter, which is the cleansing water, and the\neffect, which is salvation. Whereas these are not understood by the\nword \"confirm\"; and consequently they had to be expressed.\n\nAgain, it has been said above (Q. 66, A. 5, ad 1) that the pronoun\n\"I\" is not necessary to the Baptismal form, because it is included in\nthe first person of the verb. It is, however, included in order to\nexpress the intention. But this does not seem so necessary in\nConfirmation, which is conferred only by a minister of excellence, as\nwe shall state later on (A. 11).\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Sacrament of Confirmation Imprints a Character?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacrament of Confirmation does not\nimprint a character. For a character means a distinctive sign. But a\nman is not distinguished from unbelievers by the sacrament of\nConfirmation, for this is the effect of Baptism; nor from the rest of\nthe faithful, because this sacrament is ordained to the spiritual\ncombat, which is enjoined to all the faithful. Therefore a character\nis not imprinted in this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it was stated above (Q. 63, A. 2) that a character\nis a spiritual power. Now a power must be either active or passive.\nBut the active power in the sacraments is conferred by the sacrament\nof order: while the passive or receptive power is conferred by the\nsacrament of Baptism. Therefore no character is imprinted by the\nsacrament of Confirmation.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in circumcision, which is a character of the body,\nno spiritual character is imprinted. But in this sacrament a\ncharacter is imprinted on the body, when the sign of the cross is\nsigned with chrism on man's brow. Therefore a spiritual character is\nnot imprinted by this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ A character is imprinted in every sacrament that\nis not repeated. But this sacrament is not repeated: for Gregory II\nsays (Ep. iv ad Bonifac.): \"As to the man who was confirmed a second\ntime by a bishop, such a repetition must be forbidden.\" Therefore a\ncharacter is imprinted in Confirmation.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 63, A. 2), a character is a\nspiritual power ordained to certain sacred actions. Now it has been\nsaid above (A. 1; Q. 65, A. 1) that, just as Baptism is a spiritual\nregeneration unto Christian life, so also is Confirmation a certain\nspiritual growth bringing man to perfect spiritual age. But it is\nevident, from a comparison with the life of the body, that the action\nwhich is proper to man immediately after birth, is different from the\naction which is proper to him when he has come to perfect age. And\ntherefore by the sacrament of Confirmation man is given a spiritual\npower in respect of sacred actions other than those in respect of\nwhich he receives power in Baptism. For in Baptism he receives power\nto do those things which pertain to his own salvation, forasmuch as\nhe lives to himself: whereas in Confirmation he receives power to do\nthose things which pertain to the spiritual combat with the enemies\nof the Faith. This is evident from the example of the apostles, who,\nbefore they received the fulness of the Holy Ghost, were in the\n\"upper room . . . persevering . . . in prayer\" (Acts 1:13, 14);\nwhereas afterwards they went out and feared not to confess their\nfaith in public, even in the face of the enemies of the Christian\nFaith. And therefore it is evident that a character is imprinted in\nthe sacrament of Confirmation.\n\nReply Obj. 1: All have to wage the spiritual combat with our\ninvisible enemies. But to fight against visible foes, viz. against\nthe persecutors of the Faith, by confessing Christ's name, belongs to\nthe confirmed, who have already come spiritually to the age of\nvirility, according to 1 John 2:14: \"I write unto you, young men,\nbecause you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you\nhave overcome the wicked one.\" And therefore the character of\nConfirmation is a distinctive sign, not between unbelievers and\nbelievers, but between those who are grown up spiritually and those\nof whom it is written: \"As new-born babes\" (1 Pet. 2:2).\n\nReply Obj. 2: All the sacraments are protestations of faith.\nTherefore just as he who is baptized receives the power of testifying\nto his faith by receiving the other sacraments; so he who is\nconfirmed receives the power of publicly confessing his faith by\nwords, as it were _ex officio._\n\nReply Obj. 3: The sacraments of the Old Law are called \"justice of\nthe flesh\" (Heb. 9:10) because, to wit, they wrought nothing\ninwardly. Consequently in circumcision a character was imprinted in\nthe body only, but not in the soul. But in Confirmation, since it is\na sacrament of the New Law, a spiritual character is imprinted at the\nsame time, together with the bodily character.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Character of Confirmation Presupposes of Necessity, the\nBaptismal Character?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the character of Confirmation does not\npresuppose, of necessity, the baptismal character. For the sacrament\nof Confirmation is ordained to the public confession of the Faith of\nChrist. But many, even before Baptism, have publicly confessed the\nFaith of Christ by shedding their blood for the Faith. Therefore the\ncharacter of Confirmation does not presuppose the baptismal character.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is not related of the apostles that they were\nbaptized; especially, since it is written (John 4:2) that Christ\n\"Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.\" Yet afterwards they\nwere confirmed by the coming of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, in like\nmanner, others can be confirmed before being baptized.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Acts 10:44-48) that \"while Peter was\nyet speaking . . . the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the\nword . . . and [Vulg.: 'for'] they heard them speaking with tongues\":\nand afterwards \"he commanded them to be baptized.\" Therefore others\nwith equal reason can be confirmed before being baptized.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): \"Lastly the\nParaclete is given to the baptized by the imposition of the high\npriest's hands, in order that the baptized may be strengthened by the\nHoly Ghost so as to publish his faith.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The character of Confirmation, of necessity supposes\nthe baptismal character: so that, in effect, if one who is not\nbaptized were to be confirmed, he would receive nothing, but would\nhave to be confirmed again after receiving Baptism. The reason of\nthis is that, Confirmation is to Baptism as growth to birth, as is\nevident from what has been said above (A. 1; Q. 65, A. 1). Now it is\nclear that no one can be brought to perfect age unless he be first\nborn: and in like manner, unless a man be first baptized, he cannot\nreceive the sacrament of Confirmation.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Divine power is not confined to the sacraments.\nHence man can receive spiritual strength to confess the Faith of\nChrist publicly, without receiving the sacrament of Confirmation:\njust as he can also receive remission of sins without Baptism. Yet,\njust as none receive the effect of Baptism without the desire of\nBaptism; so none receive the effect of Confirmation, without the\ndesire of Confirmation. And man can have this even before receiving\nBaptism.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words,\n\"'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (John 13:10),\nwe gather that Peter and Christ's other disciples had been baptized,\neither with John's Baptism, as some think; or with Christ's, which is\nmore credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to\nhave servants by whom to baptize others.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Those who heard the preaching of Peter received the\neffect of Confirmation miraculously: but not the sacrament of\nConfirmation. Now it has been stated (ad 1) that the effect of\nConfirmation can be bestowed on man before Baptism, whereas the\nsacrament cannot. For just as the effect of Confirmation, which is\nspiritual strength, presupposes the effect of Baptism, which is\njustification, so the sacrament of Confirmation presupposes the\nsacrament of Baptism.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 7]\n\nWhether Sanctifying Grace Is Bestowed in This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that sanctifying grace is not bestowed in this\nsacrament. For sanctifying grace is ordained against sin. But this\nsacrament, as stated above (A. 6) is given only to the baptized, who\nare cleansed from sin. Therefore sanctifying grace is not bestowed in\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, sinners especially need sanctifying grace, by which\nalone can they be justified. If, therefore, sanctifying grace is\nbestowed in this sacrament, it seems that it should be given to those\nwho are in sin. And yet this is not true.\n\nObj. 3: Further, there can only be one species of sanctifying grace,\nsince it is ordained to one effect. But two forms of the same species\ncannot be in the same subject. Since, therefore, man receives\nsanctifying grace in Baptism, it seems that sanctifying grace is not\nbestowed in Confirmation, which is given to none but the baptized.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.): \"The\nHoly Ghost bestows at the font the fulness of innocence; but in\nConfirmation He confers an increase of grace.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ In this sacrament, as stated above (AA. 1, 4), the\nHoly Ghost is given to the baptized for strength: just as He was\ngiven to the apostles on the day of Pentecost, as we read in Acts 2;\nand just as He was given to the baptized by the imposition of the\napostles' hands, as related in Acts 8:17. Now it has been proved in\nthe First Part (Q. 43, A. 3) that the Holy Ghost is not sent or given\nexcept with sanctifying grace. Consequently it is evident that\nsanctifying grace is bestowed in this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Sanctifying grace does indeed take away sin; but it has\nother effects also, because it suffices to carry man through every\nstep as far as eternal life. Hence to Paul was it said (2 Cor. 12:9):\n\"My grace is sufficient for thee\": and he says of himself (1 Cor.\n15:10): \"By the grace of God I am what I am.\" Therefore sanctifying\ngrace is given not only for the remission of sin, but also for growth\nand stability in righteousness. And thus is it bestowed in this\nsacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Further, as appears from its very name, this sacrament\nis given in order \"to confirm\" what it finds already there. And\nconsequently it should not be given to those who are not in a state\nof grace. For this reason, just as it is not given to the unbaptized,\nso neither should it be given to the adult sinners, except they be\nrestored by Penance. Wherefore was it decreed in the Council of\nOrleans (Can. iii) that \"men should come to Confirmation fasting; and\nshould be admonished to confess their sins first, so that being\ncleansed they may be able to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.\" And\nthen this sacrament perfects the effects of Penance, as of Baptism:\nbecause by the grace which he has received in this sacrament, the\npenitent will obtain fuller remission of his sin. And if any adult\napproach, being in a state of sin of which he is not conscious or for\nwhich he is not perfectly contrite, he will receive the remission of\nhis sins through the grace bestowed in this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 62, A. 2), the sacramental grace\nadds to the sanctifying grace taken in its wide sense, something that\nproduces a special effect, and to which the sacrament is ordained.\nIf, then, we consider, in its wide sense, the grace bestowed in this\nsacrament, it does not differ from that bestowed in Baptism, but\nincreases what was already there. On the other hand, if we consider\nit as to that which is added over and above, then one differs in\nspecies from the other.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 8]\n\nWhether This Sacrament Should Be Given to All?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to all.\nFor this sacrament is given in order to confer a certain excellence,\nas stated above (A. 11, ad 2). But all are not suited for that which\nbelongs to excellence. Therefore this sacrament should not be given\nto all.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by this sacrament man advances spiritually to\nperfect age. But perfect age is inconsistent with childhood.\nTherefore at least it should not be given to children.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.)\n\"after Baptism we are strengthened for the combat.\" But women are\nincompetent to combat, by reason of the frailty of their sex.\nTherefore neither should women receive this sacrament.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Episc. Hispan.):\n\"Although the benefit of Regeneration suffices for those who are on\nthe point of death, yet the graces of Confirmation are necessary for\nthose who are to conquer. Confirmation arms and strengthens those to\nwhom the struggles and combats of this world are reserved. And he who\ncomes to die, having kept unsullied the innocence he acquired in\nBaptism, is confirmed by death; for after death he can sin no more.\"\nTherefore this sacrament should not be given to those who are on the\npoint of death: and so it should not be given to all.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Acts 2:2) that the Holy Ghost in\ncoming, \"filled the whole house,\" whereby the Church is signified;\nand afterwards it is added that \"they were all filled with the Holy\nGhost.\" But this sacrament is given that we may receive that fulness.\nTherefore it should be given to all who belong to the Church.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), man is spiritually advanced\nby this sacrament to perfect age. Now the intention of nature is that\neveryone born corporally, should come to perfect age: yet this is\nsometimes hindered by reason of the corruptibility of the body, which\nis forestalled by death. But much more is it God's intention to bring\nall things to perfection, since nature shares in this intention\ninasmuch as it reflects Him: hence it is written (Deut. 32:4): \"The\nworks of God are perfect.\" Now the soul, to which spiritual birth and\nperfect spiritual age belong, is immortal; and just as it can in old\nage attain to spiritual birth, so can it attain to perfect\n(spiritual) age in youth or childhood; because the various ages of\nthe body do not affect the soul. Therefore this sacrament should be\ngiven to all.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This sacrament is given in order to confer a certain\nexcellence, not indeed, like the sacrament of order, of one man over\nanother, but of man in regard to himself: thus the same man, when\narrived at maturity, excels himself as he was when a boy.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated above, the age of the body does not affect\nthe soul. Consequently even in childhood man can attain to the\nperfection of spiritual age, of which it is written (Wis. 4:8):\n\"Venerable old age is not that of long time, nor counted by the\nnumber of years.\" And hence it is that many children, by reason of\nthe strength of the Holy Ghost which they had received, fought\nbravely for Christ even to the shedding of their blood.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i De Machab.), \"in earthly\ncontests fitness of age, physique and rank are required; and\nconsequently slaves, women, old men, and boys are debarred from\ntaking part therein. But in the heavenly combats, the Stadium is open\nequally to all, to every age, and to either sex.\" Again, he says\n(Hom. de Militia Spirit.): \"In God's eyes even women fight, for many\na woman has waged the spiritual warfare with the courage of a man.\nFor some have rivaled men in the courage with which they have\nsuffered martyrdom; and some indeed have shown themselves stronger\nthan men.\" Therefore this sacrament should be given to women.\n\nReply Obj. 4: As we have already observed, the soul, to which\nspiritual age belongs, is immortal. Wherefore this sacrament should\nbe given to those on the point of death, that they may be seen to be\nperfect at the resurrection, according to Eph. 4:13: \"Until we all\nmeet into the unity of faith . . . unto the measure of the age of the\nfulness of Christ.\" And hence Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram.\nii), \"It would be altogether hazardous, if anyone happened to go\nforth from this life without being confirmed\": not that such a one\nwould be lost, except perhaps through contempt; but that this would\nbe detrimental to his perfection. And therefore even children dying\nafter Confirmation obtain greater glory, just as here below they\nreceive more grace. The passage quoted is to be taken in the sense\nthat, with regard to the dangers of the present combat, those who are\non the point of death do not need this sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 9]\n\nWhether This Sacrament Should Be Given to Man on the Forehead?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this sacrament should not be given to man\non the forehead. For this sacrament perfects Baptism, as stated above\n(Q. 65, AA. 3, 4). But the sacrament of Baptism is given to man over\nhis whole body. Therefore this sacrament should not be given on the\nforehead only.\n\nObj. 2: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength, as\nstated above (AA. 1, 2, 4). But spiritual strength is situated\nprincipally in the heart. Therefore this sacrament should be given\nover the heart rather than on the forehead.\n\nObj. 3: Further, this sacrament is given to man that he may freely\nconfess the faith of Christ. But \"with the mouth, confession is made\nunto salvation,\" according to Rom. 10:10. Therefore this sacrament\nshould be given about the mouth rather than on the forehead.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): \"The baptized\nis signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head, but by\nthe bishop on the forehead.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 4), in this sacrament man\nreceives the Holy Ghost for strength in the spiritual combat, that he\nmay bravely confess the Faith of Christ even in face of the enemies\nof that Faith. Wherefore he is fittingly signed with the sign of the\ncross on the forehead, with chrism, for two reasons. First, because\nhe is signed with the sign of the cross, as a soldier with the sign\nof his leader, which should be evident and manifest. Now, the\nforehead, which is hardly ever covered, is the most conspicuous part\nof the human body. Wherefore the confirmed is anointed with chrism on\nthe forehead, that he may show publicly that he is a Christian: thus\ntoo the apostles after receiving the Holy Ghost showed themselves in\npublic, whereas before they remained hidden in the upper room.\n\nSecondly, because man is hindered from freely confessing Christ's\nname, by two things--by fear and by shame. Now both these things\nbetray themselves principally on the forehead on account of the\nproximity of the imagination, and because the (vital) spirits mount\ndirectly from the heart to the forehead: hence \"those who are\nashamed, blush, and those who are afraid, pale\" (Ethic. iv). And\ntherefore man is signed with chrism, that neither fear nor shame may\nhinder him from confessing the name of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 1: By baptism we are regenerated unto spiritual life,\nwhich belongs to the whole man. But in Confirmation we are\nstrengthened for the combat; the sign of which should be borne on the\nforehead, as in a conspicuous place.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The principle of fortitude is in the heart, but its\nsign appears on the forehead: wherefore it is written (Ezech. 3:8):\n\"Behold I have made . . . thy forehead harder than their foreheads.\"\nHence the sacrament of the Eucharist, whereby man is confirmed in\nhimself, belongs to the heart, according to Ps. 103:15: \"That bread\nmay strengthen man's heart.\" But the sacrament of Confirmation is\nrequired as a sign of fortitude against others; and for this reason\nit is given on the forehead.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This sacrament is given that we may confess freely: but\nnot that we may confess simply, for this is also the effect of\nBaptism. And therefore it should not be given on the mouth, but on\nthe forehead, where appear the signs of those passions which hinder\nfree confession.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 10]\n\nWhether He Who Is Confirmed Needs One to Stand* for Him?\n[*Literally, \"to hold him\"]\n\nObjection 1: It seems that he who is confirmed needs no one to stand\nfor him. For this sacrament is given not only to children but also to\nadults. But adults can stand for themselves. Therefore it is absurd\nthat someone else should stand for them.\n\nObj. 2: Further, he that belongs already to the Church, has free\naccess to the prince of the Church, i.e. the bishop. But this\nsacrament, as stated above (A. 6), is given only to one that is\nbaptized, who is already a member of the Church. Therefore it seems\nthat he should not be brought by another to the bishop in order to\nreceive this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, this sacrament is given for spiritual strength,\nwhich has more vigor in men than in women, according to Prov. 31:10:\n\"Who shall find a valiant woman?\" Therefore at least a woman should\nnot stand for a man in confirmation.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Are the following words of Pope Innocent, which\nare to be found in the Decretals (XXX, Q. 4): \"If anyone raise the\nchildren of another's marriage from the sacred font, or stand for\nthem in Confirmation,\" etc. Therefore, just as someone is required as\nsponsor of one who is baptized, so is someone required to stand for\nhim who is to be confirmed.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 4, 9), this sacrament is\ngiven to man for strength in the spiritual combat. Now, just as one\nnewly born requires someone to teach him things pertaining to\nordinary conduct, according to Heb. 12:9: \"We have had fathers of our\nflesh, for instructors, and we obeyed [Vulg.: 'reverenced']\" them; so\nthey who are chosen for the fight need instructors by whom they are\ninformed of things concerning the conduct of the battle, and hence in\nearthly wars, generals and captains are appointed to the command of\nthe others. For this reason he also who receives this sacrament, has\nsomeone to stand for him, who, as it were, has to instruct him\nconcerning the fight.\n\nLikewise, since this sacrament bestows on man the perfection of\nspiritual age, as stated above (AA. 2, 5), therefore he who\napproaches this sacrament is upheld by another, as being spiritually\na weakling and a child.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although he who is confirmed, be adult in body,\nnevertheless he is not yet spiritually adult.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Though he who is baptized is made a member of the\nChurch, nevertheless he is not yet enrolled as a Christian soldier.\nAnd therefore he is brought to the bishop, as to the commander of the\narmy, by one who is already enrolled as a Christian soldier. For one\nwho is not yet confirmed should not stand for another in Confirmation.\n\nReply Obj. 3: According to Col. 3 *(Gal. 3:28), \"in Christ Jesus\nthere is neither male nor female.\" Consequently it matters not\nwhether a man or a woman stand for one who is to be confirmed.\n_______________________\n\nELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 11]\n\nWhether Only a Bishop Can Confer This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that not only a bishop can confer this\nsacrament. For Gregory (Regist. iv), writing to Bishop Januarius,\nsays: \"We hear that some were scandalized because we forbade priests\nto anoint with chrism those who have been baptized. Yet in doing this\nwe followed the ancient custom of our Church: but if this trouble\nsome so very much we permit priests, where no bishop is to be had, to\nanoint the baptized on the forehead with chrism.\" But that which is\nessential to the sacraments should not be changed for the purpose of\navoiding scandal. Therefore it seems that it is not essential to this\nsacrament that it be conferred by a bishop.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the sacrament of Baptism seems to be more\nefficacious than the sacrament of Confirmation: since it bestows full\nremission of sins, both as to guilt and as to punishment, whereas\nthis sacrament does not. But a simple priest, in virtue of his\noffice, can give the sacrament of Baptism: and in a case of necessity\nanyone, even without orders, can baptize. Therefore it is not\nessential to this sacrament that it be conferred by a bishop.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the top of the head, where according to medical men\nthe reason is situated (i.e. the \"particular reason,\" which is called\nthe \"cogitative faculty\"), is more noble than the forehead, which is\nthe site of the imagination. But a simple priest can anoint the\nbaptized with chrism on the top of the head. Therefore much more can\nhe anoint them with chrism on the forehead, which belongs to this\nsacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Eusebius (Ep. iii ad Ep. Tusc.) says: \"The\nsacrament of the imposition of the hand should be held in great\nveneration, and can be given by none but the high priests. Nor is it\nrelated or known to have been conferred in apostolic times by others\nthan the apostles themselves; nor can it ever be either licitly or\nvalidly performed by others than those who stand in their place. And\nif anyone presume to do otherwise, it must be considered null and\nvoid; nor will such a thing ever be counted among the sacraments of\nthe Church.\" Therefore it is essential to this sacrament, which is\ncalled \"the sacrament of the imposition of the hand,\" that it be\ngiven by a bishop.\n\n_I answer that,_ In every work the final completion is reserved to\nthe supreme act or power; thus the preparation of the matter belongs\nto the lower craftsmen, the higher gives the form, but the highest of\nall is he to whom pertains the use, which is the end of things made\nby art; thus also the letter which is written by the clerk, is signed\nby his employer. Now the faithful of Christ are a Divine work,\naccording to 1 Cor. 3:9: \"You are God's building\"; and they are also\n\"an epistle,\" as it were, \"written with the Spirit of God,\" according\nto 2 Cor. 3:2, 3. And this sacrament of Confirmation is, as it were,\nthe final completion of the sacrament of Baptism; in the sense that\nby Baptism man is built up into a spiritual dwelling, and is written\nlike a spiritual letter; whereas by the sacrament of Confirmation,\nlike a house already built, he is consecrated as a temple of the Holy\nGhost, and as a letter already written, is signed with the sign of\nthe cross. Therefore the conferring of this sacrament is reserved to\nbishops, who possess supreme power in the Church: just as in the\nprimitive Church, the fulness of the Holy Ghost was given by the\napostles, in whose place the bishops stand (Acts 8). Hence Pope Urban\nI says: \"All the faithful should, after Baptism, receive the Holy\nGhost by the imposition of the bishop's hand, that they may become\nperfect Christians.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The Pope has the plenitude of power in the Church, in\nvirtue of which he can commit to certain lower orders things that\nbelong to the higher orders: thus he allows priests to confer minor\norders, which belong to the episcopal power. And in virtue of this\nfulness of power the Pope, Blessed Gregory, allowed simple priests to\nconfer this sacrament, so long as the scandal was ended.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The sacrament of Baptism is more efficacious than this\nsacrament as to the removal of evil, since it is a spiritual birth,\nthat consists in change from non-being to being. But this sacrament\nis more efficacious for progress in good; since it is a spiritual\ngrowth from imperfect being to perfect being. And hence this\nsacrament is committed to a more worthy minister.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i), \"the baptized\nis signed by the priest with chrism on the top of the head, but by\nthe bishop on the forehead; that the former unction may symbolize the\ndescent of the Holy Ghost on him, in order to consecrate a dwelling\nto God: and that the second also may teach us that the sevenfold\ngrace of the same Holy Ghost descends on man with all fulness of\nsanctity, knowledge and virtue.\" Hence this unction is reserved to\nbishops, not on account of its being applied to a more worthy part of\nthe body, but by reason of its having a more powerful effect.\n_______________________\n\nTWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 72, Art. 12]\n\nWhether the Rite of This Sacrament Is Appropriate?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the rite of this sacrament is not\nappropriate. For the sacrament of Baptism is of greater necessity\nthan this, as stated above (A. 2, ad 4; Q. 65, AA. 3, 4). But certain\nseasons are fixed for Baptism, viz. Easter and Pentecost. Therefore\nsome fixed time of the year should be chosen for this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, just as this sacrament requires devotion both in the\ngiver and in the receiver, so also does the sacrament of Baptism. But\nin the sacrament of Baptism it is not necessary that it should be\nreceived or given fasting. Therefore it seems unfitting for the\nCouncil of Orleans to declare that \"those who come to Confirmation\nshould be fasting\"; and the Council of Meaux, \"that bishops should\nnot give the Holy Ghost with imposition of the hand except they be\nfasting.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, chrism is a sign of the fulness of the Holy Ghost,\nas stated above (A. 2). But the fulness of the Holy Ghost was given\nto Christ's faithful on the day of Pentecost, as related in Acts 2:1.\nTherefore the chrism should be mixed and blessed on the day of\nPentecost rather than on Maundy Thursday.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Is the use of the Church, who is governed by the\nHoly Ghost.\n\n_I answer that,_ Our Lord promised His faithful (Matt. 18:20) saying:\n\"Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am\nI in the midst of them.\" And therefore we must hold firmly that the\nChurch's ordinations are directed by the wisdom of Christ. And for\nthis reason we must look upon it as certain that the rite observed by\nthe Church, in this and the other sacraments, is appropriate.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Pope Melchiades says (Ep. ad Epis. Hispan.), \"these\ntwo sacraments,\" viz. Baptism and Confirmation, \"are so closely\nconnected that they can nowise be separated save by death\nintervening, nor can one be duly celebrated without the other.\"\nConsequently the same seasons are fixed for the solemn celebration of\nBaptism and of this sacrament. But since this sacrament is given only\nby bishops, who are not always present where priests are baptizing,\nit was necessary, as regards the common use, to defer the sacrament\nof Confirmation to other seasons also.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The sick and those in danger of death are exempt from\nthis prohibition, as we read in the decree of the Council of Meaux.\nAnd therefore, on account of the multitude of the faithful, and on\naccount of imminent dangers, it is allowed for this sacrament, which\ncan be given by none but a bishop, to be given or received even by\nthose who are not fasting: since one bishop, especially in a large\ndiocese, would not suffice to confirm all, if he were confined to\ncertain times. But where it can be done conveniently, it is more\nbecoming that both giver and receiver should be fasting.\n\nReply Obj. 3: According to the acts of the Council of Pope Martin,\n\"it was lawful at all times to prepare the chrism.\" But since solemn\nBaptism, for which chrism has to be used, is celebrated on Easter\nEve, it was rightly decreed, that chrism should be consecrated by the\nbishop two days beforehand, that it may be sent to the various parts\nof the diocese. Moreover, this day is sufficiently appropriate to the\nblessing of sacramental matter, since thereon was the Eucharist\ninstituted, to which, in a certain way, all the other sacraments are\nordained, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 3).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 73\n\nOF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the sacrament of the Eucharist; and first of\nall we treat of the sacrament itself; secondly, of its matter;\nthirdly, of its form; fourthly, of its effects; fifthly, of the\nrecipients of this sacrament; sixthly, of the minister; seventhly, of\nthe rite.\n\nUnder the first heading there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the Eucharist is a sacrament?\n\n(2) Whether it is one or several sacraments?\n\n(3) Whether it is necessary for salvation?\n\n(4) Its names;\n\n(5) Its institution;\n\n(6) Its figures.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Eucharist Is a Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not a sacrament. For two\nsacraments ought not to be ordained for the same end, because every\nsacrament is efficacious in producing its effect. Therefore, since\nboth Confirmation and the Eucharist are ordained for perfection, as\nDionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iv), it seems that the Eucharist is not a\nsacrament, since Confirmation is one, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 1;\nQ. 72, A. 1).\n\nObj. 2: Further, in every sacrament of the New Law, that which comes\nvisibly under our senses causes the invisible effect of the\nsacrament, just as cleansing with water causes the baptismal\ncharacter and spiritual cleansing, as stated above (Q. 63, A. 6; Q.\n66, AA. 1, 3, 7). But the species of bread and wine, which are the\nobjects of our senses in this sacrament, neither produce Christ's\ntrue body, which is both reality and sacrament, nor His mystical\nbody, which is the reality only in the Eucharist. Therefore, it seems\nthat the Eucharist is not a sacrament of the New Law.\n\nObj. 3: Further, sacraments of the New Law, as having matter, are\nperfected by the use of the matter, as Baptism is by ablution, and\nConfirmation by signing with chrism. If, then, the Eucharist be a\nsacrament, it would be perfected by the use of the matter, and not by\nits consecration. But this is manifestly false, because the words\nspoken in the consecration of the matter are the form of this\nsacrament, as will be shown later on (Q. 78, A. 1). Therefore the\nEucharist is not a sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion \"pro\nvivis et defunctis\"]: \"May this Thy Sacrament not make us deserving\nof punishment.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The Church's sacraments are ordained for helping man\nin the spiritual life. But the spiritual life is analogous to the\ncorporeal, since corporeal things bear a resemblance to spiritual.\nNow it is clear that just as generation is required for corporeal\nlife, since thereby man receives life; and growth, whereby man is\nbrought to maturity: so likewise food is required for the\npreservation of life. Consequently, just as for the spiritual life\nthere had to be Baptism, which is spiritual generation; and\nConfirmation, which is spiritual growth: so there needed to be the\nsacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual food.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Perfection is twofold. The first lies within man\nhimself; and he attains it by growth: such perfection belongs to\nConfirmation. The other is the perfection which comes to man from the\naddition of food, or clothing, or something of the kind; and such is\nthe perfection befitting the Eucharist, which is the spiritual\nrefreshment.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The water of Baptism does not cause any spiritual\neffect by reason of the water, but by reason of the power of the Holy\nGhost, which power is in the water. Hence on John 5:4, \"An angel of\nthe Lord at certain times,\" etc., Chrysostom observes: \"The water\ndoes not act simply as such upon the baptized, but when it receives\nthe grace of the Holy Ghost, then it looses all sins.\" But the true\nbody of Christ bears the same relation to the species of the bread\nand wine, as the power of the Holy Ghost does to the water of\nBaptism: hence the species of the bread and wine produce no effect\nexcept from the virtue of Christ's true body.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A sacrament is so termed because it contains something\nsacred. Now a thing can be styled sacred from two causes; either\nabsolutely, or in relation to something else. The difference between\nthe Eucharist and other sacraments having sensible matter is that\nwhereas the Eucharist contains something which is sacred absolutely,\nnamely, Christ's own body; the baptismal water contains something\nwhich is sacred in relation to something else, namely, the\nsanctifying power: and the same holds good of chrism and such like.\nConsequently, the sacrament of the Eucharist is completed in the very\nconsecration of the matter, whereas the other sacraments are\ncompleted in the application of the matter for the sanctifying of the\nindividual. And from this follows another difference. For, in the\nsacrament of the Eucharist, what is both reality and sacrament is in\nthe matter itself, but what is reality only, namely, the grace\nbestowed, is in the recipient; whereas in Baptism both are in the\nrecipient, namely, the character, which is both reality and\nsacrament, and the grace of pardon of sins, which is reality only.\nAnd the same holds good of the other sacraments.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Eucharist Is One Sacrament or Several?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the Eucharist is not one sacrament but\nseveral, because it is said in the Collect [*Postcommunion \"pro vivis\net defunctis\"]: \"May the sacraments which we have received purify us,\nO Lord\": and this is said on account of our receiving the Eucharist.\nConsequently the Eucharist is not one sacrament but several.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is impossible for genera to be multiplied without\nthe species being multiplied: thus it is impossible for one man to be\nmany animals. But, as stated above (Q. 60, A. 1), sign is the genus\nof sacrament. Since, then, there are more signs than one, to wit,\nbread and wine, it seems to follow that here must be more sacraments\nthan one.\n\nObj. 3: Further, this sacrament is perfected in the consecration of\nthe matter, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3). But in this sacrament there\nis a double consecration of the matter. Therefore, it is a twofold\nsacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 10:17): \"For we, being\nmany, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread\": from\nwhich it is clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church's\nunity. But a sacrament bears the likeness of the reality whereof it\nis the sacrament. Therefore the Eucharist is one sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated in _Metaph._ v, a thing is said to be one,\nnot only from being indivisible, or continuous, but also when it is\ncomplete; thus we speak of one house, and one man. A thing is one in\nperfection, when it is complete through the presence of all that is\nneeded for its end; as a man is complete by having all the members\nrequired for the operation of his soul, and a house by having all the\nparts needful for dwelling therein. And so this sacrament is said to\nbe one. Because it is ordained for spiritual refreshment, which is\nconformed to corporeal refreshment. Now there are two things required\nfor corporeal refreshment, namely, food, which is dry sustenance, and\ndrink, which is wet sustenance. Consequently, two things concur for\nthe integrity of this sacrament, to wit, spiritual food and spiritual\ndrink, according to John: \"My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is\ndrink indeed.\" Therefore, this sacrament is materially many, but\nformally and perfectively one.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The same Collect at first employs the plural: \"May the\nsacraments which we have received purify us\"; and afterwards the\nsingular number: \"May this sacrament of Thine not make us worthy of\npunishment\": so as to show that this sacrament is in a measure\nseveral, yet simply one.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The bread and wine are materially several signs, yet\nformally and perfectively one, inasmuch as one refreshment is\nprepared therefrom.\n\nReply Obj. 3: From the double consecration of the matter no more can\nbe gathered than that the sacrament is several materially, as stated\nabove.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Eucharist Is Necessary for Salvation?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation.\nFor our Lord said (John 6:54): \"Except you eat the flesh of the Son\nof Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.\" But\nChrist's flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament.\nTherefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of\nspiritual life.\n\nObj. 2: Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But\nbodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this\nsacrament, for spiritual health.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord's Passion,\nwithout which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For\nthe Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:26): \"For as often as you shall eat this\nbread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord,\nuntil He come.\" Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation,\nso also is this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I):\n\"Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are\ndeprived of the body and blood of Christ.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Two things have to be considered in this sacrament,\nnamely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was\nstated above (A. 1, Obj. 2) that the reality of the sacrament is the\nunity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation;\nfor there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as\nin the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which\ndenotes the Church, according to 1 Pet. 3:20, 21. And it has been\nsaid above (Q. 68, A. 2), that before receiving a sacrament, the\nreality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of\nreceiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this\nsacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving\nit, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as\nstated above (Q. 68, A. 2). Yet there is a difference in two\nrespects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the\nspiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist\nis, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end\nof all the sacraments, as was observed above (Q. 63, A. 6): for by\nthe hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for\nreceiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception\nof Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the\nreceiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by\npartaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed\nin desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a\nman is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of\nchildren being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the\nEucharist; and just as they believe through the Church's faith, so\nthey desire the Eucharist through the Church's intention, and, as a\nresult, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by\nany previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in\nno way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have:\nconsequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without\nreceiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not\nnecessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says, explaining John 6:54, \"This food and\nthis drink,\" namely, of His flesh and blood: \"He would have us\nunderstand the fellowship of His body and members, which is the\nChurch in His predestinated, and called, and justified, and\nglorified, His holy and believing ones.\" Hence, as he says in his\nEpistle to Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, in 1 Cor. 10:17): \"No one should\nentertain the slightest doubt, that then every one of the faithful\nbecomes a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, when in Baptism\nhe is made a member of Christ's body; nor is he deprived of his share\nin that body and chalice even though he depart from this world in the\nunity of Christ's body, before he eats that bread and drinks of that\nchalice.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The difference between corporeal and spiritual food\nlies in this, that the former is changed into the substance of the\nperson nourished, and consequently it cannot avail for supporting\nlife except it be partaken of; but spiritual food changes man into\nitself, according to that saying of Augustine (Confess. vii), that he\nheard the voice of Christ as it were saying to him: \"Nor shalt thou\nchange Me into thyself, as food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be\nchanged into Me.\" But one can be changed into Christ, and be\nincorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this\nsacrament. And consequently the comparison does not hold.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Baptism is the sacrament of Christ's death and Passion,\naccording as a man is born anew in Christ in virtue of His Passion;\nbut the Eucharist is the sacrament of Christ's Passion according as a\nman is made perfect in union with Christ Who suffered. Hence, as\nBaptism is called the sacrament of Faith, which is the foundation of\nthe spiritual life, so the Eucharist is termed the sacrament of\nCharity, which is \"the bond of perfection\" (Col. 3:14).\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 4]\n\nWhether This Sacrament Is Suitably Called by Various Names?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this sacrament is not suitably called by\nvarious names. For names should correspond with things. But this\nsacrament is one, as stated above (A. 2). Therefore, it ought not to\nbe called by various names.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a species is not properly denominated by what is\ncommon to the whole genus. But the Eucharist is a sacrament of the\nNew Law; and it is common to all the sacraments for grace to be\nconferred by them, which the name \"Eucharist\" denotes, for it is the\nsame thing as \"good grace.\" Furthermore, all the sacraments bring us\nhelp on our journey through this present life, which is the notion\nconveyed by \"Viaticum.\" Again something sacred is done in all the\nsacraments, which belongs to the notion of \"Sacrifice\"; and the\nfaithful intercommunicate through all the sacraments, which this\nGreek word _Synaxis_ and the Latin _Communio_ express. Therefore,\nthese names are not suitably adapted to this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a host [*From Latin _hostia,_ a victim] seems to be\nthe same as a sacrifice. Therefore, as it is not properly called a\nsacrifice, so neither is it properly termed a \"Host.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ is the use of these expressions by the faithful.\n\n_I answer that,_ This sacrament has a threefold significance. One\nwith regard to the past, inasmuch as it is commemorative of our\nLord's Passion, which was a true sacrifice, as stated above (Q. 48,\nA. 3), and in this respect it is called a \"Sacrifice.\"\n\nWith regard to the present it has another meaning, namely, that of\nEcclesiastical unity, in which men are aggregated through this\nSacrament; and in this respect it is called \"Communion\" or _Synaxis_.\nFor Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that \"it is called Communion\nbecause we communicate with Christ through it, both because we\npartake of His flesh and Godhead, and because we communicate with and\nare united to one another through it.\"\n\nWith regard to the future it has a third meaning, inasmuch as this\nsacrament foreshadows the Divine fruition, which shall come to pass\nin heaven; and according to this it is called \"Viaticum,\" because it\nsupplies the way of winning thither. And in this respect it is also\ncalled the \"Eucharist,\" that is, \"good grace,\" because \"the grace of\nGod is life everlasting\" (Rom. 6:23); or because it really contains\nChrist, Who is \"full of grace.\"\n\nIn Greek, moreover, it is called _Metalepsis_, i.e. \"Assumption,\"\nbecause, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv), \"we thereby assume the\nGodhead of the Son.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: There is nothing to hinder the same thing from being\ncalled by several names, according to its various properties or\neffects.\n\nReply Obj. 2: What is common to all the sacraments is attributed\nantonomastically to this one on account of its excellence.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This sacrament is called a \"Sacrifice\" inasmuch as it\nrepresents the Passion of Christ; but it is termed a \"Host\" inasmuch\nas it contains Christ, Who is \"a host (Douay: 'sacrifice') . . . of\nsweetness\" (Eph. 5:2).\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Institution of This Sacrament Was Appropriate?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the institution of this sacrament was not\nappropriate, because as the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii): \"We are\nnourished by the things from whence we spring.\" But by Baptism, which\nis spiritual regeneration, we receive our spiritual being, as\nDionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii). Therefore we are also nourished by\nBaptism. Consequently there was no need to institute this sacrament\nas spiritual nourishment.\n\nObj. 2: Further, men are united with Christ through this sacrament as\nthe members with the head. But Christ is the Head of all men, even of\nthose who have existed from the beginning of the world, as stated\nabove (Q. 8, AA. 3, 6). Therefore the institution of this sacrament\nshould not have been postponed till the Lord's supper.\n\nObj. 3: Further, this sacrament is called the memorial of our Lord's\nPassion, according to Matt. 26 (Luke 22:19): \"Do this for a\ncommemoration of Me.\" But a commemoration is of things past.\nTherefore, this sacrament should not have been instituted before\nChrist's Passion.\n\nObj. 4: Further, a man is prepared by Baptism for the Eucharist,\nwhich ought to be given only to the baptized. But Baptism was\ninstituted by Christ after His Passion and Resurrection, as is\nevident from Matt. 28:19. Therefore, this sacrament was not suitably\ninstituted before Christ's Passion.\n\n_On the contrary,_ This sacrament was instituted by Christ, of Whom\nit is said (Mk. 7:37) that \"He did all things well.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ This sacrament was appropriately instituted at the\nsupper, when Christ conversed with His disciples for the last time.\nFirst of all, because of what is contained in the sacrament: for\nChrist is Himself contained in the Eucharist sacramentally.\nConsequently, when Christ was going to leave His disciples in His\nproper species, He left Himself with them under the sacramental\nspecies; as the Emperor's image is set up to be reverenced in his\nabsence. Hence Eusebius says: \"Since He was going to withdraw His\nassumed body from their eyes, and bear it away to the stars, it was\nneedful that on the day of the supper He should consecrate the\nsacrament of His body and blood for our sakes, in order that what was\nonce offered up for our ransom should be fittingly worshiped in a\nmystery.\"\n\nSecondly, because without faith in the Passion there could never be\nany salvation, according to Rom. 3:25: \"Whom God hath proposed to be\na propitiation, through faith in His blood.\" It was necessary\naccordingly that there should be at all times among men something to\nshow forth our Lord's Passion; the chief sacrament of which in the\nold Law was the Paschal Lamb. Hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7):\n\"Christ our Pasch is sacrificed.\" But its successor under the New\nTestament is the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is a remembrance\nof the Passion now past, just as the other was figurative of the\nPassion to come. And so it was fitting that when the hour of the\nPassion was come, Christ should institute a new Sacrament after\ncelebrating the old, as Pope Leo I says (Serm. lviii).\n\nThirdly, because last words, chiefly such as are spoken by departing\nfriends, are committed most deeply to memory; since then especially\naffection for friends is more enkindled, and the things which affect\nus most are impressed the deepest in the soul. Consequently, since,\nas Pope Alexander I says, \"among sacrifices there can be none greater\nthan the body and blood of Christ, nor any more powerful oblation\";\nour Lord instituted this sacrament at His last parting with His\ndisciples, in order that it might be held in the greater veneration.\nAnd this is what Augustine says (Respons. ad Januar. i): \"In order to\ncommend more earnestly the death of this mystery, our Saviour willed\nthis last act to be fixed in the hearts and memories of the disciples\nwhom He was about to quit for the Passion.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: We are nourished from the same things of which we are\nmade, but they do not come to us in the same way; for those out of\nwhich we are made come to us through generation, while the same, as\nnourishing us, come to us through being eaten. Hence, as we are\nnew-born in Christ through Baptism, so through the Eucharist we eat\nChrist.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Eucharist is the perfect sacrament of our Lord's\nPassion, as containing Christ crucified; consequently it could not be\ninstituted before the Incarnation; but then there was room for only\nsuch sacraments as were prefigurative of the Lord's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This sacrament was instituted during the supper, so as\nin the future to be a memorial of our Lord's Passion as accomplished.\nHence He said expressively: \"As often as ye shall do these things\"\n[*Cf. Canon of the Mass], speaking of the future.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The institution responds to the order of intention. But\nthe sacrament of the Eucharist, although after Baptism in the\nreceiving, is yet previous to it in intention; and therefore it\nbehooved to be instituted first. Or else it can be said that Baptism\nwas already instituted in Christ's Baptism; hence some were already\nbaptized with Christ's Baptism, as we read in John 3:22.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 73, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Paschal Lamb Was the Chief Figure of This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the Paschal Lamb was not the chief figure\nof this sacrament, because (Ps. 109:4) Christ is called \"a priest\naccording to the order of Melchisedech,\" since Melchisedech bore the\nfigure of Christ's sacrifice, in offering bread and wine. But the\nexpression of likeness causes one thing to be named from another.\nTherefore, it seems that Melchisedech's offering was the _principal_\nfigure of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the passage of the Red Sea was a figure of Baptism,\naccording to 1 Cor. 10:2: \"All . . . were baptized in the cloud and\nin the sea.\" But the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was previous to\nthe passage of the Red Sea, and the Manna came after it, just as the\nEucharist follows Baptism. Therefore the Manna is a more expressive\nfigure of this sacrament than the Paschal Lamb.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the principal power of this sacrament is that it\nbrings us into the kingdom of heaven, being a kind of \"viaticum.\" But\nthis was chiefly prefigured in the sacrament of expiation when the\n\"high-priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies with blood,\"\nas the Apostle proves in Heb. 9. Consequently, it seems that that\nsacrifice was a more significant figure of this sacrament than was\nthe Paschal Lamb.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:7, 8): \"Christ our\nPasch is sacrificed; therefore let us feast . . . with the unleavened\nbread of sincerity and truth.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ We can consider three things in this sacrament:\nnamely, that which is sacrament only, and this is the bread and wine;\nthat which is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ's true body;\nand lastly that which is reality only, namely, the effect of this\nsacrament. Consequently, in relation to what is sacrament only, the\nchief figure of this sacrament was the oblation of Melchisedech, who\noffered up bread and wine. In relation to Christ crucified, Who is\ncontained in this sacrament, its figures were all the sacrifices of\nthe Old Testament, especially the sacrifice of expiation, which was\nthe most solemn of all. While with regard to its effect, the chief\nfigure was the Manna, \"having in it the sweetness of every taste\"\n(Wis. 16:20), just as the grace of this sacrament refreshes the soul\nin all respects.\n\nThe Paschal Lamb foreshadowed this sacrament in these three ways.\nFirst of all, because it was eaten with unleavened loaves, according\nto Ex. 12:8: \"They shall eat flesh . . . and unleavened bread.\" As to\nthe second because it was immolated by the entire multitude of the\nchildren of Israel on the fourteenth day of the moon; and this was a\nfigure of the Passion of Christ, Who is called the Lamb on account of\nHis innocence. As to the effect, because by the blood of the Paschal\nLamb the children of Israel were preserved from the destroying Angel,\nand brought from the Egyptian captivity; and in this respect the\nPaschal Lamb is the chief figure of this sacrament, because it\nrepresents it in every respect.\n\nFrom this the answer to the Objections is manifest.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 74\n\nOF THE MATTER OF THIS SACRAMENT\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the matter of this sacrament: and first of all\nas to its species; secondly, the change of the bread and wine into the\nbody of Christ; thirdly, the manner in which Christ's body exists in\nthis sacrament; fourthly, the accidents of bread and wine which\ncontinue in this sacrament.\n\nUnder the first heading there are eight points for inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament?\n\n(2) Whether a determinate quantity of the same is required for the\nmatter of this sacrament?\n\n(3) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread?\n\n(4) Whether it is unleavened or fermented bread?\n\n(5) Whether the matter of this sacrament is wine from the grape?\n\n(6) Whether water should be mixed with it?\n\n(7) Whether water is of necessity for this sacrament?\n\n(8) Of the quantity of the water added.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Matter of This Sacrament Is Bread and Wine?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the matter of this sacrament is not bread\nand wine. Because this sacrament ought to represent Christ's Passion\nmore fully than did the sacraments of the Old Law. But the flesh of\nanimals, which was the matter of the sacraments under the Old Law,\nshows forth Christ's Passion more fully than bread and wine.\nTherefore the matter of this sacrament ought rather to be the flesh\nof animals than bread and wine.\n\nObj. 2: Further, this sacrament is to be celebrated in every place.\nBut in many lands bread is not to be found, and in many places wine\nis not to be found. Therefore bread and wine are not a suitable\nmatter for this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, this sacrament is for both hale and weak. But to\nsome weak persons wine is hurtful. Therefore it seems that wine ought\nnot to be the matter of this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth. i): \"In\noblations of the sacraments only bread and wine mixed with water are\nto be offered.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have fallen into various errors about the\nmatter of this sacrament. Some, known as the Artotyrytae, as\nAugustine says (De Haeres. xxviii), \"offer bread and cheese in this\nsacrament, contending that oblations were celebrated by men in the\nfirst ages, from fruits of the earth and sheep.\" Others, called\nCataphrygae and Pepuziani, \"are reputed to have made their\nEucharistic bread with infants' blood drawn from tiny punctures over\nthe entire body, and mixed with flour.\" Others, styled Aquarii, under\nguise of sobriety, offer nothing but water in this sacrament.\n\nNow all these and similar errors are excluded by the fact that Christ\ninstituted this sacrament under the species of bread and wine, as is\nevident from Matt. 26. Consequently, bread and wine are the proper\nmatter of this sacrament. And the reasonableness of this is seen\nfirst, in the use of this sacrament, which is eating: for, as water\nis used in the sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of spiritual\ncleansing, since bodily cleansing is commonly done with water; so\nbread and wine, wherewith men are commonly fed, are employed in this\nsacrament for the use of spiritual eating.\n\nSecondly, in relation to Christ's Passion, in which the blood was\nseparated from the body. And therefore in this sacrament, which is\nthe memorial of our Lord's Passion, the bread is received apart as\nthe sacrament of the body, and the wine as the sacrament of the blood.\n\nThirdly, as to the effect, considered in each of the partakers. For,\nas Ambrose (Mag. Sent. iv, D, xi) says on 1 Cor. 11:20, this\nsacrament \"avails for the defense of soul and body\"; and therefore\n\"Christ's body is offered\" under the species of bread \"for the health\nof the body, and the blood\" under the species of wine \"for the health\nof the soul,\" according to Lev. 17:14: \"The life of the animal\n[Vulg.: 'of all flesh'] is in the blood.\"\n\nFourthly, as to the effect with regard to the whole Church, which is\nmade up of many believers, just \"as bread is composed of many grains,\nand wine flows from many grapes,\" as the gloss observes on 1 Cor.\n10:17: \"We being many are . . . one body,\" etc.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although the flesh of slaughtered animals represents\nthe Passion more forcibly, nevertheless it is less suitable for the\ncommon use of this sacrament, and for denoting the unity of the\nChurch.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although wheat and wine are not produced in every\ncountry, yet they can easily be conveyed to every land, that is, as\nmuch as is needful for the use of this sacrament: at the same time\none is not to be consecrated when the other is lacking, because it\nwould not be a complete sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Wine taken in small quantity cannot do the sick much\nharm: yet if there be fear of harm, it is not necessary for all who\ntake Christ's body to partake also of His blood, as will be stated\nlater (Q. 80, A. 12).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 2]\n\nWhether a Determinate Quantity of Bread and Wine Is Required for the\nMatter of This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a determinate quantity of bread and wine\nis required for the matter of this sacrament. Because the effects of\ngrace are no less set in order than those of nature. But, \"there is a\nlimit set by nature upon all existing things, and a reckoning of size\nand development\" (De Anima ii). Consequently, in this sacrament,\nwhich is called \"Eucharist,\" that is, \"a good grace,\" a determinate\nquantity of the bread and wine is required.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ gave no power to the ministers of the Church\nregarding matters which involve derision of the faith and of His\nsacraments, according to 2 Cor. 10:8: \"Of our power which the Lord\nhath given us unto edification, and not for your destruction.\" But it\nwould lead to mockery of this sacrament if the priest were to wish to\nconsecrate all the bread which is sold in the market and all the wine\nin the cellar. Therefore he cannot do this.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if anyone be baptized in the sea, the entire\nsea-water is not sanctified by the form of baptism, but only the\nwater wherewith the body of the baptized is cleansed. Therefore,\nneither in this sacrament can a superfluous quantity of bread be\nconsecrated.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Much is opposed to little, and great to small. But\nthere is no quantity, however small, of the bread and wine which\ncannot be consecrated. Therefore, neither is there any quantity,\nhowever great, which cannot be consecrated.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have maintained that the priest could not\nconsecrate an immense quantity of bread and wine, for instance, all\nthe bread in the market or all the wine in a cask. But this does not\nappear to be true, because in all things containing matter, the\nreason for the determination of the matter is drawn from its\ndisposition to an end, just as the matter of a saw is iron, so as to\nadapt it for cutting. But the end of this sacrament is the use of the\nfaithful. Consequently, the quantity of the matter of this sacrament\nmust be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful. But\nthis cannot be determined by comparison with the use of the faithful\nwho are actually present; otherwise the parish priest having few\nparishioners could not consecrate many hosts. It remains, then, for\nthe matter of this sacrament to be determined in reference to the\nnumber of the faithful absolutely. But the number of the faithful is\nnot a determinate one. Hence it cannot be said that the quantity of\nthe matter of this sacrament is restricted.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The matter of every natural object has its determinate\nquantity by comparison with its determinate form. But the number of\nthe faithful, for whose use this sacrament is ordained, is not a\ndeterminate one. Consequently there is no comparison.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The power of the Church's ministers is ordained for two\npurposes: first for the proper effect, and secondly for the end of\nthe effect. But the second does not take away the first. Hence, if\nthe priest intends to consecrate the body of Christ for an evil\npurpose, for instance, to make mockery of it, or to administer poison\nthrough it, he commits sin by his evil intention, nevertheless, on\naccount of the power committed to him, he accomplishes the sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The sacrament of Baptism is perfected in the use of the\nmatter: and therefore no more of the water is hallowed than what is\nused. But this sacrament is wrought in the consecration of the\nmatter. Consequently there is no parallel.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Wheaten Bread Is Required for the Matter of This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that wheaten bread is not requisite for the\nmatter of this sacrament, because this sacrament is a reminder of our\nLord's Passion. But barley bread seems to be more in keeping with the\nPassion than wheaten bread, as being more bitter, and because Christ\nused it to feed the multitudes upon the mountain, as narrated in John\n6. Therefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in natural things the shape is a sign of species.\nBut some cereals resemble wheat, such as spelt and maize, from which\nin some localities bread is made for the use of this sacrament.\nTherefore wheaten bread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, mixing dissolves species. But wheaten flour is\nhardly to be found unmixed with some other species of grain, except\nin the instance of specially selected grain. Therefore it does not\nseem that wheaten bread is the proper matter for this sacrament.\n\nObj. 4: Further, what is corrupted appears to be of another species.\nBut some make the sacrament from bread which is corrupted, and which\nno longer seems to be wheaten bread. Therefore, it seems that such\nbread is not the proper matter of this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Christ is contained in this sacrament, and He\ncompares Himself to a grain of wheat, saying (John 12:24): \"Unless\nthe grain of wheat falling into the ground die, itself remaineth\nalone.\" Therefore bread from corn, i.e. wheaten bread, is the matter\nof this sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), for the use of the\nsacraments such matter is adopted as is commonly made use of among\nmen. Now among other breads wheaten bread is more commonly used by\nmen; since other breads seem to be employed when this fails. And\nconsequently Christ is believed to have instituted this sacrament\nunder this species of bread. Moreover this bread strengthens man, and\nso it denotes more suitably the effect of this sacrament.\nConsequently, the proper matter for this sacrament is wheaten bread.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Barley bread serves to denote the hardness of the Old\nLaw; both on account of the hardness of the bread, and because, as\nAugustine says (Q. 83): \"The flour within the barley, wrapped up as\nit is within a most tenacious fibre, denotes either the Law itself,\nwhich was given in such manner as to be vested in bodily sacraments;\nor else it denotes the people themselves, who were not yet despoiled\nof carnal desires, which clung to their hearts like fibre.\" But this\nsacrament belongs to Christ's \"sweet yoke,\" and to the truth already\nmanifested, and to a spiritual people. Consequently barley bread\nwould not be a suitable matter for this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: A begetter begets a thing like to itself in species,\nyet there is some unlikeness as to the accidents, owing either to the\nmatter, or to weakness within the generative power. And therefore, if\nthere be any cereals which can be grown from the seed of the wheat\n(as wild wheat from wheat seed grown in bad ground), the bread made\nfrom such grain can be the matter of this sacrament: and this does\nnot obtain either in barley, or in spelt, or even in maize, which is\nof all grains the one most resembling the wheat grain. But the\nresemblance as to shape in such seems to denote closeness of species\nrather than identity; just as the resemblance in shape between the\ndog and the wolf goes to show that they are allied but not of the\nsame species. Hence from such grains, which cannot in any way be\ngenerated from wheat grain, bread cannot be made such as to be the\nproper matter of this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A moderate mixing does not alter the species, because\nthat little is as it were absorbed by the greater. Consequently,\nthen, if a small quantity of another grain be mixed with a much\ngreater quantity of wheat, bread may be made therefrom so as to be\nthe proper matter of this sacrament; but if the mixing be notable,\nfor instance, half and half; or nearly so, then such mixing alters\nthe species; consequently, bread made therefrom will not be the\nproper matter of this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Sometimes there is such corruption of the bread that\nthe species of bread is lost, as when the continuity of its parts is\ndestroyed, and the taste, color, and other accidents are changed;\nhence the body of Christ may not be made from such matter. But\nsometimes there is not such corruption as to alter the species, but\nmerely disposition towards corruption, which a slight change in the\nsavor betrays, and from such bread the body of Christ may be made:\nbut he who does so, sins from irreverence towards the sacrament. And\nbecause starch comes of corrupted wheat, it does not seem as if the\nbody of Christ could be made of the bread made therefrom, although\nsome hold the contrary.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 4]\n\nWhether This Sacrament Ought to Be Made of Unleavened Bread?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be made of\nunleavened bread. Because in this sacrament we ought to imitate\nChrist's institution. But Christ appears to have instituted this\nsacrament in fermented bread, because, as we have read in Ex. 12, the\nJews, according to the Law, began to use unleavened bread on the day\nof the Passover which is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the\nmoon; and Christ instituted this sacrament at the supper which He\ncelebrated \"before the festival day of the Pasch\" (John 13:1, 4).\nTherefore we ought likewise to celebrate this sacrament with\nfermented bread.\n\nObj. 2: Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in the\ntime of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of the\nLaw, as is clear from Ex. 12. Therefore we ought not to use\nunfermented bread in this sacrament of grace.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as stated above (Q. 65, A. 1; Q. 73, A. 3), the\nEucharist is the sacrament of charity just as Baptism is the\nsacrament of faith. But the fervor of charity is signified by\nfermented bread, as is declared by the gloss on Matt. 13:33: \"The\nkingdom of heaven is like unto leaven,\" etc. Therefore this sacrament\nought to be made of leavened bread.\n\nObj. 4: Further, leavened or unleavened are mere accidents of bread,\nwhich do not vary the species. But in the matter for the sacrament of\nBaptism no difference is observed regarding the variation of the\naccidents, as to whether it be salt or fresh, warm or cold water.\nTherefore neither ought any distinction to be observed, as to whether\nthe bread be unleavened or leavened.\n\n_On the contrary,_ According to the Decretals (Extra, De Celebr.\nMiss.), a priest is punished \"for presuming to celebrate, using\nfermented bread and a wooden cup.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered touching the matter of\nthis sacrament, namely, what is necessary, and what is suitable. It\nis necessary that the bread be wheaten, without which the sacrament\nis not valid, as stated above (A. 3). It is not, however, necessary\nfor the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it\ncan be celebrated in either.\n\nBut it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his Church\nin the celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are\nvarious customs of the Churches: for, Gregory says: \"The Roman Church\noffers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of\nsexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word\nof the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the\nflour.\" Hence, as a priest sins by celebrating with fermented bread\nin the Latin Church, so a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented\nbread in a church of the Greeks would also sin, as perverting the\nrite of his Church. Nevertheless the custom of celebrating with\nunleavened bread is more reasonable. First, on account of Christ's\ninstitution: for He instituted this sacrament \"on the first day of\nthe Azymes\" (Matt. 26:17; Mk. 14:12; Luke 22:7), on which day there\nought to be nothing fermented in the houses of the Jews, as is stated\nin Ex. 12:15, 19. Secondly, because bread is properly the sacrament\nof Christ's body, which was conceived without corruption, rather than\nof His Godhead, as will be seen later (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 1). Thirdly,\nbecause this is more in keeping with the sincerity of the faithful,\nwhich is required in the use of this sacrament, according to 1 Cor.\n5:7: \"Christ our Pasch is sacrificed: therefore let us feast . . .\nwith the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.\"\n\nHowever, this custom of the Greeks is not unreasonable both on\naccount of its signification, to which Gregory refers, and in\ndetestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes, who mixed up legal\nobservances with the Gospel.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As we read in Ex. 12, the paschal solemnity began on\nthe evening of the fourteenth day of the moon. So, then, after\nimmolating the Paschal Lamb, Christ instituted this sacrament: hence\nthis day is said by John to precede the day of the Pasch, while the\nother three Evangelists call it \"the first day of the Azymes,\" when\nfermented bread was not found in the houses of the Jews, as stated\nabove. Fuller mention was made of this in the treatise on our Lord's\nPassion (Q. 46, A. 9, ad 1).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread\ndo not intend to follow the ceremonial of the Law, but to conform to\nChrist's institution; so they are not Judaizing; otherwise those\ncelebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because the Jews\noffered up fermented bread for the first-fruits.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Leaven denotes charity on account of one single effect,\nbecause it makes the bread more savory and larger; but it also\nsignifies corruption from its very nature.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Since whatever is fermented partakes of corruption,\nthis sacrament may not be made from corrupt bread, as stated above\n(A. 3, ad 4); consequently, there is a wider difference between\nunleavened and leavened bread than between warm and cold baptismal\nwater: because there might be such corruption of fermented bread that\nit could not be validly used for the sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Wine of the Grape Is the Proper Matter of This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that wine of the grape is not the proper matter\nof this sacrament. Because, as water is the matter of Baptism, so is\nwine the matter of this sacrament. But Baptism can be conferred with\nany kind of water. Therefore this sacrament can be celebrated in any\nkind of wine, such as of pomegranates, or of mulberries; since vines\ndo not grow in some countries.\n\nObj. 2: Further, vinegar is a kind of wine drawn from the grape, as\nIsidore says (Etym. xx). But this sacrament cannot be celebrated with\nvinegar. Therefore, it seems that wine from the grape is not the\nproper matter of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as the clarified wine is drawn from grapes, so\nalso are the juice of unripe grapes and must. But it does not appear\nthat this sacrament may be made from such, according to what we read\nin the Sixth Council (Trull., Can. 28): \"We have learned that in some\nchurches the priests add grapes to the sacrifice of the oblation; and\nso they dispense both together to the people. Consequently we give\norder that no priest shall do this in future.\" And Pope Julius I\nrebukes some priests \"who offer wine pressed from the grape in the\nsacrament of the Lord's chalice.\" Consequently, it seems that wine\nfrom the grape is not the proper matter of this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ As our Lord compared Himself to the grain of\nwheat, so also He compared Himself to the vine, saying (John 15:1):\n\"I am the true vine.\" But only bread from wheat is the matter of this\nsacrament, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore, only wine from the\ngrape is the proper matter of this sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ This sacrament can only be performed with wine from\nthe grape. First of all on account of Christ's institution, since He\ninstituted this sacrament in wine from the grape, as is evident from\nHis own words, in instituting this sacrament (Matt. 26:29): \"I will\nnot drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine.\" Secondly,\nbecause, as stated above (A. 3), that is adopted as the matter of the\nsacraments which is properly and universally considered as such. Now\nthat is properly called wine, which is drawn from the grape, whereas\nother liquors are called wine from resemblance to the wine of the\ngrape. Thirdly, because the wine from the grape is more in keeping\nwith the effect of this sacrament, which is spiritual; because it is\nwritten (Ps. 103:15): \"That wine may cheer the heart of man.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Such liquors are called wine, not properly but only\nfrom their resemblance thereto. But genuine wine can be conveyed to\nsuch countries wherein the grape-vine does not flourish, in a\nquantity sufficient for this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Wine becomes vinegar by corruption; hence there is no\nreturning from vinegar to wine, as is said in _Metaph._ viii. And\nconsequently, just as this sacrament may not be made from bread which\nis utterly corrupt, so neither can it be made from vinegar. It can,\nhowever, be made from wine which is turning sour, just as from bread\nturning corrupt, although he who does so sins, as stated above (A. 3).\n\nReply Obj. 3: The juice of unripe grapes is at the stage of\nincomplete generation, and therefore it has not yet the species of\nwine: on which account it may not be used for this sacrament. Must,\nhowever, has already the species of wine, for its sweetness [*\"Aut\ndulcis musti Vulcano decoquit humorem\"; Virgil, Georg. i, 295]\nindicates fermentation which is \"the result of its natural heat\"\n(Meteor. iv); consequently this sacrament can be made from must.\nNevertheless entire grapes ought not to be mixed with this sacrament,\nbecause then there would be something else besides wine. It is\nfurthermore forbidden to offer must in the chalice, as soon as it has\nbeen squeezed from the grape, since this is unbecoming owing to the\nimpurity of the must. But in case of necessity it may be done: for it\nis said by the same Pope Julius, in the passage quoted in the\nargument: \"If necessary, let the grape be pressed into the chalice.\"\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Water Should Be Mixed with the Wine?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that water ought not to be mixed with the wine,\nsince Christ's sacrifice was foreshadowed by that of Melchisedech,\nwho (Gen. 14:18) is related to have offered up bread and wine only.\nConsequently it seems that water should not be added in this\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the various sacraments have their respective\nmatters. But water is the matter of Baptism. Therefore it should not\nbe employed as the matter of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, bread and wine are the matter of this sacrament. But\nnothing is added to the bread. Therefore neither should anything be\nadded to the wine.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Pope Alexander I writes (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.):\n\"In the sacramental oblations which in mass are offered to the Lord,\nonly bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Water ought to be mingled with the wine which is\noffered in this sacrament. First of all on account of its\ninstitution: for it is believed with probability that our Lord\ninstituted this sacrament in wine tempered with water according to\nthe custom of that country: hence it is written (Prov. 9:5): \"Drink\nthe wine which I have mixed for you.\" Secondly, because it harmonizes\nwith the representation of our Lord's Passion: hence Pope Alexander I\nsays (Ep. 1 ad omnes orth.): \"In the Lord's chalice neither wine only\nnor water only ought to be offered, but both mixed because we read\nthat both flowed from His side in the Passion.\" Thirdly, because this\nis adapted for signifying the effect of this sacrament, since as Pope\nJulius says (Concil. Bracarens iii, Can. 1): \"We see that the people\nare signified by the water, but Christ's blood by the wine. Therefore\nwhen water is mixed with the wine in the chalice, the people is made\none with Christ.\" Fourthly, because this is appropriate to the fourth\neffect of this sacrament, which is the entering into everlasting\nlife: hence Ambrose says (De Sacram. v): \"The water flows into the\nchalice, and springs forth unto everlasting life.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), just as Christ's\nsacrifice is denoted by the offering of Melchisedech, so likewise it\nis signified by the water which flowed from the rock in the desert,\naccording to 1 Cor. 10:4: \"But they drank of the spiritual rock which\ncame after them.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: In Baptism water is used for the purpose of ablution:\nbut in this sacrament it is used by way of refreshment, according to\nPs. 22:3: \"He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Bread is made of water and flour; and therefore, since\nwater is mixed with the wine, neither is without water.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Mixing with Water Is Essential to This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the mixing with water is essential to this\nsacrament. Because Cyprian says to Cecilius (Ep. lxiii): \"Thus the\nLord's chalice is not water only and wine only, but both must be\nmixed together: in the same way as neither the Lord's body be of\nflour only, except both,\" i.e. the flour and the water \"be united as\none.\" But the admixture of water with the flour is necessary for this\nsacrament. Consequently, for the like reason, so is the mixing of\nwater with the wine.\n\nObj. 2: Further, at our Lord's Passion, of which this is the\nmemorial, water as well as blood flowed from His side. But wine,\nwhich is the sacrament of the blood, is necessary for this sacrament.\nFor the same reason, therefore, so is water.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if water were not essential to this sacrament, it\nwould not matter in the least what kind of water was used; and so\nwater distilled from roses, or any other kind might be employed;\nwhich is contrary to the usage of the Church. Consequently water is\nessential to this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Cyprian says (Ep. lxiii): \"If any of our\npredecessors, out of ignorance or simplicity, has not kept this\nusage,\" i.e. of mixing water with the wine, \"one may pardon his\nsimplicity\"; which would not be the case if water were essential to\nthe sacrament, as the wine or the bread. Therefore the mingling of\nwater with the wine is not essential to the sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ Judgment concerning a sign is to be drawn from the\nthing signified. Now the adding of water to the wine is for the\npurpose of signifying the sharing of this sacrament by the faithful,\nin this respect that by the mixing of the water with the wine is\nsignified the union of the people with Christ, as stated (A. 6).\nMoreover, the flowing of water from the side of Christ hanging on the\ncross refers to the same, because by the water is denoted the\ncleansing from sins, which was the effect of Christ's Passion. Now it\nwas observed above (Q. 73, A. 1, ad 3), that this sacrament is\ncompleted in the consecration of the matter: while the usage of the\nfaithful is not essential to the sacrament, but only a consequence\nthereof. Consequently, then, the adding of water is not essential to\nthe sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Cyprian's expression is to be taken in the same sense\nin which we say that a thing cannot be, which cannot be suitably. And\nso the comparison refers to what ought to be done, not to what is\nessential to be done; since water is of the essence of bread, but not\nof the essence of wine.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The shedding of the blood belonged directly to Christ's\nPassion: for it is natural for blood to flow from a wounded human\nbody. But the flowing of the water was not necessary for the Passion;\nbut merely to show its effect, which is to wash away sins, and to\nrefresh us from the heat of concupiscence. And therefore the water is\nnot offered apart from the wine in this sacrament, as the wine is\noffered apart from the bread; but the water is offered mixed with the\nwine to show that the wine belongs of itself to this sacrament, as of\nits very essence; but the water as something added to the wine.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Since the mixing of water with the wine is not\nnecessary for the sacrament, it does not matter, as to the essence\nof the sacrament, what kind of water is added to the wine, whether\nnatural water, or artificial, as rose-water, although, as to the\npropriety of the sacrament, he would sin who mixes any other than\nnatural and true water, because true water flowed from the side of\nChrist hanging on the cross, and not phlegm, as some have said, in\norder to show that Christ's body was truly composed of the four\nelements; as by the flowing blood, it was shown to be composed of\nthe four humors, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decree.\nBut because the mixing of water with flour is essential to this\nsacrament, as making the composition of bread, if rose-water, or\nany other liquor besides true water, be mixed with the flour, the\nsacrament would not be valid, because it would not be true bread.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 74, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Water Should Be Added in Great Quantity?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that water ought to be added in great quantity,\nbecause as blood flowed sensibly from Christ's side, so did water:\nhence it is written (John 19:35): \"He that saw it, hath given\ntestimony.\" But water could not be sensibly present in this sacrament\nexcept it were used in great quantity. Consequently it seems that\nwater ought to be added in great quantity.\n\nObj. 2: Further, a little water mixed with much wine is corrupted.\nBut what is corrupted no longer exists. Therefore, it is the same\nthing to add a little water in this sacrament as to add none. But it\nis not lawful to add none. Therefore, neither is it lawful to add a\nlittle.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if it sufficed to add a little, then as a\nconsequence it would suffice to throw one drop of water into an\nentire cask. But this seems ridiculous. Therefore it does not suffice\nfor a small quantity to be added.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is said in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb.\nMiss.): \"The pernicious abuse has prevailed in your country of adding\nwater in greater quantity than the wine, in the sacrifice, where\naccording to the reasonable custom of the entire Church more wine\nthan water ought to be employed.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There is a threefold opinion regarding the water\nadded to the wine, as Pope Innocent III says in a certain Decretal.\nFor some say that the water remains by itself when the wine is\nchanged into blood: but such an opinion cannot stand, because in the\nsacrament of the altar after the consecration there is nothing else\nsave the body and the blood of Christ. Because, as Ambrose says in De\nOfficiis (De Mysteriis ix): \"Before the blessing it is another\nspecies that is named, after the blessing the Body is signified;\notherwise it would not be adored with adoration of latria.\" And\ntherefore others have said that as the wine is changed into blood, so\nthe water is changed into the water which flowed from Christ's side.\nBut this cannot be maintained reasonably, because according to this\nthe water would be consecrated apart from the wine, as the wine is\nfrom the bread.\n\nAnd therefore as he (Innocent III, Decretals, Extra, De Celeb. Miss.)\nsays, the more probable opinion is that which holds that the water is\nchanged into wine, and the wine into blood. Now, this could not be\ndone unless so little water was used that it would be changed into\nwine. Consequently, it is always safer to add little water,\nespecially if the wine be weak, because the sacrament could not be\ncelebrated if there were such addition of water as to destroy the\nspecies of the wine. Hence Pope Julius I reprehends some who \"keep\nthroughout the year a linen cloth steeped in must, and at the time of\nsacrifice wash a part of it with water, and so make the offering.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: For the signification of this sacrament it suffices for\nthe water to be appreciable by sense when it is mixed with the wine:\nbut it is not necessary for it to be sensible after the mingling.\n\nReply Obj. 2: If no water were added, the signification would be\nutterly excluded: but when the water is changed into wine, it is\nsignified that the people is incorporated with Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If water were added to a cask, it would not suffice for\nthe signification of this sacrament, but the water must be added to\nthe wine at the actual celebration of the sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 75\n\nOF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe have to consider the change of the bread and wine into the body\nand blood of Christ; under which head there are eight points of\ninquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the substance of bread and wine remain in this sacrament\nafter the consecration?*\n\n(2) Whether it is annihilated?\n\n(3) Whether it is changed into the body and blood of Christ?\n\n(4) Whether the accidents remain after the change?\n\n(5) Whether the substantial form remains there?\n\n(6) Whether this change is instantaneous?\n\n(7) Whether it is more miraculous than any other change?\n\n(8) By what words it may be suitably expressed?\n\n[*The titles of the Articles here given were taken by St. Thomas\nfrom his Commentary on the Sentences (Sent. iv, D, 90). However, in\nwriting the Articles he introduced a new point of inquiry, that of\nthe First Article; and substituted another division of the matter\nunder discussion, as may be seen by referring to the titles of the\nvarious Articles. Most editions have ignored St. Thomas's original\ndivision, and give the one to which he subsequently adhered.]\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Body of Christ Be in This Sacrament in Very Truth, or\nMerely As in a Figure or Sign?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the body of Christ is not in this\nsacrament in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is\nwritten (John 6:54) that when our Lord had uttered these words:\n\"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood,\"\netc., \"Many of His disciples on hearing it said: 'this is a hard\nsaying'\": to whom He rejoined: \"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the\nflesh profiteth nothing\": as if He were to say, according to\nAugustine's exposition on Ps. 4 [*On Ps. 98:9]: \"Give a spiritual\nmeaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body which you\nsee, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are to spill.\nIt is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will\nquicken you; but the flesh profiteth nothing.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 28:20): \"Behold I am with you\nall days even to the consummation of the world.\" Now in explaining\nthis, Augustine makes this observation (Tract. xxx in Joan.): \"The\nLord is on high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of\nthe Lord is here with us; for the body, in which He rose again, must\nbe in one place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere.\"\nTherefore, the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth,\nbut only as in a sign.\n\nObj. 3: Further, no body can be in several places at the one time.\nFor this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason\nit could be everywhere. But Christ's is a true body, and it is in\nheaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the\nsacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the Church's sacraments are ordained for the profit\nof the faithful. But according to Gregory in a certain Homily (xxviii\nin Evang.), the ruler is rebuked \"for demanding Christ's bodily\npresence.\" Moreover the apostles were prevented from receiving the\nHoly Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as\nAugustine says on John 16:7: \"Except I go, the Paraclete will not\ncome to you\" (Tract. xciv in Joan.). Therefore Christ is not in the\nsacrament of the altar according to His bodily presence.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Hilary says (De Trin. viii): \"There is no room for\ndoubt regarding the truth of Christ's body and blood; for now by our\nLord's own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and\nHis blood is truly drink.\" And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): \"As the\nLord Jesus Christ is God's true Son so is it Christ's true flesh\nwhich we take, and His true blood which we drink.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this\nsacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by\nfaith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Luke 22:19:\n\"This is My body which shall be delivered up for you,\" Cyril says:\n\"Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words\nwith faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not.\"\n\nNow this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For,\nthe sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true\nsacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 10:1: \"For the law\nhaving a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the\nthings.\" And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New\nLaw instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it\nshould contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification\nor figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which\ncontains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is\nperfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is\nparticipated.\n\nSecondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our\nsalvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the\nspecial feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the\nPhilosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a\nreward, saying (Matt. 24:28): \"Where the body is, there shall the\neagles be gathered together.\" Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does\nnot deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in\nthis sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (John\n6:57) he says: \"He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood,\nabideth in Me, and I in him.\" Hence this sacrament is the sign of\nsupreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar\nunion of Christ with us.\n\nThirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His\nhumanity just as it does His Godhead, according to John 14:1: \"You\nbelieve in God, believe also in Me.\" And since faith is of things\nunseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this\nsacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.\n\nSome men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended\nthat Christ's body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a\nsign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to\nChrist's words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of\nthis heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to\nacknowledge the truth of the faith.\n\nReply Obj. 1: From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken\noccasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine's words. For when\nAugustine says: \"You are not to eat this body which you see,\" he\nmeans not to exclude the truth of Christ's body, but that it was not\nto be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the\nwords: \"It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense\nit will quicken you,\" he intends not that the body of Christ is in\nthis sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but\n\"spiritually,\" that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit.\nHence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: \"the flesh profiteth\nnothing,\" he says: \"Yea, but as they understood it, for they\nunderstood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal\nin a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by\nthe spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the\nflesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the\nWord had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to\nbe understood of Christ's body as it is beheld in its proper species;\naccording as our Lord Himself says (Matt. 26:11): \"But Me you have\nnot always.\" Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this\nsacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's body is not in this sacrament in the same way\nas a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with\nthe place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament.\nHence we say that Christ's body is upon many altars, not as in\ndifferent places, but \"sacramentally\": and thereby we do not\nunderstand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a\nsacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ's body is here after a\nfashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 4: This argument holds good of Christ's bodily presence,\nas He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its\nvisible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly,\nafter the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence Augustine\n(Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: \"If thou hast understood\" Christ's\nwords spiritually concerning His flesh, \"they are spirit and life to\nthee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also spirit and\nlife, but not to thee.\"\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 2]\n\nWhether in This Sacrament the Substance of the Bread and Wine Remains\nAfter the Consecration?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the substance of the bread and wine does\nremain in this sacrament after the consecration: because Damascene\nsays (De Fide Orth. iv): \"Since it is customary for men to eat bread\nand drink wine, God has wedded his Godhead to them, and made them His\nbody and blood\": and further on: \"The bread of communication is not\nsimple bread, but is united to the Godhead.\" But wedding together\nbelongs to things actually existing. Therefore the bread and wine are\nat the same time, in this sacrament, with the body and the blood of\nChrist.\n\nObj. 2: Further, there ought to be conformity between the sacraments.\nBut in the other sacraments the substance of the matter remains, like\nthe substance of water in Baptism, and the substance of chrism in\nConfirmation. Therefore the substance of the bread and wine remains\nalso in this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, bread and wine are made use of in this sacrament,\ninasmuch as they denote ecclesiastical unity, as \"one bread is made\nfrom many grains and wine from many grapes,\" as Augustine says in his\nbook on the Creed (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But this belongs to the\nsubstance of bread and wine. Therefore, the substance of the bread\nand wine remains in this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): \"Although the figure\nof the bread and wine be seen, still, after the Consecration, they\nare to be believed to be nothing else than the body end blood of\nChrist.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have held that the substance of the bread and\nwine remains in this sacrament after the consecration. But this\nopinion cannot stand: first of all, because by such an opinion the\ntruth of this sacrament is destroyed, to which it belongs that\nChrist's true body exists in this sacrament; which indeed was not\nthere before the consecration. Now a thing cannot be in any place,\nwhere it was not previously, except by change of place, or by the\nconversion of another thing into itself; just as fire begins anew to\nbe in some house, either because it is carried thither, or because it\nis generated there. Now it is evident that Christ's body does not\nbegin to be present in this sacrament by local motion. First of all,\nbecause it would follow that it would cease to be in heaven: for what\nis moved locally does not come anew to some place unless it quit the\nformer one. Secondly, because every body moved locally passes through\nall intermediary spaces, which cannot be said here. Thirdly, because\nit is not possible for one movement of the same body moved locally to\nbe terminated in different places at the one time, whereas the body\nof Christ under this sacrament begins at the one time to be in\nseveral places. And consequently it remains that Christ's body cannot\nbegin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance\nof bread into itself. But what is changed into another thing, no\nlonger remains after such change. Hence the conclusion is that,\nsaving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot\nremain after the consecration.\n\nSecondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this\nsacrament, in which it is said: \"This is My body,\" which would not be\ntrue if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the\nsubstance of bread never is the body of Christ. Rather should one say\nin that case: \"Here is My body.\"\n\nThirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this\nsacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored\nwith adoration of latria.\n\nFourthly, because it is contrary to the rite of the Church, according\nto which it is not lawful to take the body of Christ after bodily\nfood, while it is nevertheless lawful to take one consecrated host\nafter another. Hence this opinion is to be avoided as heretical.\n\nReply Obj. 1: God \"wedded His Godhead,\" i.e. His Divine power, to the\nbread and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but in\norder that He may make from them His body and blood.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ is not really present in the other sacraments,\nas in this; and therefore the substance of the matter remains in the\nother sacraments, but not in this.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The species which remain in this sacrament, as shall be\nsaid later (A. 5), suffice for its signification; because the nature\nof the substance is known by its accidents.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Substance of the Bread or Wine Is Annihilated After the\nConsecration of This Sacrament, or Dissolved into Their Original\nMatter?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the substance of the bread is annihilated\nafter the consecration of this sacrament, or dissolved into its\noriginal matter. For whatever is corporeal must be somewhere. But the\nsubstance of bread, which is something corporeal, does not remain, in\nthis sacrament, as stated above (A. 2); nor can we assign any place\nwhere it may be. Consequently it is nothing after the consecration.\nTherefore, it is either annihilated, or dissolved into its original\nmatter.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what is the term _wherefrom_ in every change exists\nno longer, except in the potentiality of matter; e.g. when air is\nchanged into fire, the form of the air remains only in the\npotentiality of matter; and in like fashion when what is white\nbecomes black. But in this sacrament the substance of the bread or of\nthe wine is the term _wherefrom,_ while the body or the blood of\nChrist is the term \"whereunto\": for Ambrose says in De Officiis (De\nMyster. ix): \"Before the blessing it is called another species, after\nthe blessing the body of Christ is signified.\" Therefore, when the\nconsecration takes place, the substance of the bread or wine no\nlonger remains, unless perchance dissolved into its (original) matter.\n\nObj. 3: Further, one of two contradictories must be true. But this\nproposition is false: \"After the consecration the substance of the\nbread or wine is something.\" Consequently, this is true: \"The\nsubstance of the bread or wine is nothing.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Q. 83): \"God is not the cause of\ntending to nothing.\" But this sacrament is wrought by Divine power.\nTherefore, in this sacrament the substance of the bread or wine is\nnot annihilated.\n\n_I answer that,_ Because the substance of the bread and wine does not\nremain in this sacrament, some, deeming that it is impossible for the\nsubstance of the bread and wine to be changed into Christ's flesh and\nblood, have maintained that by the consecration, the substance of the\nbread and wine is either dissolved into the original matter, or that\nit is annihilated.\n\nNow the original matter into which mixed bodies can be dissolved is\nthe four elements. For dissolution cannot be made into primary\nmatter, so that a subject can exist without a form, since matter\ncannot exist without a form. But since after the consecration nothing\nremains under the sacramental species except the body and the blood\nof Christ, it will be necessary to say that the elements into which\nthe substance of the bread and wine is dissolved, depart from thence\nby local motion, which would be perceived by the senses. In like\nmanner also the substance of the bread or wine remains until the last\ninstant of the consecration; but in the last instant of the\nconsecration there is already present there the substance of the body\nor blood of Christ, just as the form is already present in the last\ninstant of generation. Hence no instant can be assigned in which the\noriginal matter can be there. For it cannot be said that the\nsubstance of the bread or wine is dissolved gradually into the\noriginal matter, or that it successively quits the species, for if\nthis began to be done in the last instant of its consecration, then\nat the one time under part of the host there would be the body of\nChrist together with the substance of bread, which is contrary to\nwhat has been said above (A. 2). But if this begin to come to pass\nbefore the consecration, there will then be a time in which under one\npart of the host there will be neither the substance of bread nor the\nbody of Christ, which is not fitting. They seem indeed to have taken\nthis into careful consideration, wherefore they formulated their\nproposition with an alternative viz. that (the substance) may be\nannihilated. But even this cannot stand, because no way can be\nassigned whereby Christ's true body can begin to be in this\nsacrament, except by the change of the substance of bread into it,\nwhich change is excluded the moment we admit either annihilation of\nthe substance of the bread, or dissolution into the original matter.\nLikewise no cause can be assigned for such dissolution or\nannihilation, since the effect of the sacrament is signified by the\nform: \"This is My body.\" Hence it is clear that the aforesaid opinion\nis false.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The substance of the bread or wine, after the\nconsecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor\nelsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is\nchanged into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire\nis generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it\nis annihilated.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The form, which is the term _wherefrom,_ is not\nchanged into another form; but one form succeeds another in the\nsubject; and therefore the first form remains only in the\npotentiality of matter. But here the substance of the bread is\nchanged into the body of Christ, as stated above. Hence the\nconclusion does not follow.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although after the consecration this proposition is\nfalse: \"The substance of the bread is something,\" still that into\nwhich the substance of the bread is changed, is something, and\nconsequently the substance of the bread is not annihilated.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Bread Can Be Converted into the Body of Christ?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that bread cannot be converted into the body of\nChrist. For conversion is a kind of change. But in every change there\nmust be some subject, which from being previously in potentiality is\nnow in act. because as is said in _Phys._ iii: \"motion is the act of\na thing existing in potentiality.\" But no subject can be assigned for\nthe substance of the bread and of the body of Christ, because it is\nof the very nature of substance for it \"not to be in a subject,\" as\nit is said in _Praedic._ iii. Therefore it is not possible for the\nwhole substance of the bread to be converted into the body of Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the form of the thing into which another is\nconverted, begins anew to inhere in the matter of the thing converted\ninto it: as when air is changed into fire not already existing, the\nform of fire begins anew to be in the matter of the air; and in like\nmanner when food is converted into non-pre-existing man, the form of\nthe man begins to be anew in the matter of the food. Therefore, if\nbread be changed into the body of Christ, the form of Christ's body\nmust necessarily begin to be in the matter of the bread, which is\nfalse. Consequently, the bread is not changed into the substance of\nChrist's body.\n\nObj. 3: Further, when two things are diverse, one never becomes the\nother, as whiteness never becomes blackness, as is stated in _Phys._\n  i. But since two contrary forms are of themselves diverse, as being\nthe principles of formal difference, so two signate matters are of\nthemselves diverse, as being the principles of material distinction.\nConsequently, it is not possible for this matter of bread to become\nthis matter whereby Christ's body is individuated, and so it is not\npossible for this substance of bread to be changed into the substance\nof Christ's body.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Eusebius Emesenus says: \"To thee it ought neither\nto be a novelty nor an impossibility that earthly and mortal things\nbe changed into the substance of Christ.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), since Christ's true body is\nin this sacrament, and since it does not begin to be there by local\nmotion, nor is it contained therein as in a place, as is evident from\nwhat was stated above (A. 1, ad 2), it must be said then that it\nbegins to be there by conversion of the substance of bread into\nitself.\n\nYet this change is not like natural changes, but is entirely\nsupernatural, and effected by God's power alone. Hence Ambrose says\n[(De Sacram. iv): \"See how Christ's word changes nature's laws, as He\nwills: a man is not wont to be born save of man and woman: see\ntherefore that against the established law and order a man is born of\na Virgin\": and] [*The passage in the brackets is not in the Leonine\nedition] (De Myster. iv): \"It is clear that a Virgin begot beyond the\norder of nature: and what we make is the body from the Virgin. Why,\nthen, do you look for nature's order in Christ's body, since the Lord\nJesus was Himself brought forth of a Virgin beyond nature?\"\nChrysostom likewise (Hom. xlvii), commenting on John 6:64: \"The words\nwhich I have spoken to you,\" namely, of this sacrament, \"are spirit\nand life,\" says: i.e. \"spiritual, having nothing carnal, nor natural\nconsequence; but they are rent from all such necessity which exists\nupon earth, and from the laws here established.\"\n\nFor it is evident that every agent acts according as it is in act.\nBut every created agent is limited in its act, as being of a\ndeterminate genus and species: and consequently the action of every\ncreated agent bears upon some determinate act. Now the determination\nof every thing in actual existence comes from its form. Consequently,\nno natural or created agent can act except by changing the form in\nsomething; and on this account every change made according to\nnature's laws is a formal change. But God is infinite act, as stated\nin the First Part (Q. 7, A. 1; Q. 26, A. 2); hence His action extends\nto the whole nature of being. Therefore He can work not only formal\nconversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other in the same\nsubject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole\nsubstance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of\nanother. And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the\nwhole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of\nChrist's body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole\nsubstance of Christ's blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a\nsubstantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but,\nwith a name of its own, it can be called \"transubstantiation.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: This objection holds good in respect of formal change,\nbecause it belongs to a form to be in matter or in a subject; but it\ndoes not hold good in respect of the change of the entire substance.\nHence, since this substantial change implies a certain order of\nsubstances, one of which is changed into the other, it is in both\nsubstances as in a subject, just as order and number.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This argument also is true of formal conversion or\nchange, because, as stated above (ad 1), a form must be in some\nmatter or subject. But this is not so in a change of the entire\nsubstance; for in this case no subject is possible.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Form cannot be changed into form, nor matter into\nmatter by the power of any finite agent. Such a change, however, can\nbe made by the power of an infinite agent, which has control over all\nbeing, because the nature of being is common to both forms and to\nboth matters; and whatever there is of being in the one, the author\nof being can change into whatever there is of being in the other,\nwithdrawing that whereby it was distinguished from the other.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Accidents of the Bread and Wine Remain in This Sacrament\nAfter the Change?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the accidents of the bread and wine do not\nremain in this sacrament. For when that which comes first is removed,\nthat which follows is also taken away. But substance is naturally\nbefore accident, as is proved in _Metaph._ vii. Since, then, after\nconsecration, the substance of the bread does not remain in this\nsacrament, it seems that its accidents cannot remain.\n\nObj. 2: Further, there ought not to be any deception in a sacrament\nof truth. But we judge of substance by accidents. It seems, then,\nthat human judgment is deceived, if, while the accidents remain, the\nsubstance of the bread does not. Consequently this is unbecoming to\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, although our faith is not subject to reason, still\nit is not contrary to reason, but above it, as was said in the\nbeginning of this work (I, Q. 1, A. 6, ad 2; A. 8). But our reason\nhas its origin in the senses. Therefore our faith ought not to be\ncontrary to the senses, as it is when sense judges that to be bread\nwhich faith believes to be the substance of Christ's body. Therefore\nit is not befitting this sacrament for the accidents of bread to\nremain subject to the senses, and for the substance of bread not to\nremain.\n\nObj. 4: Further, what remains after the change has taken place seems\nto be the subject of change. If therefore the accidents of the bread\nremain after the change has been effected, it seems that the\naccidents are the subject of the change. But this is impossible; for\n\"an accident cannot have an accident\" (Metaph. iii). Therefore the\naccidents of the bread and wine ought not to remain in this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book on the Sentences of\nProsper (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xiii): \"Under the species\nwhich we behold, of bread and wine, we honor invisible things, i.e.\nflesh and blood.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the\nbread and wine remain after the consecration. And this is reasonably\ndone by Divine providence. First of all, because it is not customary,\nbut horrible, for men to eat human flesh, and to drink blood. And\ntherefore Christ's flesh and blood are set before us to be partaken\nof under the species of those things which are the more commonly used\nby men, namely, bread and wine. Secondly, lest this sacrament might\nbe derided by unbelievers, if we were to eat our Lord under His own\nspecies. Thirdly, that while we receive our Lord's body and blood\ninvisibly, this may redound to the merit of faith.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As is said in the book _De Causis,_ an effect depends\nmore on the first cause than on the second. And therefore by God's\npower, which is the first cause of all things, it is possible for\nthat which follows to remain, while that which is first is taken away.\n\nReply Obj. 2: There is no deception in this sacrament; for the\naccidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But\nthe intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in _De\nAnima_ iii, is preserved by faith from deception.\n\nAnd this serves as answer to the third argument; because faith is not\ncontrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not\nreach.\n\nReply Obj. 4: This change has not properly a subject, as was stated\nabove (A. 4, ad 1); nevertheless the accidents which remain have some\nresemblance of a subject.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Substantial Form of the Bread Remains in This Sacrament\nAfter the Consecration?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the substantial form of the bread remains\nin this sacrament after the consecration. For it has been said (A. 5)\nthat the accidents remain after the consecration. But since bread is\nan artificial thing, its form is an accident. Therefore it remains\nafter the consecration.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the form of Christ's body is His soul: for it is\nsaid in _De Anima_ ii, that the soul \"is the act of a physical body\nwhich has life in potentiality\". But it cannot be said that the\nsubstantial form of the bread is changed into the soul. Therefore it\nappears that it remains after the consecration.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the proper operation of a things follows its\nsubstantial form. But what remains in this sacrament, nourishes, and\nperforms every operation which bread would do were it present.\nTherefore the substantial form of the bread remains in this sacrament\nafter the consecration.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The substantial form of bread is of the substance\nof bread. But the substance of the bread is changed into the body of\nChrist, as stated above (AA. 2, 3, 4). Therefore the substantial form\nof the bread does not remain.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have contended that after the consecration not\nonly do the accidents of the bread remain, but also its substantial\nform. But this cannot be. First of all, because if the substantial\nform of the bread were to remain, nothing of the bread would be\nchanged into the body of Christ, excepting the matter; and so it\nwould follow that it would be changed, not into the whole body of\nChrist, but into its matter, which is repugnant to the form of the\nsacrament, wherein it is said: \"This is My body.\"\n\nSecondly, because if the substantial form of the bread were to\nremain, it would remain either in matter, or separated from matter.\nThe first cannot be, for if it were to remain in the matter of the\nbread, then the whole substance of the bread would remain, which is\nagainst what was said above (A. 2). Nor could it remain in any other\nmatter, because the proper form exists only in its proper matter. But\nif it were to remain separate from matter, it would then be an\nactually intelligible form, and also an intelligence; for all forms\nseparated from matter are such.\n\nThirdly, it would be unbefitting this sacrament: because the\naccidents of the bread remain in this sacrament, in order that the\nbody of Christ may be seen under them, and not under its proper\nspecies, as stated above (A. 5).\n\nAnd therefore it must be said that the substantial form of the bread\ndoes not remain.\n\nReply Obj. 1: There is nothing to prevent art from making a thing\nwhose form is not an accident, but a substantial form; as frogs and\nserpents can be produced by art: for art produces such forms not by\nits own power, but by the power of natural energies. And in this way\nit produces the substantial forms of bread, by the power of fire\nbaking the matter made up of flour and water.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The soul is the form of the body, giving it the whole\norder of perfect being, i.e. being, corporeal being, and animated\nbeing, and so on. Therefore the form of the bread is changed into the\nform of Christ's body, according as the latter gives corporeal being,\nbut not according as it bestows animated being.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Some of the operations of bread follow it by reason of\nthe accidents, such as to affect the senses, and such operations are\nfound in the species of the bread after the consecration on account\nof the accidents which remain. But some other operations follow the\nbread either by reason of the matter, such as that it is changed into\nsomething else, or else by reason of the substantial form, such as an\noperation consequent upon its species, for instance, that it\n\"strengthens man's heart\" (Ps. 103:15); and such operations are found\nin this sacrament, not on account of the form or matter remaining,\nbut because they are bestowed miraculously upon the accidents\nthemselves, as will be said later (Q. 77, A. 3, ad 2, 3; AA. 5, 6).\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 7]\n\nWhether This Change Is Wrought Instantaneously?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this change is not wrought\ninstantaneously, but successively. For in this change there is first\nthe substance of bread, and afterwards the substance of Christ's\nbody. Neither, then, is in the same instant, but in two instants. But\nthere is a mid-time between every two instants. Therefore this change\nmust take place according to the succession of time, which is between\nthe last instant in which the bread is there, and the first instant\nin which the body of Christ is present.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in every change something is _in becoming_ and\nsomething is _in being._ But these two things do not exist at the one\ntime for, what is _in becoming,_ is not yet, whereas what is _in\nbeing,_ already is. Consequently, there is a before and an after in\nsuch change: and so necessarily the change cannot be instantaneous,\nbut successive.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv) that this sacrament \"is\nmade by the words of Christ.\" But Christ's words are pronounced\nsuccessively. Therefore the change takes place successively.\n\n_On the contrary,_ This change is effected by a power which is\ninfinite, to which it belongs to operate in an instant.\n\n_I answer that,_ A change may be instantaneous from a threefold\nreason. First on the part of the form, which is the terminus of the\nchange. For, if it be a form that receives more and less, it is\nacquired by its subject successively, such as health; and therefore\nbecause a substantial form does not receive more and less, it follows\nthat its introduction into matter is instantaneous.\n\nSecondly on the part of the subject, which sometimes is prepared\nsuccessively for receiving the form; thus water is heated\nsuccessively. When, however, the subject itself is in the ultimate\ndisposition for receiving the form, it receives it suddenly, as a\ntransparent body is illuminated suddenly. Thirdly on the part of the\nagent, which possesses infinite power: wherefore it can instantly\ndispose the matter for the form. Thus it is written (Mk. 7:34) that\nwhen Christ had said, \"'Ephpheta,' which is 'Be thou opened,'\nimmediately his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was\nloosed.\"\n\nFor these three reasons this conversion is instantaneous. First,\nbecause the substance of Christ's body which is the term of this\nconversion, does not receive more or less. Secondly, because in this\nconversion there is no subject to be disposed successively. Thirdly,\nbecause it is effected by God's infinite power.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Some [*Cf. Albert the Great, Sent. iv, D, 11; St.\nBonaventure, Sent., iv, D, 11] do not grant simply that there is a\nmid-time between every two instants. For they say that this is true\nof two instants referring to the same movement, but not if they refer\nto different things. Hence between the instant that marks the close\nof rest, and another which marks the beginning of movement, there is\nno mid-time. But in this they are mistaken, because the unity of time\nand of instant, or even their plurality, is not taken according to\nmovements of any sort, but according to the first movement of the\nheavens, which is the measure of all movement and rest.\n\nAccordingly others grant this of the time which measures movement\ndepending on the movement of the heavens. But there are some\nmovements which are not dependent on the movement of the heavens, nor\nmeasured by it, as was said in the First Part (Q. 53, A. 3)\nconcerning the movements of the angels. Hence between two instants\nresponding to those movements there is no mid-time. But this is not\nto the point, because although the change in question has no relation\nof itself to the movement of the heavens, still it follows the\npronouncing of the words, which (pronouncing) must necessarily be\nmeasured by the movement of the heavens. And therefore there must of\nnecessity be a mid-time between every two signate instants in\nconnection with that change.\n\nSome say therefore that the instant in which the bread was last, and\nthe instant in which the body of Christ is first, are indeed two in\ncomparison with the things measured, but are one comparatively to the\ntime measuring; as when two lines touch, there are two points on the\npart of the two lines, but one point on the part of the place\ncontaining them. But here there is no likeness, because instant and\ntime is not the intrinsic measure of particular movements, as a line\nand point are of a body, but only the extrinsic measure, as place is\nto bodies.\n\nHence others say that it is the same instant in fact, but another\naccording to reason. But according to this it would follow that\nthings really opposite would exist together; for diversity of reason\ndoes not change a thing objectively.\n\nAnd therefore it must be said that this change, as stated above, is\nwrought by Christ's words which are spoken by the priest, so that the\nlast instant of pronouncing the words is the first instant in which\nChrist's body is in the sacrament; and that the substance of the\nbread is there during the whole preceding time. Of this time no\ninstant is to be taken as proximately preceding the last one, because\ntime is not made up of successive instants, as is proved in _Phys._\nvi. And therefore a first instant can be assigned in which Christ's\nbody is present; but a last instant cannot be assigned in which the\nsubstance of bread is there, but a last time can be assigned. And the\nsame holds good in natural changes, as is evident from the\nPhilosopher (Phys. viii).\n\nReply Obj. 2: In instantaneous changes a thing is \"in becoming,\" and\nis \"in being\" simultaneously; just as becoming illuminated and to be\nactually illuminated are simultaneous: for in such, a thing is said\nto be \"in being\" according as it now is; but to be \"in becoming,\"\naccording as it was not before.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (ad 1), this change comes about in the\nlast instant of the pronouncing of the words. For then the meaning of\nthe words is finished, which meaning is efficacious in the forms of\nthe sacraments. And therefore it does not follow that this change is\nsuccessive.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 75, Art. 8]\n\nWhether This Proposition Is False: \"The Body of Christ Is Made Out of\nBread\"?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this proposition is false: \"The body of\nChrist is made out of bread.\" For everything out of which another is\nmade, is that which is made the other; but not conversely: for we say\nthat a black thing is made out of a white thing, and that a white\nthing is made black: and although we may say that a man becomes black\nstill we do not say that a black thing is made out of a man, as is\nshown in _Phys._ i. If it be true, then, that Christ's body is made\nout of bread, it will be true to say that bread is made the body of\nChrist. But this seems to be false, because the bread is not the\nsubject of the making, but rather its term. Therefore, it is not said\ntruly that Christ's body is made out of bread.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the term of _becoming_ is something that is, or\nsomething that is _made._ But this proposition is never true: \"The\nbread is the body of Christ\"; or \"The bread is made the body of\nChrist\"; or again, \"The bread will be the body of Christ.\" Therefore\nit seems that not even this is true: \"The body of Christ is made out\nof bread.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, everything out of which another is made is converted\ninto that which is made from it. But this proposition seems to be\nfalse: \"The bread is converted into the body of Christ,\" because such\nconversion seems to be more miraculous than the creation of the\nworld, in which it is not said that non-being is converted into\nbeing. Therefore it seems that this proposition likewise is false:\n\"The body of Christ is made out of bread.\"\n\nObj. 4: Further, that out of which something is made, can be that\nthing. But this proposition is false: \"Bread can be the body of\nChrist.\" Therefore this is likewise false: \"The body of Christ is\nmade out of bread.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): \"When the\nconsecration takes place, the body of Christ is made out of the\nbread.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ This conversion of bread into the body of Christ has\nsomething in common with creation, and with natural transmutation,\nand in some respect differs from both. For the order of the terms is\ncommon to these three; that is, that after one thing there is another\n(for, in creation there is being after non-being; in this sacrament,\nChrist's body after the substance of bread; in natural transmutation\nwhite after black, or fire after air); and that the aforesaid terms\nare not coexistent.\n\nNow the conversion, of which we are speaking, has this in common with\ncreation, that in neither of them is there any common subject\nbelonging to either of the extremes; the contrary of which appears in\nevery natural transmutation.\n\nAgain, this conversion has something in common with natural\ntransmutation in two respects, although not in the same fashion.\nFirst of all because in both, one of the extremes passes into the\nother, as bread into Christ's body, and air into fire; whereas\nnon-being is not converted into being. But this comes to pass\ndifferently on the one side and on the other; for in this sacrament\nthe whole substance of the bread passes into the whole body of\nChrist; whereas in natural transmutation the matter of the one\nreceives the form of the other, the previous form being laid aside.\nSecondly, they have this in common, that on both sides something\nremains the same; whereas this does not happen in creation: yet\ndifferently; for the same matter or subject remains in natural\ntransmutation; whereas in this sacrament the same accidents remain.\n\nFrom these observations we can gather the various ways of speaking in\nsuch matters. For, because in no one of the aforesaid three things\nare the extremes coexistent, therefore in none of them can one\nextreme be predicated of the other by the substantive verb of the\npresent tense: for we do not say, \"Non-being is being\" or, \"Bread is\nthe body of Christ,\" or, \"Air is fire,\" or, \"White is black.\" Yet\nbecause of the relationship of the extremes in all of them we can use\nthe preposition _ex_ (out of), which denotes order; for we can truly\nand properly say that \"being is made out of non-being,\" and \"out of\nbread, the body of Christ,\" and \"out of air, fire,\" and \"out of\nwhite, black.\" But because in creation one of the extremes does not\npass into the other, we cannot use the word \"conversion\" in creation,\nso as to say that \"non-being is converted into being\": we can,\nhowever, use the word in this sacrament, just as in natural\ntransmutation. But since in this sacrament the whole substance is\nconverted into the whole substance, on that account this conversion\nis properly termed transubstantiation.\n\nAgain, since there is no subject of this conversion, the things which\nare true in natural conversion by reason of the subject, are not to\nbe granted in this conversion. And in the first place indeed it is\nevident that potentiality to the opposite follows a subject, by\nreason whereof we say that \"a white thing can be black,\" or that \"air\ncan be fire\"; although the latter is not so proper as the former: for\nthe subject of whiteness, in which there is potentiality to\nblackness, is the whole substance of the white thing; since whiteness\nis not a part thereof; whereas the subject of the form of air is part\nthereof: hence when it is said, \"Air can be fire,\" it is verified by\nsynecdoche by reason of the part. But in this conversion, and\nsimilarly in creation, because there is no subject, it is not said\nthat one extreme can be the other, as that \"non-being can be being,\"\nor that \"bread can be the body of Christ\": and for the same reason it\ncannot be properly said that \"being is made of (_de_) non-being,\" or\nthat \"the body of Christ is made of bread,\" because this preposition\n\"of\" (_de_) denotes a consubstantial cause, which consubstantiality\nof the extremes in natural transmutations is considered according to\nsomething common in the subject. And for the same reason it is not\ngranted that \"bread will be the body of Christ,\" or that it \"may\nbecome the body of Christ,\" just as it is not granted in creation\nthat \"non-being will be being,\" or that \"non-being may become being,\"\nbecause this manner of speaking is verified in natural transmutations\nby reason of the subject: for instance, when we say that \"a white\nthing becomes black,\" or \"a white thing will be black.\"\n\nNevertheless, since in this sacrament, after the change, something\nremains the same, namely, the accidents of the bread, as stated above\n(A. 5), some of these expressions may be admitted by way of\nsimilitude, namely, that \"bread is the body of Christ,\" or, \"bread\nwill be the body of Christ,\" or \"the body of Christ is made of\nbread\"; provided that by the word \"bread\" is not understood the\nsubstance of bread, but in general \"that which is contained under the\nspecies of bread,\" under which species there is first contained the\nsubstance of bread, and afterwards the body of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 1: That out of which something else is made, sometimes\nimplies together with the subject, one of the extremes of the\ntransmutation, as when it is said \"a black thing is made out of a\nwhite one\"; but sometimes it implies only the opposite or the\nextreme, as when it is said--\"out of morning comes the day.\" And so\nit is not granted that the latter becomes the former, that is, \"that\nmorning becomes the day.\" So likewise in the matter in hand, although\nit may be said properly that \"the body of Christ is made out of\nbread,\" yet it is not said properly that \"bread becomes the body of\nChrist,\" except by similitude, as was said above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: That out of which another is made, will sometimes be\nthat other because of the subject which is implied. And therefore,\nsince there is no subject of this change, the comparison does not\nhold.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In this change there are many more difficulties than in\ncreation, in which there is but this one difficulty, that something\nis made out of nothing; yet this belongs to the proper mode of\nproduction of the first cause, which presupposes nothing else. But in\nthis conversion not only is it difficult for this whole to be changed\ninto that whole, so that nothing of the former may remain (which does\nnot belong to the common mode of production of a cause), but\nfurthermore it has this difficulty that the accidents remain while\nthe substance is destroyed, and many other difficulties of which we\nshall treat hereafter (Q. 77). Nevertheless the word \"conversion\" is\nadmitted in this sacrament, but not in creation, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 4: As was observed above, potentiality belongs to the\nsubject, whereas there is no subject in this conversion. And\ntherefore it is not granted that bread can be the body of Christ: for\nthis conversion does not come about by the passive potentiality of\nthe creature, but solely by the active power of the Creator.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 76\n\nOF THE WAY IN WHICH CHRIST IS IN THIS SACRAMENT\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the manner in which Christ exists in this\nsacrament; and under this head there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the whole Christ is under this sacrament?\n\n(2) Whether the entire Christ is under each species of the sacrament?\n\n(3) Whether the entire Christ is under every part of the species?\n\n(4) Whether all the dimensions of Christ's body are in this sacrament?\n\n(5) Whether the body of Christ is in this sacrament locally?\n\n(6) Whether after the consecration, the body of Christ is moved when\nthe host or chalice is moved?\n\n(7) Whether Christ's body, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by\nthe eye?\n\n(8) Whether the true body of Christ remains in this sacrament when He\nis seen under the appearance of a child or of flesh?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Whole Christ Is Contained Under This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under\nthis sacrament, because Christ begins to be in this sacrament by\nconversion of the bread and wine. But it is evident that the bread\nand wine cannot be changed either into the Godhead or into the soul\nof Christ. Since therefore Christ exists in three substances, namely,\nthe Godhead, soul and body, as shown above (Q. 2, A. 5; Q. 5, AA. 1,\n3), it seems that the entire Christ is not under this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ is in this sacrament, forasmuch as it is\nordained to the refection of the faithful, which consists in food and\ndrink, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 1). But our Lord said (John 6:56):\n\"My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.\" Therefore,\nonly the flesh and blood of Christ are contained in this sacrament.\nBut there are many other parts of Christ's body, for instance, the\nnerves, bones, and such like. Therefore the entire Christ is not\ncontained under this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a body of greater quantity cannot be contained under\nthe measure of a lesser. But the measure of the bread and wine is\nmuch smaller than the measure of Christ's body. Therefore it is\nimpossible that the entire Christ be contained under this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Officiis): \"Christ is in this\nsacrament.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It is absolutely necessary to confess according to\nCatholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we\nmust know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a\ntwofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament;\nsecondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament,\nthere is under the species of this sacrament that into which the\npre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed\nby the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other\nsacraments; for instance, by the words: \"This is My body,\" or, \"This\nis My blood.\" But from natural concomitance there is also in this\nsacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the\naforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really\nunited, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also\nbe: since things really united together are only distinguished by an\noperation of the mind.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Because the change of the bread and wine is not\nterminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a\nconsequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this\nsacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real\nconcomitance. For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body,\nwherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead\nbe; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this\nsacrament concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the\nprofession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): \"We are made\npartakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common\nflesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the\ntruly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself.\"\n\nOn the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as\nstated above (Q. 50, A. 5). And therefore had this sacrament been\ncelebrated during those three days when He was dead, the soul of\nChrist would not have been there, neither by the power of the\nsacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since \"Christ rising from\nthe dead dieth now no more\" (Rom. 6:9), His soul is always really\nunited with His body. And therefore in this sacrament the body indeed\nof Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but His soul from\nreal concomitance.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By the power of the sacrament there is contained under\nit, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the\nentire body of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like.\nAnd this is apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein it is\nnot said: \"This is My flesh,\" but \"This is My body.\" Accordingly,\nwhen our Lord said (John 6:56): \"My flesh is meat indeed,\" there the\nword flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human\ncustom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men commonly are\nfed on the flesh of animals, but not on the bones or the like.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As has been already stated (Q. 75, A. 5), after the\nconsecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine\ninto His blood, the accidents of both remain. From which it is\nevident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into\nthe dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance.\nAnd so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this\nsacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of\nChrist's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of Christ is\nin this sacrament _by way of substance,_ and not by way of quantity.\nBut the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a\nsmall or large quantity; as the whole nature of air in a great or\nsmall amount of air, and the whole nature of a man in a big or small\nindividual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole substance of\nChrist's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the\nwhole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the\nconsecration.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Whole Christ Is Contained Under Each Species of This\nSacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under\nboth species of this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for\nthe salvation of the faithful, not by virtue of the species, but by\nvirtue of what is contained under the species, because the species\nwere there even before the consecration, from which comes the power\nof this sacrament. If nothing, then, be contained under one species,\nbut what is contained under the other, and if the whole Christ be\ncontained under both, it seems that one of them is superfluous in\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it was stated above (A. 1, ad 1) that all the other\nparts of the body, such as the bones, nerves, and the like, are\ncomprised under the name of flesh. But the blood is one of the parts\nof the human body, as Aristotle proves (De Anima Histor. i). If,\nthen, Christ's blood be contained under the species of bread, just as\nthe other parts of the body are contained there, the blood ought not\nto be consecrated apart, just as no other part of the body is\nconsecrated separately.\n\nObj. 3: Further, what is once _in being_ cannot be again _in\nbecoming._ But Christ's body has already begun to be in this\nsacrament by the consecration of the bread. Therefore, it cannot\nbegin again to be there by the consecration of the wine; and so\nChrist's body will not be contained under the species of the wine,\nand accordingly neither the entire Christ. Therefore the whole Christ\nis not contained under each species.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The gloss on 1 Cor. 11:25, commenting on the word\n\"Chalice,\" says that \"under each species,\" namely, of the bread and\nwine, \"the same is received\"; and thus it seems that Christ is entire\nunder each species.\n\n_I answer that,_ After what we have said above (A. 1), it must be\nheld most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental\nspecies yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed\npresent under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament,\nwhile the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (A.\n1, ad 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the\nspecies of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament,\nand His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead:\nbecause now Christ's blood is not separated from His body, as it was\nat the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had\nbeen celebrated then, the body of Christ would have been under the\nspecies of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species\nof the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as\nit was then, in fact.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it\nis so not without purpose. For in the first place this serves to\nrepresent Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the\nbody; hence in the form for the consecration of the blood mention is\nmade of its shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this\nsacrament, that Christ's body be shown apart to the faithful as food,\nand the blood as drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with its effect, in\nwhich sense it was stated above (Q. 74, A. 1) that \"the body is\noffered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the\nsalvation of the soul.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: In Christ's Passion, of which this is the memorial, the\nother parts of the body were not separated from one another, as the\nblood was, but the body remained entire, according to Ex. 12:46: \"You\nshall not break a bone thereof.\" And therefore in this sacrament the\nblood is consecrated apart from the body, but no other part is\nconsecrated separately from the rest.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above, the body of Christ is not under the\nspecies of wine by the power of the sacrament, but by real\nconcomitance: and therefore by the consecration of the wine the body\nof Christ is not there of itself, but concomitantly.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Is Entire Under Every Part of the Species of the Bread\nand Wine?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ is not entire under every part of\nthe species of bread and wine. Because those species can be divided\ninfinitely. If therefore Christ be entirely under every part of the\nsaid species, it would follow that He is in this sacrament an\ninfinite number of times: which is unreasonable; because the infinite\nis repugnant not only to nature, but likewise to grace.\n\nObj. 2: Further, since Christ's is an organic body, it has parts\ndeterminately distant. For a determinate distance of the individual\nparts from each other is of the very nature of an organic body, as\nthat of eye from eye, and eye from ear. But this could not be so, if\nChrist were entire under every part of the species; for every part\nwould have to be under every other part, and so where one part would\nbe, there another part would be. It cannot be then that the entire\nChrist is under every part of the host or of the wine contained in\nthe chalice.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's body always retains the true nature of a\nbody, nor is it ever changed into a spirit. Now it is the nature of a\nbody for it to be \"quantity having position\" (Predic. iv). But it\nbelongs to the nature of this quantity that the various parts exist\nin various parts of place. Therefore, apparently it is impossible for\nthe entire Christ to be under every part of the species.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory,\nSacramentarium): \"Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under\nevery morsel, nor is He less in each portion, but bestows Himself\nentire under each.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was observed above (A. 1, ad 3), because the\nsubstance of Christ's body is in this sacrament by the power of the\nsacrament, while dimensive quantity is there by reason of real\nconcomitance, consequently Christ's body is in this sacrament\nsubstantively, that is, in the way in which substance is under\ndimensions, but not after the manner of dimensions, which means, not\nin the way in which the dimensive quantity of a body is under the\ndimensive quantity of place.\n\nNow it is evident that the whole nature of a substance is under every\npart of the dimensions under which it is contained; just as the\nentire nature of air is under every part of air, and the entire\nnature of bread under every part of bread; and this indifferently,\nwhether the dimensions be actually divided (as when the air is\ndivided or the bread cut), or whether they be actually undivided, but\npotentially divisible. And therefore it is manifest that the entire\nChrist is under every part of the species of the bread, even while\nthe host remains entire, and not merely when it is broken, as some\nsay, giving the example of an image which appears in a mirror, which\nappears as one in the unbroken mirror, whereas when the mirror is\nbroken, there is an image in each part of the broken mirror: for the\ncomparison is not perfect, because the multiplying of such images\nresults in the broken mirror on account of the various reflections in\nthe various parts of the mirror; but here there is only one\nconsecration, whereby Christ's body is in this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Number follows division, and therefore so long as\nquantity remains actually undivided, neither is the substance of any\nthing several times under its proper dimensions, nor is Christ's body\nseveral times under the dimensions of the bread; and consequently not\nan infinite number of times, but just as many times as it is divided\ninto parts.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The determinate distance of parts in an organic body\nis based upon its dimensive quantity; but the nature of substance\nprecedes even dimensive quantity. And since the conversion of the\nsubstance of the bread is terminated at the substance of the body of\nChrist, and since according to the manner of substance the body of\nChrist is properly and directly in this sacrament; such distance of\nparts is indeed in Christ's true body, which, however, is not\ncompared to this sacrament according to such distance, but according\nto the manner of its substance, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3).\n\nReply Obj. 3: This argument is based on the nature of a body, arising\nfrom dimensive quantity. But it was said above (ad 2) that Christ's\nbody is compared with this sacrament not by reason of dimensive\nquantity, but by reason of its substance, as already stated.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Whole Dimensive Quantity of Christ's Body Is in This\nSacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's\nbody is not in this sacrament. For it was said (A. 3) that Christ's\nentire body is contained under every part of the consecrated host.\nBut no dimensive quantity is contained entirely in any whole, and in\nits every part. Therefore it is impossible for the entire dimensive\nquantity of Christ's body to be there.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is impossible for two dimensive quantities to be\ntogether, even though one be separate from its subject, and the other\nin a natural body, as is clear from the Philosopher (Metaph. iii).\nBut the dimensive quantity of the bread remains in this sacrament, as\nis evident to our senses. Consequently, the dimensive quantity of\nChrist's body is not there.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if two unequal dimensive quantities be set side by\nside, the greater will overlap the lesser. But the dimensive quantity\nof Christ's body is considerably larger than the dimensive quantity\nof the consecrated host according to every dimension. Therefore, if\nthe dimensive quantity of Christ's body be in this sacrament together\nwith the dimensive quantity of the host, the dimensive quantity of\nChrist's body is extended beyond the quantity of the host, which\nnevertheless is not without the substance of Christ's body.\nTherefore, the substance of Christ's body will be in this sacrament\neven outside the species of the bread, which is unreasonable, since\nthe substance of Christ's body is in this sacrament, only by the\nconsecration of the bread, as stated above (A. 2). Consequently, it\nis impossible for the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body to be\nin this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The existence of the dimensive quantity of any\nbody cannot be separated from the existence of its substance. But in\nthis sacrament the entire substance of Christ's body is present, as\nstated above (AA. 1, 3). Therefore the entire dimensive quantity of\nChrist's body is in this sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), any part of Christ is in\nthis sacrament in two ways: in one way, by the power of the\nsacrament; in another, from real concomitance. By the power of the\nsacrament the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this\nsacrament; for, by the power of the sacrament that is present in this\nsacrament, whereat the conversion is terminated. But the conversion\nwhich takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the\nsubstance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is\nevident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread\nremains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread\npasses away.\n\nNevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really\ndeprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it\ncomes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive\nquantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this\nsacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The manner of being of every thing is determined by\nwhat belongs to it of itself, and not according to what is coupled\naccidentally with it: thus an object is present to the sight,\naccording as it is white, and not according as it is sweet, although\nthe same object may be both white and sweet; hence sweetness is in\nthe sight after the manner of whiteness, and not after that of\nsweetness. Since, then, the substance of Christ's body is present on\nthe altar by the power of this sacrament, while its dimensive\nquantity is there concomitantly and as it were accidentally,\ntherefore the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this\nsacrament, not according to its proper manner (namely, that the whole\nis in the whole, and the individual parts in individual parts), but\nafter the manner of substance, whose nature is for the whole to be in\nthe whole, and the whole in every part.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Two dimensive quantities cannot naturally be in the\nsame subject at the same time, so that each be there according to the\nproper manner of dimensive quantity. But in this sacrament the\ndimensive quantity of the bread is there after its proper manner,\nthat is, according to commensuration: not so the dimensive quantity\nof Christ's body, for that is there after the manner of substance, as\nstated above (ad 1).\n\nReply Obj. 3: The dimensive quantity of Christ's body is in this\nsacrament not by way of commensuration, which is proper to quantity,\nand to which it belongs for the greater to be extended beyond the\nlesser; but in the way mentioned above (ad 1, 2).\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Is in This Sacrament As in a Place?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a\nplace. Because, to be in a place definitively or circumscriptively\nbelongs to being in a place. But Christ's body seems to be\ndefinitively in this sacrament, because it is so present where the\nspecies of the bread and wine are, that it is nowhere else upon the\naltar: likewise it seems to be there circumscriptively, because it is\nso contained under the species of the consecrated host, that it\nneither exceeds it nor is exceeded by it. Therefore Christ's body is\nin this sacrament as in a place.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the place of the bread and wine is not empty,\nbecause nature abhors a vacuum; nor is the substance of the bread\nthere, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 2); but only the body of Christ is\nthere. Consequently the body of Christ fills that place. But whatever\nfills a place is there locally. Therefore the body of Christ is in\nthis sacrament locally.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as stated above (A. 4), the body of Christ is in\nthis sacrament with its dimensive quantity, and with all its\naccidents. But to be in a place is an accident of a body; hence\n\"where\" is numbered among the nine kinds of accidents. Therefore\nChrist's body is in this sacrament locally.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The place and the object placed must be equal, as\nis clear from the Philosopher (Phys. iv). But the place, where this\nsacrament is, is much less than the body of Christ. Therefore\nChrist's body is not in this sacrament as in a place.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 3; A. 3), Christ's body is\nin this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity,\nbut rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a\nplace is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity,\nnamely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to\nits dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in\nthis sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that\nis to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions;\nbecause the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of\nbread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not\nlocally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so\nneither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance\nof Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the\nsubstance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was\nthere locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared\nwith that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the\nsubstance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the\nmedium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper\ndimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the\nmedium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located\nbody.\n\nHence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's body is not in this sacrament definitively,\nbecause then it would be only on the particular altar where this\nsacrament is performed: whereas it is in heaven under its own\nspecies, and on many other altars under the sacramental species.\nLikewise it is evident that it is not in this sacrament\ncircumscriptively, because it is not there according to the\ncommensuration of its own quantity, as stated above. But that it is\nnot outside the superficies of the sacrament, nor on any other part\nof the altar, is due not to its being there definitively or\ncircumscriptively, but to its being there by consecration and\nconversion of the bread and wine, as stated above (A. 1; Q. 15, A. 2,\nsqq.).\n\nReply Obj. 2: The place in which Christ's body is, is not empty; nor\nyet is it properly filled with the substance of Christ's body, which\nis not there locally, as stated above; but it is filled with the\nsacramental species, which have to fill the place either because of\nthe nature of dimensions, or at least miraculously, as they also\nsubsist miraculously after the fashion of substance.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (A. 4), the accidents of Christ's body\nare in this sacrament by real concomitance. And therefore those\naccidents of Christ's body which are intrinsic to it are in this\nsacrament. But to be in a place is an accident when compared with the\nextrinsic container. And therefore it is not necessary for Christ to\nbe in this sacrament as in a place.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Is in This Sacrament Movably?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ's body is movably in this\nsacrament, because the Philosopher says (Topic. ii) that \"when we are\nmoved, the things within us are moved\": and this is true even of the\nsoul's spiritual substance. \"But Christ is in this sacrament,\" as\nshown above (Q. 74, A. 1). Therefore He is moved when it is moved.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But,\naccording to the commandment (Ex. 12:10), concerning the Paschal\nLamb, a figure of this sacrament, \"there remained nothing until the\nmorning.\" Neither, therefore, if this sacrament be reserved until\nmorning, will Christ's body be there; and so it is not immovably in\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if Christ's body were to remain under this sacrament\neven until the morrow, for the same reason it will remain there\nduring all coming time; for it cannot be said that it ceases to be\nthere when the species pass, because the existence of Christ's body\nis not dependent on those species. Yet Christ does not remain in this\nsacrament for all coming time. It seems, then, that straightway on\nthe morrow, or after a short time, He ceases to be under this\nsacrament. And so it seems that Christ is in this sacrament movably.\n\n_On the contrary,_ it is impossible for the same thing to be in\nmotion and at rest, else contradictories would be verified of the\nsame subject. But Christ's body is at rest in heaven. Therefore it is\nnot movably in this sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold\nin being, there is nothing to hinder it from being moved in one\nrespect, and yet to remain at rest in another just as it is one thing\nfor a body to be white, and another thing, to be large; hence it can\nbe moved as to its whiteness, and yet continue unmoved as to its\nmagnitude. But in Christ, being in Himself and being under the\nsacrament are not the same thing, because when we say that He is\nunder this sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this\nsacrament. According to this being, then, Christ is not moved locally\nof Himself, but only accidentally, because Christ is not in this\nsacrament as in a place, as stated above (A. 5). But what is not in a\nplace, is not moved of itself locally, but only according to the\nmotion of the subject in which it is.\n\nIn the same way neither is it moved of itself according to the being\nwhich it has in this sacrament, by any other change whatever, as for\ninstance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever\npossesses unfailing existence of itself, cannot be the principle of\nfailing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it;\njust as God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be\nin some corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases\nto exist. And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and\nincorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not\nbecause He ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own, as is\nclear from what has been said, but only by the fact that the\nsacramental species cease to exist.\n\nHence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably in this\nsacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument deals with accidental movement, whereby\nthings within us are moved together with us. But with things which\ncan of themselves be in a place, like bodies, it is otherwise than\nwith things which cannot of themselves be in a place, such as forms\nand spiritual substances. And to this mode can be reduced what we say\nof Christ, being moved accidentally, according to the existence which\nHe has in this sacrament, in which He is not present as in a place.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It was this argument which seems to have convinced\nthose who held that Christ's body does not remain under this\nsacrament if it be reserved until the morrow. It is against these\nthat Cyril says (Ep. lxxxiii): \"Some are so foolish as to say that\nthe mystical blessing departs from the sacrament, if any of its\nfragments remain until the next day: for Christ's consecrated body is\nnot changed, and the power of the blessing, and the life-giving grace\nis perpetually in it.\" Thus are all other consecrations irremovable\nso long as the consecrated things endure; on which account they are\nnot repeated. And although the truth corresponds with the figure,\nstill the figure cannot equal it.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The body of Christ remains in this sacrament not only\nuntil the morrow, but also in the future, so long as the sacramental\nspecies remain: and when they cease, Christ's body ceases to be under\nthem, not because it depends on them, but because the relationship of\nChrist's body to those species is taken away, in the same way as God\nceases to be the Lord of a creature which ceases to exist.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Body of Christ, As It Is in This Sacrament, Can Be Seen\nby Any Eye, at Least by a Glorified One?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the body of Christ, as it is in this\nsacrament, can be seen by the eye, at least by a glorified one. For\nour eyes are hindered from beholding Christ's body in this sacrament,\non account of the sacramental species veiling it. But the glorified\neye cannot be hindered by anything from seeing bodies as they are.\nTherefore, the glorified eye can see Christ's body as it is in this\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the glorified bodies of the saints will be \"made\nlike to the body\" of Christ's \"glory,\" according to Phil. 3:21. But\nChrist's eye beholds Himself as He is in this sacrament. Therefore,\nfor the same reason, every other glorified eye can see Him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the resurrection the saints will be equal to the\nangels, according to Luke 20:36. But the angels see the body of\nChrist as it is in this sacrament, for even the devils are found to\npay reverence thereto, and to fear it. Therefore, for like reason,\nthe glorified eye can see Christ as He is in this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ As long as a thing remains the same, it cannot at\nthe same time be seen by the same eye under diverse species. But the\nglorified eye sees Christ always, as He is in His own species,\naccording to Isa. 33:17: \"(His eyes) shall see the king in his\nbeauty.\" It seems, then, that it does not see Christ, as He is under\nthe species of this sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye\nproperly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by\nsimilitude. But Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be\nseen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible\nbrings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now\nthe accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the\nsubstance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate\nrelationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies;\nconsequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any\ncorporeal eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (A. 1, ad 3; A. 3),\nChrist's body is substantially present in this sacrament. But\nsubstance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it\ncome under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but\nsolely under the intellect, whose object is \"what a thing is\" (De\nAnima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ's body,\naccording to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is\nperceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by\nthe intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.\n\nMoreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For\nsince the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely\nsupernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the\nDivine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect, of\nangel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine\nintellect, sees all supernatural things in the vision of the Divine\nEssence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like\nother supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of its\nown natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils\ncannot by their intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except\nthrough faith, to which they do not pay willing assent; yet they are\nconvinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to James 2:19:\n\"The devils believe, and tremble.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Our bodily eye, on account of the sacramental species,\nis hindered from beholding the body of Christ underlying them, not\nmerely as by way of veil (just as we are hindered from seeing what is\ncovered with any corporeal veil), but also because Christ's body\nbears a relation to the medium surrounding this sacrament, not\nthrough its own accidents, but through the sacramental species.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Christ's own bodily eye sees Himself existing under the\nsacrament, yet it cannot see the way in which it exists under the\nsacrament, because that belongs to the intellect. But it is not the\nsame with any other glorified eye, because Christ's eye is under this\nsacrament, in which no other glorified eye is conformed to it.\n\nReply Obj. 3: No angel, good or bad, can see anything with a bodily\neye, but only with the mental eye. Hence there is no parallel reason,\nas is evident from what was said above.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 76, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Christ's Body Is Truly There When Flesh or a Child Appears\nMiraculously in This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ's body is not truly there when\nflesh or a child appears miraculously in this sacrament. Because His\nbody ceases to be under this sacrament when the sacramental species\ncease to be present, as stated above (A. 6). But when flesh or a\nchild appears, the sacramental species cease to be present. Therefore\nChrist's body is not truly there.\n\nObj. 2: Further, wherever Christ's body is, it is there either under\nits own species, or under those of the sacrament. But when such\napparitions occur, it is evident that Christ is not present under His\nown species, because the entire Christ is contained in this\nsacrament, and He remains entire under the form in which He ascended\nto heaven: yet what appears miraculously in this sacrament is\nsometimes seen as a small particle of flesh, or at times as a small\nchild. Now it is evident that He is not there under the sacramental\nspecies, which is that of bread or wine. Consequently, it seems that\nChrist's body is not there in any way.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by\nconsecration and conversion, as was said above (Q. 75, AA. 2, 3, 4).\nBut the flesh and blood which appear by miracle are not consecrated,\nnor are they converted into Christ's true body and blood. Therefore\nthe body or the blood of Christ is not under those species.\n\n_On the contrary,_ When such apparition takes place, the same\nreverence is shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be\ndone if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of\n_latria._ Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the\nsacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ Such apparition comes about in two ways, when\noccasionally in this sacrament flesh, or blood, or a child, is seen.\nSometimes it happens on the part of the beholders, whose eyes are so\naffected as if they outwardly saw flesh, or blood, or a child, while\nno change takes place in the sacrament. And this seems to happen when\nto one person it is seen under the species of flesh or of a child,\nwhile to others it is seen as before under the species of bread; or\nwhen to the same individual it appears for an hour under the\nappearance of flesh or a child, and afterwards under the appearance\nof bread. Nor is there any deception there, as occurs in the feats of\nmagicians, because such species is divinely formed in the eye in\norder to represent some truth, namely, for the purpose of showing\nthat Christ's body is truly under this sacrament; just as Christ\nwithout deception appeared to the disciples who were going to Emmaus.\nFor Augustine says (De Qq. Evang. ii) that \"when our pretense is\nreferred to some significance, it is not a lie, but a figure of the\ntruth.\" And since in this way no change is made in the sacrament, it\nis manifest that, when such apparition occurs, Christ does not cease\nto be under this sacrament.\n\nBut it sometimes happens that such apparition comes about not merely\nby a change wrought in the beholders, but by an appearance which\nreally exists outwardly. And this indeed is seen to happen when it is\nbeheld by everyone under such an appearance, and it remains so not\nfor an hour, but for a considerable time; and, in this case some\nthink that it is the proper species of Christ's body. Nor does it\nmatter that sometimes Christ's entire body is not seen there, but\npart of His flesh, or else that it is not seen in youthful guise, but\nin the semblance of a child, because it lies within the power of a\nglorified body for it to be seen by a non-glorified eye either\nentirely or in part, and under its own semblance or in strange guise,\nas will be said later (Suppl., Q. 85, AA. 2, 3).\n\nBut this seems unlikely. First of all, because Christ's body under\nits proper species can be seen only in one place, wherein it is\ndefinitively contained. Hence since it is seen in its proper species,\nand is adored in heaven, it is not seen under its proper species in\nthis sacrament. Secondly, because a glorified body, which appears at\nwill, disappears when it wills after the apparition; thus it is\nrelated (Luke 24:31) that our Lord \"vanished out of sight\" of the\ndisciples. But that which appears under the likeness of flesh in this\nsacrament, continues for a long time; indeed, one reads of its being\nsometimes enclosed, and, by order of many bishops, preserved in a\npyx, which it would be wicked to think of Christ under His proper\nsemblance.\n\nConsequently, it remains to be said, that, while the dimensions\nremain the same as before, there is a miraculous change wrought in\nthe other accidents, such as shape, color, and the rest, so that\nflesh, or blood, or a child, is seen. And, as was said already, this\nis not deception, because it is done \"to represent the truth,\"\nnamely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ's body and\nblood are truly in this sacrament. And thus it is clear that as the\ndimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents,\nas we shall see later on (Q. 77, A. 2), the body of Christ truly\nremains in this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: When such apparition takes place, the sacramental\nspecies sometimes continue entire in themselves; and sometimes only\nas to that which is principal, as was said above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated above, during such apparitions Christ's\nproper semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed\neither in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions\nthemselves, as was said above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The dimensions of the consecrated bread and wine\ncontinue, while a miraculous change is wrought in the other\naccidents, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 77\n\nOF THE ACCIDENTS WHICH REMAIN IN THIS SACRAMENT\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the accidents which remain in this sacrament;\nunder which head there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether the accidents which remain are without a subject?\n\n(2) Whether dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents?\n\n(3) Whether such accidents can affect an extrinsic body?\n\n(4) Whether they can be corrupted?\n\n(5) Whether anything can be generated from them?\n\n(6) Whether they can nourish?\n\n(7) Of the breaking of the consecrated bread?\n\n(8) Whether anything can be mixed with the consecrated wine?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Accidents Remain in This Sacrament Without a Subject?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the accidents do not remain in this\nsacrament without a subject, because there ought not to be anything\ndisorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents\nto be without a subject is contrary to the order which God\nestablished in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit,\nsince accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject.\nTherefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, not even by miracle can the definition of a thing be\nsevered from it, or the definition of another thing be applied to it;\nfor instance, that, while man remains a man, he can be an irrational\nanimal. For it would follow that contradictories can exist at the one\ntime: for the \"definition of a thing is what its name expresses,\" as\nis said in _Metaph._ iv. But it belongs to the definition of an\naccident for it to be in a subject, while the definition of substance\nis that it must subsist of itself, and not in another. Therefore it\ncannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the accidents exist\nwithout a subject in this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If\ntherefore the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject,\nthey will not be individual, but general, which is clearly false,\nbecause thus they would not be sensible, but merely intelligible.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the accidents after the consecration of this\nsacrament do not obtain any composition. But before the consecration\nthey were not composed either of matter and form, nor of existence\n(_quo est_) and essence (_quod est_). Therefore, even after\nconsecration they are not composite in either of these ways. But this\nis unreasonable, for thus they would be simpler than angels, whereas\nat the same time these accidents are perceptible to the senses.\nTherefore, in this sacrament the accidents do not remain without a\nsubject.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De\nCorp. et Sang. Dom. xx) that \"the sacramental species are the names\nof those things which were there before, namely, of the bread and\nwine.\" Therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does\nnot remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.\n\n_I answer that,_ The species of the bread and wine, which are\nperceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after\nconsecration, are not subjected in the substance of the bread and\nwine, for that does not remain, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 2); nor in\nthe substantial form, for that does not remain (Q. 75, A. 6), and if\nit did remain, \"it could not be a subject,\" as Boethius declares (De\nTrin. i). Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not\nsubjected in the substance of Christ's body and blood, because the\nsubstance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such\naccidents; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and impassible\nbody to be altered so as to receive these qualities.\n\nNow there are some who say that they are in the surrounding\natmosphere as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first\nplace, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents.\nSecondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is,\nnay more, the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species.\nThirdly, because accidents do not pass from subject to subject, so\nthat the same identical accident which was first in one subject be\nafterwards in another; because an accident is individuated by the\nsubject; hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining\nidentically the same to be at one time in one subject, and at another\ntime in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of\nits own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents\nand others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this is done\nmiraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the words of\nconsecration do not signify this, and they effect only what they\nsignify.\n\nTherefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament\nwithout a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an\neffect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who\nis the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His\nunlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance\nis withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper\ncause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of\nnatural causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin's womb,\n\"without the seed of man\" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).\n\nReply Obj. 1: There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature\nfrom ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless\nordained by a special privilege of grace, as is evident in the\nraising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even\nthus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by\nspecial privilege which are outside the common law. And so, even\nthough it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to\nbe in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the order\nof grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on\naccount of the reasons given above (Q. 75, A. 5).\n\nReply Obj. 2: Since being is not a genus, then being cannot be of\nitself the essence of either substance or accident. Consequently, the\ndefinition of substance is not--\"a being of itself without a\nsubject,\" nor is the definition of accident--\"a being in a subject\";\nbut it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance \"to have\nexistence not in a subject\"; while it belongs to the quiddity or\nessence of accident \"to have existence in a subject.\" But in this\nsacrament it is not in virtue of their essence that accidents are not\nin a subject, but through the Divine power sustaining them; and\nconsequently they do not cease to be accidents, because neither is\nthe definition of accident withdrawn from them, nor does the\ndefinition of substance apply to them.\n\nReply Obj. 3: These accidents acquired individual being in the\nsubstance of the bread and wine; and when this substance is changed\ninto the body and blood of Christ, they remain in that individuated\nbeing which they possessed before, hence they are individual and\nsensible.\n\nReply Obj. 4: These accidents had no being of their own nor other\naccidents, so long as the substance of the bread and wine remained;\nbut their subjects had _such_ being through them, just as snow is\n_white_ through whiteness. But after the consecration the accidents\nwhich remain have being; hence they are compounded of existence and\nessence, as was said of the angels, in the First Part (Q. 50, A. 2,\nad 3); and besides they have composition of quantitative parts.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 2]\n\nWhether in This Sacrament the Dimensive Quantity of the Bread or Wine\nIs the Subject of the Other Accidents?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity\nof the bread or wine is not the subject of the other accidents. For\naccident is not the subject of accident; because no form can be a\nsubject, since to be a subject is a property of matter. But dimensive\nquantity is an accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the\nsubject of the other accidents.\n\nObj. 2: Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so\nalso are the other accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity of the\nbread or wine remains individuated according to the being it had\nbefore, in which it is preserved, for like reason the other accidents\nremain individuated according to the existence which they had before\nin the substance. Therefore they are not in dimensive quantity as in\na subject, since every accident is individuated by its own subject.\n\nObj. 3: Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the bread\nand wine, the senses perceive also rarity and density, which cannot\nbe in dimensive quantity existing outside matter; because a thing is\nrare which has little matter under great dimensions, while a thing is\ndense which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said in\n_Phys._ iv. It does not seem, then, that dimensive quantity can be\nthe subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.\n\nObj. 4: Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be\nmathematical quantity, which is not the subject of sensible\nqualities. Since, then, the remaining accidents in this sacrament are\nsensible, it seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected in\nthe dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains after\nconsecration.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that\nis, by reason of the subject. But the qualities remaining in this\nsacrament are divided by the division of dimensive quantity, as is\nevident through our senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the\nsubject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ It is necessary to say that the other accidents\nwhich remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive\nquantity of the bread and wine that remains: first of all, because\nsomething having quantity and color and affected by other accidents\nis perceived by the senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly,\nbecause the first disposition of matter is dimensive quantity, hence\nPlato also assigned \"great\" and \"small\" as the first differences of\nmatter (Aristotle, _Metaph._ iv). And because the first subject is\nmatter, the consequence is that all other accidents are related to\ntheir subject through the medium of dimensive quantity; just as the\nfirst subject of color is said to be the surface, on which account\nsome have maintained that dimensions are the substances of bodies, as\nis said in _Metaph._ iii. And since, when the subject is withdrawn,\nthe accidents remain according to the being which they had before, it\nfollows that all accidents remain founded upon dimensive quantity.\n\nThirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of individuation\nof the accidents, it is necessary for what is admitted as the subject\nof some accidents to be somehow the principle of individuation: for\nit is of the very notion of an individual that it cannot be in\nseveral; and this happens in two ways. First, because it is not\nnatural to it to be in any one; and in this way immaterial separated\nforms, subsisting of themselves, are also individuals of themselves.\nSecondly, because a form, be it substantial or accidental, is\nnaturally in someone indeed, not in several, as this whiteness, which\nis in this body. As to the first, matter is the principle of\nindividuation of all inherent forms, because, since these forms,\nconsidered in themselves, are naturally in something as in a subject,\nfrom the very fact that one of them is received in matter, which is\nnot in another, it follows that neither can the form itself thus\nexisting be in another. As to the second, it must be maintained that\nthe principle of individuation is dimensive quantity. For that\nsomething is naturally in another one solely, is due to the fact that\nthat other is undivided in itself, and distinct from all others. But\nit is on account of quantity that substance can be divided, as is\nsaid in _Phys._ i. And therefore dimensive quantity itself is a\nparticular principle of individuation in forms of this kind, namely,\ninasmuch as forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the\nmatter. Hence also dimensive quantity has of itself a kind of\nindividuation, so that we can imagine several lines of the same\nspecies, differing in position, which is included in the notion of\nthis quantity; for it belongs to dimension for it to be \"quantity\nhaving position\" (Aristotle, Categor. iv), and therefore dimensive\nquantity can be the subject of the other accidents, rather than the\nother way about.\n\nReply Obj. 1: One accident cannot of itself be the subject of\nanother, because it does not exist of itself. But inasmuch as an\naccident is received in another thing, one is said to be the subject\nof the other, inasmuch as one is received in a subject through\nanother, as the surface is said to be the subject of color. Hence\nwhen God makes an accident to exist of itself, it can also be of\nitself the subject of another.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The other accidents, even as they were in the substance\nof the bread, were individuated by means of dimensive quantity, as\nstated above. And therefore dimensive quantity is the subject of the\nother accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than conversely.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Rarity and density are particular qualities\naccompanying bodies, by reason of their having much or little matter\nunder dimensions; just as all other accidents likewise follow from\nthe principles of substance. And consequently, as the accidents are\npreserved by Divine power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when\nmatter is withdrawn, the qualities which go with matter, such as\nrarity and density, are preserved by Divine power.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Mathematical quantity abstracts not from intelligible\nmatter, but from sensible matter, as is said in _Metaph._ vii. But\nmatter is termed sensible because it underlies sensible qualities.\nAnd therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity, which\nremains in this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical\nquantity.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Species Remaining in This Sacrament Can Change External\nObjects?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the species which remain in this sacrament\ncannot affect external objects. For it is proved in _Phys._ vii, that\nforms which are in matter are produced by forms that are in matter,\nbut not from forms which are without matter, because like makes like.\nBut the sacramental species are species without matter, since they\nremain without a subject, as is evident from what was said above (A.\n1). Therefore they cannot affect other matter by producing any form\nin it.\n\nObj. 2: Further, when the action of the principal agent ceases, then\nthe action of the instrument must cease, as when the carpenter rests,\nthe hammer is moved no longer. But all accidental forms act\ninstrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the principal\nagent. Therefore, since the substantial form of the bread and wine\ndoes not remain in this sacrament, as was shown above (Q. 75, A. 6),\nit seems that the accidental forms which remain cannot act so as to\nchange external matter.\n\nObj. 3: Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an effect\ncannot surpass its cause. But all the sacramental species are\naccidents. Therefore they cannot change external matter, at least as\nto a substantial form.\n\n_On the contrary,_ If they could not change external bodies, they\ncould not be felt; for a thing is felt from the senses being changed\nby a sensible thing, as is said in _De Anima_ ii.\n\n_I answer that,_ Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual\nbeing, the consequence is that everything stands in the same relation\nto action as it does to being. Therefore, because, according to what\nwas said above (A. 1), it is an effect of the Divine power that the\nsacramental species continue in the being which they had when the\nsubstance of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they\ncontinue in their action. Consequently they retain every action which\nthey had while the substance of the bread and wine remained, now that\nthe substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and\nblood of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change\nexternal bodies.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The sacramental species, although they are forms\nexisting without matter, still retain the same being which they had\nbefore in matter, and therefore as to their being they are like forms\nwhich are in matter.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The action of an accidental form depends upon the\naction of a substantial form in the same way as the being of accident\ndepends upon the being of substance; and therefore, as it is an\neffect of Divine power that the sacramental species exist without\nsubstance, so is it an effect of Divine power that they can act\nwithout a substantial form, because every action of a substantial or\naccidental form depends upon God as the first agent.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The change which terminates in a substantial form is\nnot effected by a substantial form directly, but by means of the\nactive and passive qualities, which act in virtue of the substantial\nform. But by Divine power this instrumental energy is retained in the\nsacramental species, just as it was before: and consequently their\naction can be directed to a substantial form instrumentally, just in\nthe same way as anything can act outside its species, not as by its\nown power, but by the power of the chief agent.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Sacramental Species Can Be Corrupted?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot be\ncorrupted, because corruption comes of the separation of the form\nfrom the matter. But the matter of the bread does not remain in this\nsacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Q. 75, A. 2).\nTherefore these species cannot be corrupted.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that is,\nwhen its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are\nincorruptible, as is seen in spiritual substances. But the\nsacramental species are forms without a subject. Therefore they\ncannot be corrupted.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally or\nmiraculously. But they cannot be corrupted naturally, because no\nsubject of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the\ncorruption has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted\nmiraculously, because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take\nplace in virtue of the consecration, whereby the sacramental species\nare preserved: and the same thing is not the cause of preservation\nand of corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental species\nbe corrupted.\n\n_On the contrary,_ We perceive by our senses that the consecrated\nhosts become putrefied and corrupted.\n\n_I answer that,_ Corruption is \"movement from being into non-being\"\n(Aristotle, _Phys._ v). Now it has been stated (A. 3) that the\nsacramental species retain the same being as they had before when the\nsubstance of the bread was present. Consequently, as the being of\nthose accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread\nand wine was present, so likewise they can be corrupted now that the\nsubstance has passed away.\n\nBut such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways:\nin one way, of themselves; in another way, accidentally. They could\nbe corrupted of themselves, as by alteration of the qualities, and\nincrease or decrease of the quantity, not in the way in which\nincrease or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the\nsubstances of the bread and wine are not, but by addition or\ndivision; for, as is said in _Metaph._ iii, one dimension is\ndissolved by division, and two dimensions result; while on the\ncontrary, by addition, two dimensions become one. And in this way\nsuch accidents can be corrupted manifestly after consecration,\nbecause the dimensive quantity which remains can receive division and\naddition; and since it is the subject of sensible qualities, as\nstated above (A. 1), it can likewise be the subject of their\nalteration, for instance, if the color or the savor of the bread or\nwine be altered.\n\nAn accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption\nof its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after\nconsecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the\nbeing which they had in the subject does remain, which being is\nproper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be\ncorrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine\nwas subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by\na preceding alteration regarding the accidents.\n\nNevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid\ncorruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in\nthis sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be\nsuch change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed\nfor the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of\nChrist do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such\nchange, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for\ninstance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly\nmodified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the\nwine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread\nor of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the\nbread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood\ndo not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the\nqualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread\nand wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread\nor of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if\nthe bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such\ntiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Since it belongs essentially to corruption to take away\nthe being of a thing, in so far as the being of some form is in\nmatter, it results that by corruption the form is separated from the\nmatter. But if such being were not in matter, yet like such being as\nis in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there\nis no matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from\nwhat was said above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although the sacramental species are forms not in\nmatter, yet they have the being which they had in matter.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This corruption of species is not miraculous, but\nnatural; nevertheless, it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in\nthe consecration, namely, that those sacramental species retain\nwithout a subject, the same being as they had in a subject; just as a\nblind man, to whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Anything Can Be Generated from the Sacramental Species?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that nothing can be generated from the\nsacramental species: because, whatever is generated, is generated out\nof some matter: for nothing is generated out of nothing, although by\ncreation something is made out of nothing. But there is no matter\nunderlying the sacramental species except that of Christ's body, and\nthat body is incorruptible. Therefore it seems that nothing can be\ngenerated from the sacramental species.\n\nObj. 2: Further, things which are not of the same genus cannot spring\nfrom one another: thus a line is not made of whiteness. But accident\nand substance differ generically. Therefore, since the sacramental\nspecies are accidents, it seems that no substance can be generated\nfrom them.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from them,\nsuch substance will not be without accident. Therefore, if any\ncorporeal substance be generated from the sacramental species, then\nsubstance and accident would be generated from accident, namely, two\nthings from one, which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible\nfor any corporeal substance to be generated out of the sacramental\nspecies.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The senses are witness that something is generated\nout of the sacramental species, either ashes, if they be burned,\nworms if they putrefy, or dust if they be crushed.\n\n_I answer that,_ Since \"the corruption of one thing is the generation\nof another\" (De Gener. i), something must be generated necessarily\nfrom the sacramental species if they be corrupted, as stated above\n(A. 4); for they are not corrupted in such a way that they disappear\naltogether, as if reduced to nothing; on the contrary, something\nsensible manifestly succeeds to them.\n\nNevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated\nfrom them. For it is quite evident that nothing is generated out of\nthe body and blood of Christ which are truly there, because these are\nincorruptible. But if the substance, or even the matter, of the bread\nand wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have\nmaintained, it would be easy to account for this sensible object\nwhich succeeds to them. But that supposition is false, as was stated\nabove (Q. 75, AA. 2, 4, 8).\n\nHence it is that others have said that the things generated have not\nsprung from the sacramental species, but from the surrounding\natmosphere. But this can be shown in many ways to be impossible. In\nthe first place, because when a thing is generated from another, the\nlatter at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration\nor corruption appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; hence\nthe worms or ashes are not generated therefrom. Secondly, because the\nnature of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things\nbeing generated by such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible\nfor many consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be\npossible for an earthen body, large enough to be generated from the\natmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly sensible\ncondensation of the atmosphere took place. Fourthly, because the same\nthing can happen to the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron\nor stone, which remain entire after the generation of the aforesaid\nthings. Hence this opinion cannot stand, because it is opposed to\nwhat is manifest to our senses.\n\nAnd therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and\nwine returns during the corruption of the species, and so from the\nreturning substance of the bread and wine, ashes or worms or\nsomething of the kind are generated. But this explanation seems an\nimpossible one. First of all, because if the substance of the bread\nand wine be converted into the body and blood of Christ, as was shown\nabove (Q. 75, AA. 2, 4), the substance of the bread and wine cannot\nreturn, except the body and blood of Christ be again changed back\ninto the substance of bread and wine, which is impossible: thus if\nair be turned into fire, the air cannot return without the fire being\nagain changed into air. But if the substance of bread or wine be\nannihilated, it cannot return again, because what lapses into nothing\ndoes not return numerically the same. Unless perchance it be said\nthat the said substance returns, because God creates anew another new\nsubstance to replace the first. Secondly, this seems to be\nimpossible, because no time can be assigned when the substance of the\nbread returns. For, from what was said above (A. 4; Q. 76, A. 6, ad\n3), it is evident that while the species of the bread and wine\nremain, there remain also the body and blood of Christ, which are not\npresent together with the substance of the bread and wine in this\nsacrament, according to what was stated above (Q. 75, A. 2). Hence\nthe substance of the bread and wine cannot return while the\nsacramental species remain; nor, again, when these species pass away;\nbecause then the substance of the bread and wine would be without\ntheir proper accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be\nsaid that in the last instant of the corruption of the species there\nreturns (not, indeed, the substance of bread and wine, because it is\nin that very instant that they have the being of the substance\ngenerated from the species, but) the matter of the bread and wine;\nwhich, matter, properly speaking, would be more correctly described\nas created anew, than as returning. And in this sense the aforesaid\nposition might be held.\n\nHowever, since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes\nplace miraculously in this sacrament, except in virtue of the\nconsecration itself, which does not imply either creation or return\nof matter, it seems better to say that in the actual consecration it\nis miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and\nwine to be the subject of subsequent forms. Now this is proper to\nmatter; and therefore as a consequence everything which goes with\nmatter is bestowed on dimensive quantity; and therefore everything\nwhich could be generated from the matter of bread or wine, if it were\npresent, can be generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of\nthe bread or wine, not, indeed, by a new miracle, but by virtue of\nthe miracle which has already taken place.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Although no matter is there out of which a thing may be\ngenerated, nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of\nmatter, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet\nthey have the act and power of substance, as stated above (A. 3).\n\nReply Obj. 3: The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine retains\nits own nature, and receives miraculously the power and property of\nsubstance; and therefore it can pass to both, that is, into substance\nand dimension.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Sacramental Species Can Nourish?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish,\nbecause, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), \"it is not this bread that\nenters into our body, but the bread of everlasting life, which\nsupports the substance of our soul.\" But whatever nourishes enters\ninto the body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same\nreason holds good of the wine.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, \"We are nourished by the\nvery things of which we are made.\" But the sacramental species are\naccidents, whereas man is not made of accidents, because accident is\nnot a part of substance. Therefore it seems that the sacramental\nspecies cannot nourish.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that \"food\nnourishes according as it is a substance, but it gives increase by\nreason of its quantity.\" But the sacramental species are not a\nsubstance. Consequently they cannot nourish.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1\nCor. 11:21): \"One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk\": upon\nwhich the gloss observes that \"he alludes to those who after the\ncelebration of the sacred mystery, and after the consecration of the\nbread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with\nothers, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby.\"\nBut this could not happen if the sacramental species did not nourish.\nTherefore the sacramental species do nourish.\n\n_I answer that,_ This question presents no difficulty, now that we\nhave solved the preceding question. Because, as stated in _De Anima_\nii, food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the\nindividual nourished. Now it has been stated (A. 5) that the\nsacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from\nthem. And they can be converted into the human body for the same\nreason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident\nthat they nourish.\n\nBut the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz.\nthat the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the\nhuman body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses\n(as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the\nfumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a\nman, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man\ncould be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated\nwine in great quantity.\n\nIn like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who\nhold that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining\nsubstantial form of the bread and wine: both because the form does\nnot remain, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 6): and because to nourish is\nthe act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of\nthe one nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away:\nhence it is said in _De Anima_ ii that nourishment is at first\nunlike, but at the end is like.\n\nReply Obj. 1: After the consecration bread can be said to be in this\nsacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, which retain the\nname of the previous substance, as Gregory says in an Easter Homily\n(Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's very body\ncan be called bread, since it is the mystical bread \"coming down from\nheaven.\" Consequently, Ambrose uses the word \"bread\" in this second\nmeaning, when he says that \"this bread does not pass into the body,\"\nbecause, to wit, Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but\nnourishes his soul. But he is not speaking of bread taken in the\nfirst acceptation.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although the sacramental species are not those things\nout of which the human body is made, yet they are changed into those\nthings stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although the sacramental species are not a substance,\nstill they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Sacramental Species Are Broken in This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sacramental species are not broken in\nthis sacrament, because the Philosopher says in Meteor. iv that\nbodies are breakable owing to a certain disposition of the pores; a\nthing which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species.\nTherefore the sacramental species cannot be broken.\n\nObj. 2: Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the sacramental\nspecies emit no sound: because the Philosopher says (De Anima ii),\nthat what emits sound is a hard body, having a smooth surface.\nTherefore the sacramental species are not broken.\n\nObj. 3: Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same\nobject. But it is Christ's true body that is eaten, according to John\n6:57: \"He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood.\" Therefore it\nis Christ's body that is broken and masticated: and hence it is said\nin the confession of Berengarius: \"I agree with the Holy Catholic\nChurch, and with heart and lips I profess, that the bread and wine\nwhich are placed on the altar, are the true body and blood of Christ\nafter consecration, and are truly handled and broken by the priest's\nhands, broken and crushed by the teeth of believers.\" Consequently,\nthe breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental species.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Breaking arises from the division of that which\nhas quantity. But nothing having quantity except the sacramental\nspecies is broken here, because neither Christ's body is broken, as\nbeing incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread, because it no\nlonger remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken.\n\n_I answer that,_ Many opinions prevailed of old on this matter. Some\nheld that in this sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality,\nbut merely in the eyes of the beholders. But this contention cannot\nstand, because in this sacrament of truth the sense is not deceived\nwith regard to its proper object of judgment, and one of these\nobjects is breaking, whereby from one thing arise many: and these are\ncommon sensibles, as is stated in _De Anima_ ii.\n\nOthers accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine\nbreaking, but without any subject. But this again contradicts our\nsenses; because a quantitative body is seen in this sacrament, which\nformerly was one, and is now divided into many, and this must be the\nsubject of the breaking.\n\nBut it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken. First of\nall, because it is incorruptible and impassible: secondly, because it\nis entire under every part, as was shown above (Q. 76, A. 3), which\nis contrary to the nature of a thing broken.\n\nIt remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of\nthe bread, as in a subject, just as the other accidents. And as the\nsacramental species are the sacrament of Christ's true body, so is\nthe breaking of these species the sacrament of our Lord's Passion,\nwhich was in Christ's true body.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As rarity and density remain under the sacramental\nspecies, as stated above (A. 2, ad 3), so likewise porousness\nremains, and in consequence breakableness.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Hardness results from density; therefore, as density\nremains under the sacramental species, hardness remains there too,\nand the capability of sound as a consequence.\n\nReply Obj. 3: What is eaten under its own species, is also broken and\nmasticated under its own species; but Christ's body is eaten not\nunder its proper, but under the sacramental species. Hence in\nexplaining John 6:64, \"The flesh profiteth nothing,\" Augustine\n(Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says that this is to be taken as referring to\nthose who understood carnally: \"for they understood the flesh, thus,\nas it is divided piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the\nshambles.\" Consequently, Christ's very body is not broken, except\naccording to its sacramental species. And the confession made by\nBerengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and\nthe crushing with the teeth is to be referred to the sacramental\nspecies, under which the body of Christ truly is.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 77, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Any Liquid Can Be Mingled with the Consecrated Wine?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the\nconsecrated wine, because everything mingled with another partakes of\nits quality. But no liquid can share in the quality of the\nsacramental species, because those accidents are without a subject,\nas stated above (A. 1). Therefore it seems that no liquid can be\nmingled with the sacramental species of the wine.\n\nObj. 2: Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those species,\nthen some one thing must be the result. But no one thing can result\nfrom the liquid, which is a substance, and the sacramental species,\nwhich are accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ's blood, which\nowing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease.\nTherefore no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.\n\nObj. 3: Further, if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine,\nthen that also would appear to be consecrated; just as water added to\nholy-water becomes holy. But the consecrated wine is truly Christ's\nblood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be Christ's blood\notherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no\nliquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine.\n\nObj. 4: Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, there is\nno mixture (De Gener. i). But if we mix any liquid, it seems that the\nentire species of the sacramental wine is corrupted, so that the\nblood of Christ ceases to be beneath it; both because great and\nlittle are difference of quantity, and alter it, as white and black\ncause a difference of color; and because the liquid mixed, as having\nno obstacle, seems to permeate the whole, and so Christ's blood\nceases to be there, since it is not there with any other substance.\nConsequently, no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is evident to our senses that another liquid\ncan be mixed with the wine after it is consecrated, just as before.\n\n_I answer that,_ The truth of this question is evident from what has\nbeen said already. For it was said above (A. 3; A. 5, ad 2) that the\nspecies remaining in this sacrament, as they acquire the manner of\nbeing of substance in virtue of the consecration, so likewise do they\nobtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can\ndo or receive whatever their substance could do or receive, were it\nthere present. But it is evident that if the substance of wine were\nthere present, then some other liquid could be mingled with it.\n\nNevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both\naccording to the form and according to the quantity of the liquid.\nFor if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all\nthrough the wine, then the whole would be a mixed substance. Now what\nis made up of things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a\nthird resulting from both: hence it would result that the former wine\nwould remain no longer. But if the liquid added were of another\nspecies, for instance, if water were mixed, the species of the wine\nwould be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of another species.\nBut if liquid of the same species were added, of instance, wine with\nwine, the same species would remain, but the wine would not be the\nsame numerically, as the diversity of the accidents shows: for\ninstance, if one wine were white and the other red.\n\nBut if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could\nnot permeate the whole, the entire wine would not be mixed, but only\npart of it, which would not remain the same numerically owing to the\nblending of extraneous matter: still it would remain the same\nspecifically, not only if a little liquid of the same species were\nmixed with it, but even if it were of another species, since a drop\nof water blended with much wine passes into the species of wine (De\nGener. i).\n\nNow it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this\nsacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same, as\nstated above (A. 4; Q. 76, A. 6, ad 3); because it is this bread and\nthis wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind\nwhatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of\nthe consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result\nwould be something numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will\nremain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so\nslight as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the\nspecies, Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the\nconsecrated wine, yet will remain under the rest.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Pope Innocent III in a Decretal writes thus: \"The very\naccidents appear to affect the wine that is added, because, if water\nis added, it takes the savor of the wine. The result is, then, that\nthe accidents change the subject, just as subject changes accidents;\nfor nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom.\" But\nthis must not be understood as if the same identical accident, which\nwas in the wine previous to consecration, is afterwards in the wine\nthat is added; but such change is the result of action; because the\nremaining accidents of the wine retain the action of substance, as\nstated above, and so they act upon the liquid added, by changing it.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no way\nmixed with the substance of Christ's blood. Nevertheless it is mixed\nwith the sacramental species, yet so that after such mixing the\naforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part, after the way\nmentioned above (A. 5), whereby something can be generated from those\nspecies. And if they be entirely corrupted, there remains no further\nquestion, because the whole will be uniform. But if they be corrupted\nin part, there will be one dimension according to the continuity of\nquantity, but not one according to the mode of being, because one\npart thereof will be without a subject while the other is in a\nsubject; as in a body that is made up of two metals, there will be\none body quantitatively, but not one as to the species of the matter.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid Decretal, \"if\nafter the consecration other wine be put in the chalice, it is not\nchanged into the blood, nor is it mingled with the blood, but, mixed\nwith the accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused throughout\nthe body which underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds\nit.\" Now this is to be understood when there is not sufficient mixing\nof extraneous liquid to cause the blood of Christ to cease to be\nunder the whole; because a thing is said to be \"diffused throughout,\"\nnot because it touches the body of Christ according to its proper\ndimensions, but according to the sacramental dimensions, under which\nit is contained. Now it is not the same with holy water, because the\nblessing works no change in the substance of the water, as the\nconsecration of the wine does.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Some have held that however slight be the mixing of\nextraneous liquid, the substance of Christ's blood ceases to be under\nthe whole, and for the reason given above (Obj. 4); which, however,\nis not a cogent one; because \"more\" or \"less\" diversify dimensive\nquantity, not as to its essence, but as to the determination of its\nmeasure. In like manner the liquid added can be so small as on that\naccount to be hindered from permeating the whole, and not simply by\nthe dimensions; which, although they are present without a subject,\nstill they are opposed to another liquid, just as substance would be\nif it were present, according to what was said at the beginning of\nthe article.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 78\n\nOF THE FORM OF THIS SACRAMENT\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which\nthere are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) What is the form of this sacrament?\n\n(2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate?\n\n(3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate?\n\n(4) Of the power of each form?\n\n(5) Of the truth of the expression?\n\n(6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 1]\n\nWhether This Is the Form of This Sacrament: \"This Is My Body,\" and\n\"This Is the Chalice of My Blood\"?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament:\n\"This is My body,\" and, \"This is the chalice of My blood.\" Because\nthose words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith\nChrist consecrated His body and blood. But Christ first blessed the\nbread which He took, and said afterwards: \"Take ye and eat; this is\nMy body\" (Matt. 26:26). Therefore the whole of this seems to belong\nto the form of this sacrament: and the same reason holds good of the\nwords which go with the consecration of the blood.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep. xxix;\nPseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv) says: \"The invisible Priest changes visible\ncreatures into His own body, saying: 'Take ye and eat; this is My\nbody.'\" Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to the form of\nthis sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to\nthe blood.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his act\nare expressed, when it is said, \"I baptize thee.\" But in the words\nset forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of\nhis act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is not a suitable one.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its\nperfection; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes\nby pronouncing the words of the form only, omitting all the others.\nTherefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament, it\nwould seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by\nuttering those words alone, while leaving out all the others which\nare said in the mass; yet this seems to be false, because, were the\nother words to be passed over, the said words would be taken as\nspoken in the person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread and\nwine are not changed into his body and blood. Consequently, the\naforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): \"The consecration is\naccomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because,\nby all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is\nput up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes\nfor perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own\nwords, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ's words that\nperfect this sacrament.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in\ntwo respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is\naccomplished by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are\nperfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in\nthe other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in\na blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally\na spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated\ninstrument, can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this\nsacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous\nchange of the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the\nminister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the\npronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing,\ntherefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the\nother sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the\nother sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance,\nbaptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely\nthe consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation,\nas when it is said, \"This is My body,\" or, \"This is the chalice of My\nblood.\" Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are\npronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of\nexercising an act, as when it is said, \"I baptize thee,\" or \"I\nconfirm thee,\" etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said in the\nsacrament of order, \"Take the power,\" etc.; or by way of entreaty, as\nwhen in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, \"By this\nanointing and our intercession,\" etc. But the form of this sacrament\nis pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is\ngiven to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting\nthis sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 1: There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said\nthat Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed\nthis sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards\nHe pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate\nthereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the\nsame sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: \"In good sooth it\ncan be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine\npower, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came\nafter were to consecrate.\" But in opposition to this view are the\nwords of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ \"blessed,\" and\nthis blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words\nof Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather\nthan determining the point.\n\nOthers, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other\nwords not known to us. But this statement cannot stand, because the\nblessing of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things\nwhich were then accomplished; hence, if the consecration was not\nperformed then by these words, neither would it be now.\n\nAccordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected\nby the same words as are used now; but that Christ spoke them twice,\nat first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to\ninstruct others. But even this will not hold good, because the priest\nin consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as\nopenly pronounced. Accordingly, since these words have no power\nexcept from Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also\nconsecrated by pronouncing them openly.\n\nAnd therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow\nthe precise order in their narrative as that in which things actually\nhappened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it\nis to be understood that the order of what took place can be\nexpressed thus: \"Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My\nbody, and then He broke it, and gave it to His disciples.\" But the\nsame sense can be had even without changing the words of the Gospel;\nbecause the participle \"saying\" implies sequence of the words uttered\nwith what goes before. And it is not necessary for the sequence to be\nunderstood only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ\nhad just then pronounced those words, when He gave it to His\ndisciples; but the sequence can be understood with regard to all that\nhad gone before; so that the sense is: \"While He was blessing, and\nbreaking, and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, 'Take\nye,'\" etc.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In these words, \"Take ye and eat,\" the use of the\nconsecrated, matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of\nthis sacrament, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 7). And therefore not even\nthese words belong to the substance of the form. Nevertheless,\nbecause the use of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain\nperfection of the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the\nfirst but the second perfection of a thing, consequently, the whole\nperfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it\nwas in this way that Eusebius understood that the sacrament was\naccomplished by those words, as to its first and second perfection.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an\nact regarding the use of the matter, which is of the essence of the\nsacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no\nparallel.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be\naccomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the\nrest, especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is\nfalse can be seen both from Ambrose's words quoted above, as well as\nfrom the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all\nplaces or times, but various portions have been introduced by various\npeople.\n\nAccordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only\nthe aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this\nsacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would\ncause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ,\neven though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The\npriest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament\nthus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church. Nor does\nthe comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of\nnecessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the\nspiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf. Q. 73, A. 3, ad\n1).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 2]\n\nWhether This Is the Proper Form for the Consecration of the Bread:\n\"This Is My Body\"?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form of this\nsacrament: \"This is My body.\" For the effect of a sacrament ought to\nbe expressed in its form. But the effect of the consecration of the\nbread is the change of the substance of the bread into the body of\nChrist, and this is better expressed by the word \"becomes\" than by\n\"is.\" Therefore, in the form of the consecration we ought to say:\n\"This becomes My body.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), \"Christ's words\nconsecrate this sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby\nall things are made. The Lord commanded, and the heavens and earth\nwere made.\" Therefore, it would be a more proper form of this\nsacrament if the imperative mood were employed, so as to say: \"Be\nthis My body.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, that which is changed is implied in the subject of\nthis phrase, just as the term of the change is implied in the\npredicate. But just as that into which the change is made is\nsomething determinate, for the change is into nothing else but the\nbody of Christ, so also that which is converted is determinate, since\nonly bread is converted into the body of Christ. Therefore, as a noun\nis inserted on the part of the predicate, so also should a noun be\ninserted in the subject, so that it be said: \"This bread is My body.\"\n\nObj. 4: Further, just as the term of the change is determinate in\nnature, because it is a body, so also is it determinate in person.\nConsequently, in order to determine the person, it ought to be said:\n\"This is the body of Christ.\"\n\nObj. 5: Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what\nis substantial to it. Consequently, the conjunction \"for\" is\nimproperly added in some books, since it does not belong to the\nsubstance of the form.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is\nevident from Matt. 26:26.\n\n_I answer that,_ This is the proper form for the consecration of the\nbread. For it was said (A. 1) that this consecration consists in\nchanging the substance of bread into the body of Christ. Now the form\nof a sacrament ought to denote what is done in the sacrament.\nConsequently the form for the consecration of the bread ought to\nsignify the actual conversion of the bread into the body of Christ.\nAnd herein are three things to be considered: namely, the actual\nconversion, the term _whence,_ and the term _whereunto._\n\nNow the conversion can be considered in two ways: first, in\n_becoming,_ secondly, in _being._ But the conversion ought not to be\nsignified in this form as in _becoming,_ but as in _being._ First,\nbecause such conversion is not successive, as was said above (Q. 75,\nA. 7), but instantaneous; and in such changes the _becoming_ is\nnothing else than the _being._ Secondly, because the sacramental\nforms bear the same relation to the signification of the sacramental\neffect as artificial forms to the representation of the effect of\nart. Now an artificial form is the likeness of the ultimate effect,\non which the artist's intention is fixed; just as the art-form in the\nbuilder's mind is principally the form of the house constructed, and\nsecondarily of the constructing. Accordingly, in this form also the\nconversion ought to be expressed as in _being,_ to which the\nintention is referred.\n\nAnd since the conversion is expressed in this form as in _being,_ it\nis necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be signified as\nthey exist in the fact of conversion. But then the term _whereunto_\nhas the proper nature of its own substance; whereas the term _whence_\ndoes not remain in its own substance, but only as to the accidents\nwhereby it comes under the senses, and can be determined in relation\nto the senses. Hence the term _whence_ of the conversion is\nconveniently expressed by the demonstrative pronoun, relative to the\nsensible accidents which continue; but the term _whereunto_ is\nexpressed by the noun signifying the nature of the thing which\nterminates the conversion, and this is Christ's entire body, and not\nmerely His flesh; as was said above (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 2). Hence this\nform is most appropriate: \"This is My body.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The ultimate effect of this conversion is not a\n_becoming_ but a _being,_ as stated above, and consequently\nprominence should be given to this in the form.\n\nReply Obj. 2: God's word operated in the creation of things, and it\nis the same which operates in this consecration, yet each in\ndifferent fashion: because here it operates effectively and\nsacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. And\nconsequently the last effect of the consecration must needs be\nsignified in this sentence by a substantive verb of the indicative\nmood and present time. But in the creation of things it worked merely\neffectively, and such efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom;\nand therefore in the creation of things the Lord's word is expressed\nby a verb in the imperative mood, as in Gen. 1:3: \"Let there be\nlight, and light was made.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The term _whence_ does not retain the nature of its\nsubstance in the _being_ of the conversion, as the term _whereunto_\ndoes. Therefore there is no parallel.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The pronoun \"My,\" which implicitly points to the chief\nperson, i.e. the person of the speaker, sufficiently indicates\nChrist's person, in Whose person these words are uttered, as stated\nabove (A. 1).\n\nReply Obj. 5: The conjunction \"for\" is set in this form according to\nthe custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from Peter the\nApostle; and this on account of the sequence with the words\npreceding: and therefore it is not part of the form, just as the\nwords preceding the form are not.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 3]\n\nWhether This Is the Proper Form for the Consecration of the Wine:\n\"This Is the Chalice of My Blood,\" Etc.?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form for the\nconsecration of the wine. \"This is the chalice of My blood, of the\nNew and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed\nfor you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.\" For as the bread\nis changed by the power of consecration into Christ's body, so is the\nwine changed into Christ's blood, as is clear from what was said\nabove (Q. 76, AA. 1, 2, 3). But in the form of the consecration of\nthe bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any\naddition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly\nexpressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative,\nwhen it is said: \"This is the chalice of My blood.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread\nare not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the\nwine, since both are Christ's words. But directly the words are\nspoken--\"This is My body,\" there is perfect consecration of the\nbread. Therefore, directly these other words are uttered--\"This is\nthe chalice of My blood,\" there is perfect consecration of the blood;\nand so the words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance of\nthe form, especially since they refer to the properties of this\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal\ninspiration, as is evident from the Apostle quoting the words of\nJeremias (31:31): \"I will perfect unto the house of Israel a New\nTestament . . . I will give My laws into their mind\" (Heb. 8:8). But\na sacrament is an outward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the\nsacrament the words \"of the New Testament\" are improperly added.\n\nObj. 4: Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the\nbeginning of its existence. But what is eternal has no beginning of\nits existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say \"of the New and\nEternal,\" because it seems to savor of a contradiction.\n\nObj. 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men,\naccording to Isa. 57:14: \"Take away the stumbling blocks out of the\nway of My people.\" But some have fallen into error in thinking that\nChrist's body and blood are only mystically present in this\nsacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add \"the mystery of faith.\"\n\nObj. 6: Further, it was said above (Q. 73, A. 3, ad 3), that as\nBaptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament\nof charity. Consequently, in this form the word \"charity\" ought\nrather to be used than \"faith.\"\n\nObj. 7: Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and\nblood, is a memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to 1 Cor.\n11:26: \"As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice,\nyou shall show the death of the Lord.\" Consequently, mention ought to\nbe made of Christ's Passion and its fruit rather in the form of the\nconsecration of the blood, than in the form of the consecration of\nthe body, especially since our Lord said: \"This is My body, which\nshall be delivered up for you\" (Luke 22:19).\n\nObj. 8: Further, as was already observed (Q. 48, A. 2; Q. 49, A. 3),\nChrist's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was\nprofitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: \"Which shall be\nshed for all,\" or else \"for many,\" without adding, \"for you.\"\n\nObjection 9: Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated\ndraw their efficacy from Christ's institution. But no Evangelist\nnarrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an\nappropriate form for the consecration of the wine.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this\nform.\n\n_I answer that,_ There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some\nhave maintained that the words \"This is the chalice of My blood\"\nalone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which\nfollow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them\nare determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood.\nconsequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.\n\nAnd on this account others say more accurately that all the words\nwhich follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, \"As\noften as ye shall do this,\" which belong to the use of this\nsacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the\nform. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under\nthe same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands.\nMoreover, in Luke 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with\nthe preceding words: \"This is the chalice, the new testament in My\nblood.\"\n\nConsequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to\nthe substance of the form; but that by the first words, \"This is the\nchalice of My blood,\" the change of the wine into blood is denoted,\nas explained above (A. 2) in the form for the consecration of the\nbread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the\nblood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and\nis ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing\nour eternal heritage, according to Heb. 10:19: \"Having confidence in\nthe entering into the holies by the blood of Christ\"; and in order to\ndenote this, we say, \"of the New and Eternal Testament.\" Secondly,\nfor justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Rom. 3:25,\n26: \"Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in\nHis blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him\nwho is of the faith of Jesus Christ\": and on this account we add,\n\"The Mystery of Faith.\" Thirdly, for removing sins which are the\nimpediments to both of these things, according to Heb. 9:14: \"The\nblood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works,\"\nthat is, from sins; and on this account, we say, \"which shall be shed\nfor you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The expression \"This is the chalice of My blood\" is a\nfigure of speech, which can be understood in two ways. First, as a\nfigure of metonymy; because the container is put for the contained,\nso that the meaning is: \"This is My blood contained in the chalice\";\nof which mention is now made, because Christ's blood is consecrated\nin this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful, which\nis not implied under the notion of blood; consequently this had to be\ndenoted by the vessel adapted for such usage.\n\nSecondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ's\nPassion is understood by the chalice by way of comparison, because,\nlike a cup, it inebriates, according to Lam. 3:15: \"He hath filled me\nwith bitterness, he hath inebriated me with wormwood\": hence our Lord\nHimself spoke of His Passion as a chalice, when He said (Matt.\n26:39): \"Let this chalice pass away from Me\": so that the meaning is:\n\"This is the chalice of My Passion.\" This is denoted by the blood\nbeing consecrated apart from the body; because it was by the Passion\nthat the blood was separated from the body.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As was said above (ad 1; Q. 76, A. 2, ad 1), the blood\nconsecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and\ntherefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the\nconsecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the\nbody is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our\nLord's saying, \"which shall be delivered up for you,\" as if to say,\n\"which shall undergo the Passion for you.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But God\ndisposed of a heavenly heritage to men, to be bestowed through the\nvirtue of the blood of Jesus Christ; because, according to Heb. 9:16:\n\"Where there is a testament the death of the testator must of\nnecessity come in.\" Now Christ's blood was exhibited to men in two\nways. First of all in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament;\nconsequently the Apostle concludes (Heb. 9:16): \"Whereupon neither\nwas the first indeed dedicated without blood,\" which is evident from\nthis, that as related in Ex. 24:7, 8, \"when every\" commandment of the\nlaw \"had been read\" by Moses, \"he sprinkled all the people\" saying:\n\"This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto\nyou.\"\n\nSecondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New\nTestament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says (Rom.\n9:15): \"Therefore He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by\nmeans of His death . . . they that are called may receive the promise\nof eternal inheritance.\" Consequently, we say here, \"The blood of the\nNew Testament,\" because it is shown now not in figure but in truth;\nand therefore we add, \"which shall be shed for you.\" But the internal\ninspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, according as\nwe are justified by Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 4: This Testament is a \"new one\" by reason of its showing\nforth: yet it is called \"eternal\" both on account of God's eternal\npre-ordination, as well as on account of the eternal heritage which\nis prepared by this testament. Moreover, Christ's Person is eternal,\nin Whose blood this testament is appointed.\n\nReply Obj. 5: The word \"mystery\" is inserted, not in order to exclude\nreality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ's\nblood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was\ndimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.\n\nReply Obj. 6: It is called the \"Sacrament of Faith,\" as being an\nobject of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of\nChrist's blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ's Passion justifies\nby faith. Baptism is called the \"Sacrament of Faith\" because it is a\nprofession of faith. This is called the \"Sacrament of Charity,\" as\nbeing figurative and effective thereof.\n\nReply Obj. 7: As stated above (ad 2), the blood consecrated apart\nrepresents Christ's blood more expressively; and therefore mention is\nmade of Christ's Passion and its fruits, in the consecration of the\nblood rather than in that of the body.\n\nReply Obj. 8: The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not\nmerely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old\nTestament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in\npriests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who\npartake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And\ntherefore He says expressly, \"for you,\" the Jews, \"and for many,\"\nnamely the Gentiles; or, \"for you\" who eat of it, and \"for many,\" for\nwhom it is offered.\n\nReply Obj. 9: The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms\nof the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept\nconcealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the\necclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of\nChrist. Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from\nvarious passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, \"This is the\nchalice,\" are found in Luke 22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew\nsays in chapter 26:28: \"This is My blood of the New Testament, which\nshall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.\" The words added,\nnamely, \"eternal\" and \"mystery of faith,\" were handed down to the\nChurch by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to\n1 Cor. 11:23: \"I have received of the Lord that which also I\ndelivered unto you.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 4]\n\nWhether in the Aforesaid Words of the Forms There Be Any Created\nPower Which Causes the Consecration?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there\nis no created power which causes the consecration. Because Damascene\nsays (De Fide Orth. iv): \"The change of the bread into Christ's body\nis caused solely by the power of the Holy Ghost.\" But the power of\nthe Holy Ghost is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused\nby any created power of those words.\n\nObj. 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created\npower, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the First Part\n(Q. 110, A. 4). But the change of the bread and wine into Christ's\nbody and blood is a work not less miraculous than the creation of\nthings, or than the formation of Christ's body in the womb of a\nvirgin: which things could not be done by any created power.\nTherefore, neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created power\nof the aforesaid words.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of\nmany; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively. But, as\nstated above (Q. 75, A. 7), this change is wrought instantaneously.\nHence it must be done by a simple power. Therefore it is not effected\nby the power of those words.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): \"If there be such\nmight in the word of the Lord Jesus that things non-existent came\ninto being, how much more efficacious is it to make things existing\nto continue, and to be changed into something else? And so, what was\nbread before consecration is now the body of Christ after\nconsecration, because Christ's word changes a creature into something\ndifferent.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have maintained that neither in the above words\nis there any created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in\nthe other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments\nthemselves, for producing the sacramental effects. This, as was shown\nabove (Q. 62, A. 1), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints,\nand detracts from the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law.\nHence, since this sacrament is of greater worth than the others, as\nstated above (Q. 65, A. 3), the result is that there is in the words\nof the form of this sacrament a created power which causes the change\nto be wrought in it: instrumental, however, as in the other\nsacraments, as stated above (Q. 62, AA. 3, 4). For since these words\nare uttered in the person of Christ, it is from His command that they\nreceive their instrumental power from Him, just as His other deeds\nand sayings derive their salutary power instrumentally, as was\nobserved above (Q. 48, A. 6; Q. 56, A. 1, ad 3).\n\nReply Obj. 1: When the bread is said to be changed into Christ's body\nsolely by the power of the Holy Ghost, the instrumental power which\nlies in the form of this sacrament is not excluded: just as when we\nsay that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the power of\nthe hammer.\n\nReply Obj. 2: No creature can work miracles as the chief agent. Yet\nit can do so instrumentally, just as the touch of Christ's hand\nhealed the leper. And in this fashion Christ's words change the bread\ninto His body. But in Christ's conception, whereby His body was\nfashioned, it was impossible for anything derived from His body to\nhave the instrumental power of forming that very body. Likewise in\ncreation there was no term wherein the instrumental action of a\ncreature could be received. Consequently there is no comparison.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The aforesaid words, which work the consecration,\noperate sacramentally. Consequently, the converting power latent\nunder the forms of these sacraments follows the meaning, which is\nterminated in the uttering of the last word. And therefore the\naforesaid words have this power in the last instant of their being\nuttered, taken in conjunction with those uttered before. And this\npower is simple by reason of the thing signified, although there be\ncomposition in the words uttered outwardly.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Aforesaid Expressions Are True?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true.\nBecause when we say: \"This is My body,\" the word \"this\" designates a\nsubstance. But according to what was said above (AA. 1, 4, ad 3; Q.\n75, AA. 2, 7), when the pronoun \"this\" is spoken, the substance of\nthe bread is still there, because the transubstantiation takes place\nin the last instant of pronouncing the words. But it is false to say:\n\"Bread is Christ's body.\" Consequently this expression, \"This is My\nbody,\" is false.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the pronoun \"this\" appeals to the senses. But the\nsensible species in this sacrament are neither Christ's body nor even\nits accidents. Therefore this expression, \"This is My body,\" cannot\nbe true.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as was observed above (A. 4, ad 3), these words, by\ntheir signification, effect the change of the bread into the body of\nChrist. But an effective cause is understood as preceding its effect.\nTherefore the meaning of these words is understood as preceding the\nchange of the bread into the body of Christ. But previous to the\nchange this expression, \"This is My body,\" is false. Therefore the\nexpression is to be judged as false simply; and the same reason holds\ngood of the other phrase: \"This is the chalice of My blood,\" etc.\n\n_On the contrary,_ These words are pronounced in the person of\nChrist, Who says of Himself (John 14:6): \"I am the truth.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There have been many opinions on this point. Some\nhave said that in this expression, \"This is My body,\" the word \"this\"\nimplies demonstration as conceived, and not as exercised, because the\nwhole phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by a way of\nnarration: for the priest relates that Christ said: \"This is My body.\"\n\nBut such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would not\nbe applied to the corporeal matter present, and consequently the\nsacrament would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in\nJoan.): \"The word is added to the element, and this becomes a\nsacrament.\" Moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty\nwhich this question presents: for there is still the objection in\nregard to the first uttering of these words by Christ; since it is\nevident that then they were employed, not materially, but\nsignificatively. And therefore it must be said that even when spoken\nby the priest they are taken significatively, and not merely\nmaterially. Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way\nof recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because owing to\nChrist's infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the\nregenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into\ncontact with Christ, but into all waters throughout the whole world\nand during all future ages, so likewise from Christ's uttering these\nwords they derived their consecrating power, by whatever priest they\nbe uttered, as if Christ present were saying them.\n\nAnd therefore others have said that in this phrase the word \"this\"\nappeals, not to the senses, but to the intellect; so that the meaning\nis, \"This is My body\"--i.e. \"The thing signified by 'this' is My\nbody.\" But neither can this stand, because, since in the sacraments\nthe effect is that which is signified, from such a form it would not\nresult that Christ's body was in very truth in this sacrament, but\nmerely as in a sign, which is heretical, as stated above (Q. 85, A.\n1).\n\nConsequently, others have said that the word \"this\" appeals to the\nsenses; not at the precise instant of its being uttered, but merely\nat the last instant thereof; as when a man says, \"Now I am silent,\"\nthis adverb \"now\" points to the instant immediately following the\nspeech: because the sense is: \"Directly these words are spoken I am\nsilent.\" But neither can this hold good, because in that case the\nmeaning of the sentence would be: \"My body is My body,\" which the\nabove phrase does not effect, because this was so even before the\nutterance of the words: hence neither does the aforesaid sentence\nmean this.\n\nConsequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above (A. 4),\nthat this sentence possesses the power of effecting the conversion of\nthe bread into the body of Christ. And therefore it is compared to\nother sentences, which have power only of signifying and not of\nproducing, as the concept of the practical intellect, which is\nproductive of the thing, is compared to the concept of our\nspeculative intellect which is drawn from things, because \"words are\nsigns of concepts,\" as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i). And\ntherefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not\npresuppose the thing understood, but makes it, so the truth of this\nexpression does not presuppose the thing signified, but makes it; for\nsuch is the relation of God's word to the things made by the Word.\nNow this change takes place not successively, but in an instant, as\nstated above (Q. 77, A. 7). Consequently one must understand the\naforesaid expression with reference to the last instant of the words\nbeing spoken, yet not so that the subject may be understood to have\nstood for that which is the term of the conversion; viz. that the\nbody of Christ is the body of Christ; nor again that the subject be\nunderstood to stand for that which it was before the conversion,\nnamely, the bread, but for that which is commonly related to both,\ni.e. that which is contained in general under those species. For\nthese words do not make the body of Christ to be the body of Christ,\nnor do they make the bread to be the body of Christ; but what was\ncontained under those species, and was formerly bread, they make to\nbe the body of Christ. And therefore expressly our Lord did not say:\n\"This bread is My body,\" which would be the meaning of the second\nopinion; nor \"This My body is My body,\" which would be the meaning of\nthe third opinion: but in general: \"This is My body,\" assigning no\nnoun on the part of the subject, but only a pronoun, which signifies\nsubstance in common, without quality, that is, without a determinate\nform.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The term \"this\" points to a substance, yet without\ndetermining its proper nature, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The pronoun \"this\" does not indicate the accidents, but\nthe substance underlying the accidents, which at first was bread, and\nis afterwards the body of Christ, which body, although not informed\nby those accidents, is yet contained under them.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The meaning of this expression is, in the order of\nnature, understood before the thing signified, just as a cause is\nnaturally prior to the effect; but not in order of time, because this\ncause has its effect with it at the same time, and this suffices for\nthe truth of the expression.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Form of the Consecration of the Bread Accomplishes Its\nEffect Before the Form of the Consecration of the Wine Be Completed?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread\ndoes not accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration of\nthe wine be completed. For, as Christ's body begins to be in this\nsacrament by the consecration of the bread, so does His blood come to\nbe there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for\nconsecrating the bread were to produce their effect before the\nconsecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ's body would be\npresent in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper.\n\nObj. 2: Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although\nthere be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does\nnot produce its effect until the third be completed. But all this\nsacrament is one, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 2). Therefore the words\nwhereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their effect\nwithout the sacramental words whereby the wine is consecrated.\n\nObj. 3: Further, there are several words in the form for consecrating\nthe bread, the first of which do not secure their effect until the\nlast be uttered, as stated above (A. 4, ad 3). Therefore, for the\nsame reason, neither do the words for the consecration of Christ's\nbody produce their effect, until the words for consecrating Christ's\nblood are spoken.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Directly the words are uttered for consecrating\nthe bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored,\nwhich would not be done if Christ's body were not there, for that\nwould be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words of the\nbread produce their effect before the words are spoken for\nconsecrating the wine.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some of the earlier doctors said that these two\nforms, namely, for consecrating the bread and the wine, await each\nother's action, so that the first does not produce its effect until\nthe second be uttered.\n\nBut this cannot stand, because, as stated above (A. 5, ad 3), for the\ntruth of this phrase, \"This is My body,\" wherein the verb is in the\npresent tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present\nsimultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used;\notherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a\nverb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the\npresent tense, so that we should not say, \"This is My body,\" but\n\"This will be My body.\" But the signification of this speech is\ncomplete directly those words are spoken. And therefore the thing\nsignified must be present instantaneously, and such is the effect of\nthis sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech. Moreover,\nthis opinion is against the rite of the Church, which forthwith\nadores the body of Christ after the words are uttered.\n\nHence it must be said that the first form does not await the second\nin its action, but has its effect on the instant.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It is on this account that they who maintained the\nabove opinion seem to have erred. Hence it must be understood that\ndirectly the consecration of the bread is complete, the body of\nChrist is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood\nby real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine,\nconversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power of the\nsacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire\nChrist is under either species, as stated above (Q. 76, A. 2).\n\nReply Obj. 2: This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above\n(Q. 73, A. 2), namely, inasmuch as it is made up of two things, that\nis, of food and drink, each of which of itself has its own\nperfection; but the three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one\nsimple effect, and therefore there is no resemblance.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The various words in the form for consecrating the\nbread constitute the truth of one speech, but the words of the\ndifferent forms do not, and consequently there is no parallel.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 79\n\nOF THE EFFECTS OF THIS SACRAMENT\n(In Eight Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the effects of this sacrament, and under this\nhead there are eight points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether this sacrament bestows grace?\n\n(2) Whether the attaining of glory is an effect of this sacrament?\n\n(3) Whether the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect of this\nsacrament?\n\n(4) Whether venial sin is forgiven by this sacrament?\n\n(5) Whether the entire punishment due for sin is forgiven by this\nsacrament?\n\n(6) Whether this sacrament preserves man from future sins?\n\n(7) Whether this sacrament benefits others besides the recipients?\n\n(8) Of the obstacles to the effect of this sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Grace Is Bestowed Through This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that grace is not bestowed through this\nsacrament. For this sacrament is spiritual nourishment. But\nnourishment is only given to the living. Therefore since the\nspiritual life is the effect of grace, this sacrament belongs only to\none in the state of grace. Therefore grace is not bestowed through\nthis sacrament for it to be had in the first instance. In like manner\nneither is it given so as grace may be increased, because spiritual\ngrowth belongs to the sacrament of Confirmation, as stated above (Q.\n72, A. 1). Consequently, grace is not bestowed through this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, this sacrament is given as a spiritual refreshment.\nBut spiritual refreshment seems to belong to the use of grace rather\nthan to its bestowal. Therefore it seems that grace is not given\nthrough this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as was said above (Q. 74, A. 1), \"Christ's body is\noffered up in this sacrament for the salvation of the body, and His\nblood for that of the soul.\" Now it is not the body which is the\nsubject of grace, but the soul, as was shown in the Second Part\n(I-II, Q. 110, A. 4). Therefore grace is not bestowed through this\nsacrament, at least so far as the body is concerned.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Our Lord says (John 6:52): \"The bread which I will\ngive, is My flesh for the life of the world.\" But the spiritual life\nis the effect of grace. Therefore grace is bestowed through this\nsacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ The effect of this sacrament ought to be considered,\nfirst of all and principally, from what is contained in this\nsacrament, which is Christ; Who, just as by coming into the world, He\nvisibly bestowed the life of grace upon the world, according to John\n1:17: \"Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,\" so also, by coming\nsacramentally into man causes the life of grace, according to John\n6:58: \"He that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me.\" Hence\nCyril says on Luke 22:19: \"God's life-giving Word by uniting Himself\nwith His own flesh, made it to be productive of life. For it was\nbecoming that He should be united somehow with bodies through His\nsacred flesh and precious blood, which we receive in a life-giving\nblessing in the bread and wine.\"\n\nSecondly, it is considered on the part of what is represented by this\nsacrament, which is Christ's Passion, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 1;\nQ. 76, A. 2, ad 1). And therefore this sacrament works in man the\neffect which Christ's Passion wrought in the world. Hence, Chrysostom\nsays on the words, \"Immediately there came out blood and water\" (John\n19:34): \"Since the sacred mysteries derive their origin from thence,\nwhen you draw nigh to the awe-inspiring chalice, so approach as if\nyou were going to drink from Christ's own side.\" Hence our Lord\nHimself says (Matt. 26:28): \"This is My blood . . . which shall be\nshed for many unto the remission of sins.\"\n\nThirdly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the way in\nwhich this sacrament is given; for it is given by way of food and\ndrink. And therefore this sacrament does for the spiritual life all\nthat material food does for the bodily life, namely, by sustaining,\ngiving increase, restoring, and giving delight. Accordingly, Ambrose\nsays (De Sacram. v): \"This is the bread of everlasting life, which\nsupports the substance of our soul.\" And Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi\nin Joan.): \"When we desire it, He lets us feel Him, and eat Him, and\nembrace Him.\" And hence our Lord says (John 6:56): \"My flesh is meat\nindeed, and My blood is drink indeed.\"\n\nFourthly, the effect of this sacrament is considered from the species\nunder which it is given. Hence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.):\n\"Our Lord betokened His body and blood in things which out of many\nunits are made into some one whole: for out of many grains is one\nthing made,\" viz. bread; \"and many grapes flow into one thing,\" viz.\nwine. And therefore he observes elsewhere (Tract. xxvi in Joan.): \"O\nsacrament of piety, O sign of unity, O bond of charity!\"\n\nAnd since Christ and His Passion are the cause of grace, and since\nspiritual refreshment, and charity cannot be without grace, it is\nclear from all that has been set forth that this sacrament bestows\ngrace.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This sacrament has of itself the power of bestowing\ngrace; nor does anyone possess grace before receiving this sacrament\nexcept from some desire thereof; from his own desire, as in the case\nof the adult, or from the Church's desire in the case of children, as\nstated above (Q. 73, A. 3). Hence it is due to the efficacy of its\npower, that even from desire thereof a man procures grace whereby he\nis enabled to lead the spiritual life. It remains, then, that when\nthe sacrament itself is really received, grace is increased, and the\nspiritual life perfected: yet in different fashion from the sacrament\nof Confirmation, in which grace is increased and perfected for\nresisting the outward assaults of Christ's enemies. But by this\nsacrament grace receives increase, and the spiritual life is\nperfected, so that man may stand perfect in himself by union with God.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This sacrament confers grace spiritually together with\nthe virtue of charity. Hence Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) compares\nthis sacrament to the burning coal which Isaias saw (Isa. 6:6): \"For\na live ember is not simply wood, but wood united to fire; so also the\nbread of communion is not simple bread but bread united with the\nGodhead.\" But as Gregory observes in a Homily for Pentecost, \"God's\nlove is never idle; for, wherever it is it does great works.\" And\nconsequently through this sacrament, as far as its power is\nconcerned, not only is the habit of grace and of virtue bestowed, but\nit is furthermore aroused to act, according to 2 Cor. 5:14: \"The\ncharity of Christ presseth us.\" Hence it is that the soul is\nspiritually nourished through the power of this sacrament, by being\nspiritually gladdened, and as it were inebriated with the sweetness\nof the Divine goodness, according to Cant 5:1: \"Eat, O friends, and\ndrink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Because the sacraments operate according to the\nsimilitude by which they signify, therefore by way of assimilation it\nis said that in this sacrament \"the body is offered for the salvation\nof the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul,\" although\neach works for the salvation of both, since the entire Christ is\nunder each, as stated above (Q. 76, A. 2). And although the body is\nnot the immediate subject of grace, still the effect of grace flows\ninto the body while in the present life we present \"our [Vulg.:\n'your'] members\" as \"instruments of justice unto God\" (Rom. 6:13),\nand in the life to come our body will share in the incorruption and\nthe glory of the soul.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Attaining of Glory Is an Effect of This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the attaining of glory is not an effect of\nthis sacrament. For an effect is proportioned to its cause. But this\nsacrament belongs to \"wayfarers\" (_viatoribus_), and hence it is\ntermed \"Viaticum.\" Since, then, wayfarers are not yet capable of\nglory, it seems that this sacrament does not cause the attaining of\nglory.\n\nObj. 2: Further, given sufficient cause, the effect follows. But many\ntake this sacrament who will never come to glory, as Augustine\ndeclares (De Civ. Dei xxi). Consequently, this sacrament is not the\ncause of attaining unto glory.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the greater is not brought about by the lesser, for\nnothing acts outside its species. But it is the lesser thing to\nreceive Christ under a strange species, which happens in this\nsacrament, than to enjoy Him in His own species, which belongs to\nglory. Therefore this sacrament does not cause the attaining of glory.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 6:52): \"If any man eat of this\nbread, he shall live for ever.\" But eternal life is the life of\nglory. Therefore the attaining of glory is an effect of this\nsacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ In this sacrament we may consider both that from\nwhich it derives its effect, namely, Christ contained in it, as also\nHis Passion represented by it; and that through which it works its\neffect, namely, the use of the sacrament, and its species.\n\nNow as to both of these it belongs to this sacrament to cause the\nattaining of eternal life. Because it was by His Passion that Christ\nopened to us the approach to eternal life, according to Heb. 9:15:\n\"He is the Mediator of the New Testament; that by means of His death\n. . . they that are called may receive the promise of eternal\ninheritance.\" Accordingly in the form of this sacrament it is said:\n\"This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament.\"\n\nIn like manner the refreshment of spiritual food and the unity\ndenoted by the species of the bread and wine are to be had in the\npresent life, although imperfectly, but perfectly in the state of\nglory. Hence Augustine says on the words, \"My flesh is meat indeed\"\n(John 6:56): \"Seeing that in meat and drink, men aim at this, that\nthey hunger not nor thirst, this verily nought doth afford save only\nthis meat and drink which maketh them who partake thereof to be\nimmortal and incorruptible, in the fellowship of the saints, where\nshall be peace, and unity, full and perfect.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Christ's Passion, in virtue whereof this sacrament\nis accomplished, is indeed the sufficient cause of glory, yet not so\nthat we are thereby forthwith admitted to glory, but we must first\n\"suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified\" afterwards\n\"with Him\" (Rom. 8:17), so this sacrament does not at once admit us\nto glory, but bestows on us the power of coming unto glory. And\ntherefore it is called \"Viaticum,\" a figure whereof we read in 3\nKings 19:8: \"Elias ate and drank, and walked in the strength of that\nfood forty days and forty nights unto the mount of God, Horeb.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Just as Christ's Passion has not its effect in them who\nare not disposed towards it as they should be, so also they do not\ncome to glory through this sacrament who receive it unworthily. Hence\nAugustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), expounding the same passage,\nobserves: \"The sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament\nanother. Many receive it from the altar . . . and by receiving\" . . .\ndie . . . Eat, then, spiritually the heavenly \"bread, bring innocence\nto the altar.\" It is no wonder, then, if those who do not keep\ninnocence, do not secure the effect of this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: That Christ is received under another species belongs\nto the nature of a sacrament, which acts instrumentally. But there is\nnothing to prevent an instrumental cause from producing a more mighty\neffect, as is evident from what was said above (Q. 77, A. 3, ad 3).\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Forgiveness of Mortal Sin Is an Effect of This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the forgiveness of mortal sin is an effect\nof this sacrament. For it is said in one of the Collects\n(Postcommunion, Pro vivis et defunctis): \"May this sacrament be a\ncleansing from crimes.\" But mortal sins are called crimes. Therefore\nmortal sins are blotted out by this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, this sacrament, like Baptism, works by the power of\nChrist's Passion. But mortal sins are forgiven by Baptism, as stated\nabove (Q. 69, A. 1). Therefore they are forgiven likewise by this\nsacrament, especially since in the form of this sacrament it is said:\n\"Which shall be shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, grace is bestowed through this sacrament, as stated\nabove (A. 1). But by grace a man is justified from mortal sins,\naccording to Rom. 3:24: \"Being justified freely by His grace.\"\nTherefore mortal sins are forgiven by this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (1 Cor. 11:29): \"He that eateth and\ndrinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself\": and a\ngloss of the same passage makes the following commentary: \"He eats\nand drinks unworthily who is in the state of sin, or who handles (the\nsacrament) irreverently; and such a one eats and drinks judgment,\ni.e. damnation, unto himself.\" Therefore, he that is in mortal sin,\nby taking the sacrament heaps sin upon sin, rather than obtains\nforgiveness of his sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ The power of this sacrament can be considered in two\nways. First of all, in itself: and thus this sacrament has from\nChrist's Passion the power of forgiving all sins, since the Passion\nis the fount and cause of the forgiveness of sins.\n\nSecondly, it can be considered in comparison with the recipient of\nthe sacrament, in so far as there is, or is not, found in him an\nobstacle to receiving the fruit of this sacrament. Now whoever is\nconscious of mortal sin, has within him an obstacle to receiving the\neffect of this sacrament; since he is not a proper recipient of this\nsacrament, both because he is not alive spiritually, and so he ought\nnot to eat the spiritual nourishment, since nourishment is confined\nto the living; and because he cannot be united with Christ, which is\nthe effect of this sacrament, as long as he retains an attachment\ntowards mortal sin. Consequently, as is said in the book _De Eccles.\nDogm.:_ \"If the soul leans towards sin, it is burdened rather than\npurified from partaking of the Eucharist.\" Hence, in him who is\nconscious of mortal sin, this sacrament does not cause the\nforgiveness of sin.\n\nNevertheless this sacrament can effect the forgiveness of sin in two\nways. First of all, by being received, not actually, but in desire;\nas when a man is first justified from sin. Secondly, when received by\none in mortal sin of which he is not conscious, and for which he has\nno attachment; since possibly he was not sufficiently contrite at\nfirst, but by approaching this sacrament devoutly and reverently he\nobtains the grace of charity, which will perfect his contrition and\nbring forgiveness of sin.\n\nReply Obj. 1: We ask that this sacrament may be the \"cleansing of\ncrimes,\" or of those sins of which we are unconscious, according to\nPs. 18:13: \"Lord, cleanse me from my hidden sins\"; or that our\ncontrition may be perfected for the forgiveness of our sins; or that\nstrength be bestowed on us to avoid sin.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Baptism is spiritual generation, which is a transition\nfrom spiritual non-being into spiritual being, and is given by way of\nablution. Consequently, in both respects he who is conscious of\nmortal sin does not improperly approach Baptism. But in this\nsacrament man receives Christ within himself by way of spiritual\nnourishment, which is unbecoming to one that lies dead in his sins.\nTherefore the comparison does not hold good.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Grace is the sufficient cause of the forgiveness of\nmortal sin; yet it does not forgive sin except when it is first\nbestowed on the sinner. But it is not given so in this sacrament.\nHence the argument does not prove.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Venial Sins Are Forgiven Through This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this\nsacrament, because this is the \"sacrament of charity,\" as Augustine\nsays (Tract. xxvi in Joan.). But venial sins are not contrary to\ncharity, as was shown in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 88, AA. 1, 2;\nII-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Therefore, since contrary is taken away by its\ncontrary, it seems that venial sins are not forgiven by this\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, if venial sins be forgiven by this sacrament, then\nall of them are forgiven for the same reason as one is. But it does\nnot appear that all are forgiven, because thus one might frequently\nbe without any venial sin, against what is said in 1 John 1:8: \"If we\nsay that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.\" Therefore no venial\nsin is forgiven by this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, contraries mutually exclude each other. But venial\nsins do not forbid the receiving of this sacrament: because Augustine\nsays on the words, \"If any man eat of it he shall [Vulg.: 'may'] not\ndie for ever\" (John 6:50): \"Bring innocence to the altar: your sins,\nthough they be daily . . . let them not be deadly.\" Therefore neither\nare venial sins taken away by this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Innocent III says (De S. Alt. Myst. iv) that this\nsacrament \"blots out venial sins, and wards off mortal sins.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered in this sacrament, to\nwit, the sacrament itself, and the reality of the sacrament: and it\nappears from both that this sacrament has the power of forgiving\nvenial sins. For this sacrament is received under the form of\nnourishing food. Now nourishment from food is requisite for the body\nto make good the daily waste caused by the action of natural heat.\nBut something is also lost daily of our spirituality from the heat of\nconcupiscence through venial sins, which lessen the fervor of\ncharity, as was shown in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). And\ntherefore it belongs to this sacrament to forgive venial sins. Hence\nAmbrose says (De Sacram. v) that this daily bread is taken \"as a\nremedy against daily infirmity.\"\n\nThe reality of this sacrament is charity, not only as to its habit,\nbut also as to its act, which is kindled in this sacrament; and by\nthis means venial sins are forgiven. Consequently, it is manifest\nthat venial sins are forgiven by the power of this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Venial sins, although not opposed to the habit of\ncharity, are nevertheless opposed to the fervor of its act, which act\nis kindled by this sacrament; by reason of which act venial sins are\nblotted out.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The passage quoted is not to be understood as if a man\ncould not at some time be without all guilt of venial sin: but that\nthe just do not pass through this life without committing venial sins.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The power of charity, to which this sacrament belongs,\nis greater than that of venial sins: because charity by its act takes\naway venial sins, which nevertheless cannot entirely hinder the act\nof charity. And the same holds good of this sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Entire Punishment Due to Sin Is Forgiven Through This\nSacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the entire punishment due to sin is\nforgiven through this sacrament. For through this sacrament man\nreceives the effect of Christ's Passion within himself as stated\nabove (AA. 1, 2), just as he does through Baptism. But through\nBaptism man receives forgiveness of all punishment, through the\nvirtue of Christ's Passion, which satisfied sufficiently for all\nsins, as was explained above (Q. 69, A. 2). Therefore it seems the\nwhole debt of punishment is forgiven through this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Pope Alexander I says (Ep. ad omnes orth.): \"No\nsacrifice can be greater than the body and the blood of Christ.\" But\nman satisfied for his sins by the sacrifices of the old Law: for it\nis written (Lev. 4, 5): \"If a man shall sin, let him offer\" (so and\nso) \"for his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.\" Therefore this\nsacrament avails much more for the forgiveness of all punishment.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is certain that some part of the debt of\npunishment is forgiven by this sacrament; for which reason it is\nsometimes enjoined upon a man, by way of satisfaction, to have masses\nsaid for himself. But if one part of the punishment is forgiven, for\nthe same reason is the other forgiven: owing to Christ's infinite\npower contained in this sacrament. Consequently, it seems that the\nwhole punishment can be taken away by this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ In that case no other punishment would have to be\nenjoined; just as none is imposed upon the newly baptized.\n\n_I answer that,_ This sacrament is both a sacrifice and a sacrament.\nit has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it is offered up; and it\nhas the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received. And\ntherefore it has the effect of a sacrament in the recipient, and the\neffect of a sacrifice in the offerer, or in them for whom it is\noffered.\n\nIf, then, it be considered as a sacrament, it produces its effect in\ntwo ways: first of all directly through the power of the sacrament;\nsecondly as by a kind of concomitance, as was said above regarding\nwhat is contained in the sacrament (Q. 76, AA. 1, 2). Through the\npower of the sacrament it produces directly that effect for which it\nwas instituted. Now it was instituted not for satisfaction, but for\nnourishing spiritually through union between Christ and His members,\nas nourishment is united with the person nourished. But because this\nunion is the effect of charity, from the fervor of which man obtains\nforgiveness, not only of guilt but also of punishment, hence it is\nthat as a consequence, and by concomitance with the chief effect, man\nobtains forgiveness of the punishment, not indeed of the entire\npunishment, but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor.\n\nBut in so far as it is a sacrifice, it has a satisfactory power. Yet\nin satisfaction, the affection of the offerer is weighed rather than\nthe quantity of the offering. Hence our Lord says (Mk. 12:43: cf.\nLuke 21:4) of the widow who offered \"two mites\" that she \"cast in\nmore than all.\" Therefore, although this offering suffices of its own\nquantity to satisfy for all punishment, yet it becomes satisfactory\nfor them for whom it is offered, or even for the offerers, according\nto the measure of their devotion, and not for the whole punishment.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The sacrament of Baptism is directly ordained for the\nremission of punishment and guilt: not so the Eucharist, because\nBaptism is given to man as dying with Christ, whereas the Eucharist\nis given as by way of nourishing and perfecting him through Christ.\nConsequently there is no parallel.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Those other sacrifices and oblations did not effect the\nforgiveness of the whole punishment, neither as to the quantity of\nthe thing offered, as this sacrament does, nor as to personal\ndevotion; from which it comes to pass that even here the whole\npunishment is not taken away.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If part of the punishment and not the whole be taken\naway by this sacrament, it is due to a defect not on the part of\nChrist's power, but on the part of man's devotion.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Man Is Preserved by This Sacrament from Future Sins?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that man is not preserved by this sacrament\nfrom future sins. For there are many that receive this sacrament\nworthily, who afterwards fall into sin. Now this would not happen if\nthis sacrament were to preserve them from future sins. Consequently,\nit is not an effect of this sacrament to preserve from future sins.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, as stated\nabove (A. 4). But charity does not seem to preserve from future sins,\nbecause it can be lost through sin after one has possessed it, as was\nstated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 11). Therefore it seems\nthat this sacrament does not preserve man from sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the origin of sin within us is \"the law of sin,\nwhich is in our members,\" as declared by the Apostle (Rom. 7:23). But\nthe lessening of the fomes, which is the law of sin, is set down as\nan effect not of this sacrament, but rather of Baptism. Therefore\npreservation from sin is not an effect of this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (John 6:50): \"This is the bread\nwhich cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not\ndie\": which manifestly is not to be understood of the death of the\nbody. Therefore it is to be understood that this sacrament preserves\nfrom spiritual death, which is through sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ Sin is the spiritual death of the soul. Hence man is\npreserved from future sin in the same way as the body is preserved\nfrom future death of the body: and this happens in two ways. First of\nall, in so far as man's nature is strengthened inwardly against inner\ndecay, and so by means of food and medicine he is preserved from\ndeath. Secondly, by being guarded against outward assaults; and thus\nhe is protected by means of arms by which he defends his body.\n\nNow this sacrament preserves man from sin in both of these ways. For,\nfirst of all, by uniting man with Christ through grace, it\nstrengthens his spiritual life, as spiritual food and spiritual\nmedicine, according to Ps. 103:5: \"(That) bread strengthens [Vulg.:\n'may strengthen'] man's heart.\" Augustine likewise says (Tract. xxvi\nin Joan.): \"Approach without fear; it is bread, not poison.\"\nSecondly, inasmuch as it is a sign of Christ's Passion, whereby the\ndevils are conquered, it repels all the assaults of demons. Hence\nChrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Joan.): \"Like lions breathing forth\nfire, thus do we depart from that table, being made terrible to the\ndevil.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The effect of this sacrament is received according to\nman's condition: such is the case with every active cause in that its\neffect is received in matter according to the condition of the\nmatter. But such is the condition of man on earth that his free-will\ncan be bent to good or evil. Hence, although this sacrament of itself\nhas the power of preserving from sin, yet it does not take away from\nman the possibility of sinning.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Even charity of itself keeps man from sin, according to\nRom. 13:10: \"The love of our neighbor worketh no evil\": but it is due\nto the mutability of free-will that a man sins after possessing\ncharity, just as after receiving this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although this sacrament is not ordained directly to\nlessen the fomes, yet it does lessen it as a consequence, inasmuch as\nit increases charity, because, as Augustine says (Q. 83), \"the\nincrease of charity is the lessening of concupiscence.\" But it\ndirectly strengthens man's heart in good; whereby he is also\npreserved from sin.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 7]\n\nWhether This Sacrament Benefit Others Besides the Recipients?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this sacrament benefits only the\nrecipients. For this sacrament is of the same genus as the other\nsacraments, being one of those into which that genus is divided. But\nthe other sacraments only benefit the recipients; thus the baptized\nperson alone receives effect of Baptism. Therefore, neither does this\nsacrament benefit others than the recipients.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the effects of this sacrament are the attainment of\ngrace and glory, and the forgiveness of sin, at least of venial sin.\nIf therefore this sacrament were to produce its effects in others\nbesides the recipients, a man might happen to acquire grace and glory\nand forgiveness of sin without doing or receiving anything himself,\nthrough another receiving or offering this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, when the cause is multiplied, the effect is likewise\nmultiplied. If therefore this sacrament benefit others besides the\nrecipients, it would follow that it benefits a man more if he receive\nthis sacrament through many hosts being consecrated in one mass,\nwhereas this is not the Church's custom: for instance, that many\nreceive communion for the salvation of one individual. Consequently,\nit does not seem that this sacrament benefits anyone but the\nrecipient.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Prayer is made for many others during the\ncelebration of this sacrament; which would serve no purpose were the\nsacrament not beneficial to others. Therefore, this sacrament is\nbeneficial not merely to them who receive it.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 3), this sacrament is not only a\nsacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a\nsacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ's Passion is\nrepresented, whereby Christ \"offered Himself a Victim to God\" (Eph.\n5:2), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible\ngrace is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species. So,\nthen, this sacrament benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and\nof sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it\nis said in the Canon of the Mass: \"May as many of us as, by\nparticipation at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and\nblood of Thy Son, be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace.\"\n\nBut to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of\nsacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation. Hence it is\nsaid in the Canon of the Mass: \"Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants,\nmen and women . . . for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this\nsacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the\nredemption of their souls, for the hope of their safety and\nsalvation.\" And our Lord expressed both ways, saying (Matt. 26:28,\nwith Luke 22:20): \"Which for you,\" i.e. who receive it, \"and for\nmany,\" i.e. others, \"shall be shed unto remission of sins.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: This sacrament has this in addition to the others, that\nit is a sacrifice: and therefore the comparison fails.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the forgiveness\nof sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it produces no\neffect except in those who are united with Christ's Passion through\nfaith and charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the memorial\nof our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are united\nwith this sacrament through faith and charity. Hence Augustine says\nto Renatus (De Anima et ejus origine i): \"Who may offer Christ's body\nexcept for them who are Christ's members?\" Hence in the Canon of the\nMass no prayer is made for them who are outside the pale of the\nChurch. But it benefits them who are members, more or less, according\nto the measure of their devotion.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Receiving is of the very nature of the sacrament, but\noffering belongs to the nature of sacrifice: consequently, when one\nor even several receive the body of Christ, no help accrues to\nothers. In like fashion even when the priest consecrates several\nhosts in one mass, the effect of this sacrament is not increased,\nsince there is only one sacrifice; because there is no more power in\nseveral hosts than in one, since there is only one Christ present\nunder all the hosts and under one. Hence, neither will any one\nreceive greater effect from the sacrament by taking many consecrated\nhosts in one mass. But the oblation of the sacrifice is multiplied in\nseveral masses, and therefore the effect of the sacrifice and of the\nsacrament is multiplied.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 79, Art. 8]\n\nWhether the Effect of This Sacrament Is Hindered by Venial Sin?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the effect of this sacrament is not\nhindered by venial sin. For Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.),\ncommenting on John 6:52, \"If any man eat of this bread,\" etc., says:\n\"Eat the heavenly bread spiritually; bring innocence to the altar;\nyour sins, though they be daily, let them not be deadly.\" From this\nit is evident that venial sins, which are called daily sins, do not\nprevent spiritual eating. But they who eat spiritually, receive the\neffect of this sacrament. Therefore, venial sins do not hinder the\neffect of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, this sacrament is not less powerful than Baptism.\nBut, as stated above (Q. 69, AA. 9, 10), only pretense checks the\neffect of Baptism, and venial sins do not belong to pretense; because\naccording to Wis. 1:5: \"the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee from\nthe deceitful,\" yet He is not put to flight by venial sins. Therefore\nneither do venial sins hinder the effect of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, nothing which is removed by the action of any cause,\ncan hinder the effect of such cause. But venial sins are taken away\nby this sacrament. Therefore, they do not hinder its effect.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): \"The fire of\nthat desire which is within us, being kindled by the burning coal,\"\ni.e. this sacrament, \"will consume our sins, and enlighten our\nhearts, so that we shall be inflamed and made godlike.\" But the fire\nof our desire or love is hindered by venial sins, which hinder the\nfervor of charity, as was shown in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 81, A.\n4; II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Therefore venial sins hinder the effect of\nthis sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ Venial sins can be taken in two ways: first of all\nas past, secondly as in the act of being committed. Venial sins taken\nin the first way do not in any way hinder the effect of this\nsacrament. For it can come to pass that after many venial sins a man\nmay approach devoutly to this sacrament and fully secure its effect.\nConsidered in the second way venial sins do not utterly hinder the\neffect of this sacrament, but merely in part. For, it has been stated\nabove (A. 1), that the effect of this sacrament is not only the\nobtaining of habitual grace or charity, but also a certain actual\nrefreshment of spiritual sweetness: which is indeed hindered if\nanyone approach to this sacrament with mind distracted through venial\nsins; but the increase of habitual grace or of charity is not taken\naway.\n\nReply Obj. 1: He that approaches this sacrament with actual venial\nsin, eats spiritually indeed, in habit but not in act: and therefore\nhe shares in the habitual effect of the sacrament, but not in its\nactual effect.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Baptism is not ordained, as this sacrament is, for the\nfervor of charity as its actual effect. Because Baptism is spiritual\nregeneration, through which the first perfection is acquired, which\nis a habit or form; but this sacrament is spiritual eating, which has\nactual delight.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This argument deals with past venial sins, which are\ntaken away by this sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 80\n\nOF THE USE OR RECEIVING OF THIS SACRAMENT IN GENERAL\n(In Twelve Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the use or receiving of this sacrament, first\nof all in general; secondly, how Christ used this sacrament.\n\nUnder the first heading there are twelve points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether there are two ways of eating this sacrament, namely,\nsacramentally and spiritually?\n\n(2) Whether it belongs to man alone to eat this sacrament spiritually?\n\n(3) Whether it belongs to the just man only to eat it sacramentally?\n\n(4) Whether the sinner sins in eating it sacramentally?\n\n(5) Of the degree of this sin;\n\n(6) Whether this sacrament should be refused to the sinner that\napproaches it?\n\n(7) Whether nocturnal pollution prevents man from receiving this\nsacrament?\n\n(8) Whether it is to be received only when one is fasting?\n\n(9) Whether it is to be given to them who lack the use of reason?\n\n(10) Whether it is to be received daily?\n\n(11) Whether it is lawful to refrain from it altogether?\n\n(12) Whether it is lawful to receive the body without the blood?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 1]\n\nWhether There Are Two Ways to Be Distinguished of Eating Christ's\nBody?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that two ways ought not to be distinguished of\neating Christ's body, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. For, as\nBaptism is spiritual regeneration, according to John 3:5: \"Unless a\nman be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,\" etc., so also this\nsacrament is spiritual food: hence our Lord, speaking of this\nsacrament, says (John 6:64): \"The words that I have spoken to you are\nspirit and life.\" But there are no two distinct ways of receiving\nBaptism, namely, sacramentally and spiritually. Therefore neither\nought this distinction to be made regarding this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, when two things are so related that one is on\naccount of the other, they should not be put in contradistinction to\none another, because the one derives its species from the other. But\nsacramental eating is ordained for spiritual eating as its end.\nTherefore sacramental eating ought not to be divided in contrast with\nspiritual eating.\n\nObj. 3: Further, things which cannot exist without one another ought\nnot to be divided in contrast with each other. But it seems that no\none can eat spiritually without eating sacramentally; otherwise the\nfathers of old would have eaten this sacrament spiritually. Moreover,\nsacramental eating would be to no purpose, if the spiritual eating\ncould be had without it. Therefore it is not right to distinguish a\ntwofold eating, namely, sacramental and spiritual.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The gloss says on 1 Cor. 11:29: \"He that eateth\nand drinketh unworthily,\" etc.: \"We hold that there are two ways of\neating, the one sacramental, and the other spiritual.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There are two things to be considered in the\nreceiving of this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and its\nfruits, and we have already spoken of both (QQ. 73, 79). The perfect\nway, then, of receiving this sacrament is when one takes it so as to\npartake of its effect. Now, as was stated above (Q. 79, AA. 3, 8), it\nsometimes happens that a man is hindered from receiving the effect of\nthis sacrament; and such receiving of this sacrament is an imperfect\none. Therefore, as the perfect is divided against the imperfect, so\nsacramental eating, whereby the sacrament only is received without\nits effect, is divided against spiritual eating, by which one\nreceives the effect of this sacrament, whereby a man is spiritually\nunited with Christ through faith and charity.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The same distinction is made regarding Baptism and the\nother sacraments: for, some receive the sacrament only, while others\nreceive the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament. However,\nthere is a difference, because, since the other sacraments are\naccomplished in the use of the matter, the receiving of the sacrament\nis the actual perfection of the sacrament; whereas this sacrament is\naccomplished in the consecration of the matter: and consequently both\nuses follow the sacrament. On the other hand, in Baptism and in the\nother sacraments that imprint a character, they who receive the\nsacrament receive some spiritual effect, that is, the character.\nwhich is not the case in this sacrament. And therefore, in this\nsacrament, rather than in Baptism, the sacramental use is\ndistinguished from the spiritual use.\n\nReply Obj. 2: That sacramental eating which is also a spiritual\neating is not divided in contrast with spiritual eating, but is\nincluded under it; but that sacramental eating which does not secure\nthe effect, is divided in contrast with spiritual eating; just as the\nimperfect, which does not attain the perfection of its species, is\ndivided in contrast with the perfect.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 73, A. 3), the effect of the\nsacrament can be secured by every man if he receive it in desire,\nthough not in reality. Consequently, just as some are baptized with\nthe Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being\nbaptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament\nspiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. Now this happens in\ntwo ways. First of all, from desire of receiving the sacrament\nitself, and thus are said to be baptized, and to eat spiritually, and\nnot sacramentally, they who desire to receive these sacraments since\nthey have been instituted. Secondly, by a figure: thus the Apostle\nsays (1 Cor. 10:2), that the fathers of old were \"baptized in the\ncloud and in the sea,\" and that \"they did eat . . . spiritual food,\nand . . . drank . . . spiritual drink.\" Nevertheless sacramental\neating is not without avail, because the actual receiving of the\nsacrament produces more fully the effect of the sacrament than does\nthe desire thereof, as stated above of Baptism (Q. 69, A. 4, ad 2).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 2]\n\nWhether It Belongs to Man Alone to Eat This Sacrament Spiritually?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that it does not belong to man alone to eat\nthis sacrament spiritually, but likewise to angels. Because on Ps.\n77:25: \"Man ate the bread of angels,\" the gloss says: \"that is, the\nbody of Christ, Who is truly the food of angels.\" But it would not be\nso unless the angels were to eat Christ spiritually. Therefore the\nangels eat Christ spiritually.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: By \"this meat\nand drink, He would have us to understand the fellowship of His body\nand members, which is the Church in His predestinated ones.\" But not\nonly men, but also the holy angels belong to that fellowship.\nTherefore the holy angels eat of it spiritually.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Augustine in his book _De Verbis Domini_ (Serm.\ncxlii) says: \"Christ is to be eaten spiritually, as He Himself\ndeclares: 'He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in\nMe, and I in him.'\" But this belongs not only to men, but also to the\nholy angels, in whom Christ dwells by charity, and they in Him.\nConsequently, it seems that to eat Christ spiritually is not for men\nonly, but also for the angels.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) says: \"Eat the\nbread\" of the altar \"spiritually; take innocence to the altar.\" But\nangels do not approach the altar as for the purpose of taking\nsomething therefrom. Therefore the angels do not eat spiritually.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ Himself is contained in this sacrament, not\nunder His proper species, but under the sacramental species.\nConsequently there are two ways of eating spiritually. First, as\nChrist Himself exists under His proper species, and in this way the\nangels eat Christ spiritually inasmuch as they are united with Him in\nthe enjoyment of perfect charity, and in clear vision (and this is\nthe bread we hope for in heaven), and not by faith, as we are united\nwith Him here.\n\nIn another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the\nsacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, while\ndesiring to receive this sacrament; and this is not merely to eat\nChrist spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament; which does\nnot fall to the lot of the angels. And therefore although the angels\nfeed on Christ spiritually, yet it does not belong to them to eat\nthis sacrament spiritually.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The receiving of Christ under this sacrament is\nordained to the enjoyment of heaven, as to its end, in the same way\nas the angels enjoy it; and since the means are gauged by the end,\nhence it is that such eating of Christ whereby we receive Him under\nthis sacrament, is, as it were, derived from that eating whereby the\nangels enjoy Christ in heaven. Consequently, man is said to eat the\n\"bread of angels,\" because it belongs to the angels to do so firstly\nand principally, since they enjoy Him in his proper species; and\nsecondly it belongs to men, who receive Christ under this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Both men and angels belong to the fellowship of His\nmystical body; men by faith, and angels by manifest vision. But the\nsacraments are proportioned to faith, through which the truth is seen\n\"through a glass\" and \"in a dark manner.\" And therefore, properly\nspeaking, it does not belong to angels, but to men, to eat this\nsacrament spiritually.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ dwells in men through faith, according to their\npresent state, but He is in the blessed angels by manifest vision.\nConsequently the comparison does not hold, as stated above (ad 2).\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Just Man Alone May Eat Christ Sacramentally?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that none but the just man may eat Christ\nsacramentally. For Augustine says in his book _De Remedio\nPenitentiae_ (cf. Tract. in Joan. xxv, n. 12; xxvi, n. 1): \"Why make\nready tooth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten . . . For to\nbelieve in Him, this it is, to eat the living bread.\" But the sinner\ndoes not believe in Him; because he has not living faith, to which it\nbelongs to believe \"in God,\" as stated above in the Second Part\n(II-II, Q. 2, A. 2;  Q. 4, A. 5). Therefore the sinner cannot eat\nthis sacrament, which is the living bread.\n\nObj. 2: Further, this sacrament is specially called \"the sacrament of\ncharity,\" as stated above (Q. 78, A. 3, ad 6). But as unbelievers\nlack faith, so all sinners lack charity. Now unbelievers do not seem\nto be capable of eating this sacrament, since in the sacramental form\nit is called the \"Mystery of Faith.\" Therefore, for like reason, the\nsinner cannot eat Christ's body sacramentally.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the sinner is more abominable before God than the\nirrational creature: for it is said of the sinner (Ps. 48:21): \"Man\nwhen he was in honor did not understand; he hath been compared to\nsenseless beasts, and made like to them.\" But an irrational animal,\nsuch as a mouse or a dog, cannot receive this sacrament, just as it\ncannot receive the sacrament of Baptism. Therefore it seems that for\nthe like reason neither may sinners eat this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), commenting on\nthe words, \"that if any man eat of it he may not die,\" says: \"Many\nreceive from the altar, and by receiving die: whence the Apostle\nsaith, 'eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.'\" But only sinners\ndie by receiving. Therefore sinners eat the body of Christ\nsacramentally, and not the just only.\n\n_I answer that,_ In the past, some have erred upon this point, saying\nthat Christ's body is not received sacramentally by sinners; but that\ndirectly the body is touched by the lips of sinners, it ceases to be\nunder the sacramental species.\n\nBut this is erroneous; because it detracts from the truth of this\nsacrament, to which truth it belongs that so long as the species\nlast, Christ's body does not cease to be under them, as stated above\n(Q. 76, A. 6, ad 3; Q. 77, A. 8). But the species last so long as the\nsubstance of the bread would remain, if it were there, as was stated\nabove (Q. 77, A. 4). Now it is clear that the substance of bread\ntaken by a sinner does not at once cease to be, but it continues\nuntil digested by natural heat: hence Christ's body remains just as\nlong under the sacramental species when taken by sinners. Hence it\nmust be said that the sinner, and not merely the just, can eat\nChrist's body.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Such words and similar expressions are to be understood\nof spiritual eating, which does not belong to sinners. Consequently,\nit is from such expressions being misunderstood that the above error\nseems to have arisen, through ignorance of the distinction between\ncorporeal and spiritual eating.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Should even an unbeliever receive the sacramental\nspecies, he would receive Christ's body under the sacrament: hence he\nwould eat Christ sacramentally, if the word \"sacramentally\" qualify\nthe verb on the part of the thing eaten. But if it qualify the verb\non the part of the one eating, then, properly speaking, he does not\neat sacramentally, because he uses what he takes, not as a sacrament,\nbut as simple food. Unless perchance the unbeliever were to intend to\nreceive what the Church bestows; without having proper faith\nregarding the other articles, or regarding this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Even though a mouse or a dog were to eat the\nconsecrated host, the substance of Christ's body would not cease to\nbe under the species, so long as those species remain, and that is,\nso long as the substance of bread would have remained; just as if it\nwere to be cast into the mire. Nor does this turn to any indignity\nregarding Christ's body, since He willed to be crucified by sinners\nwithout detracting from His dignity; especially since the mouse or\ndog does not touch Christ's body in its proper species, but only as\nto its sacramental species. Some, however, have said that Christ's\nbody would cease to be there, directly it were touched by a mouse or\na dog; but this again detracts from the truth of the sacrament, as\nstated above. None the less it must not be said that the irrational\nanimal eats the body of Christ sacramentally; since it is incapable\nof using it as a sacrament. Hence it eats Christ's body\n_accidentally,_ and not sacramentally, just as if anyone not knowing\na host to be consecrated were to consume it. And since no genus is\ndivided by an accidental difference, therefore this manner of eating\nChrist's body is not set down as a third way besides sacramental and\nspiritual eating.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Sinner Sins in Receiving Christ's Body Sacramentally?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the sinner does not sin in receiving\nChrist's body sacramentally, because Christ has no greater dignity\nunder the sacramental species than under His own. But sinners did not\nsin when they touched Christ's body under its proper species; nay,\nrather they obtained forgiveness of their sins, as we read in Luke 7\nof the woman who was a sinner; while it is written (Matt. 14:36) that\n\"as many as touched the hem of His garment were healed.\" Therefore,\nthey do not sin, but rather obtain salvation, by receiving the body\nof Christ.\n\nObj. 2: Further, this sacrament, like the others, is a spiritual\nmedicine. But medicine is given to the sick for their recovery,\naccording to Matt. 9:12: \"They that are in health need not a\nphysician.\" Now they that are spiritually sick or infirm are sinners.\nTherefore this sacrament can be received by them without sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, this sacrament is one of our greatest gifts, since\nit contains Christ. But according to Augustine (De Lib. Arb. ii), the\ngreatest gifts are those \"which no one can abuse.\" Now no one sins\nexcept by abusing something. Therefore no sinner sins by receiving\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 4: Further, as this sacrament is perceived by taste and touch,\nso also is it by sight. Consequently, if the sinner sins by receiving\nthe sacrament, it seems that he would sin by beholding it, which is\nmanifestly untrue, since the Church exposes this sacrament to be seen\nand adored by all. Therefore the sinner does not sin by eating this\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 5: Further, it happens sometimes that the sinner is unconscious\nof his sin. Yet such a one does not seem to sin by receiving the body\nof Christ, for according to this all who receive it would sin, as\nexposing themselves to danger, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:4):\n\"I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet I am not hereby\njustified.\" Therefore, the sinner, if he receive this sacrament, does\nnot appear to be guilty of sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:29): \"He that eateth\nand drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.\"\nNow the gloss says on this passage: \"He eats and drinks unworthily\nwho is in sin, or who handles it irreverently.\" Therefore, if anyone,\nwhile in mortal sin, receives this sacrament, he purchases damnation,\nby sinning mortally.\n\n_I answer that,_ In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a\nsacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a\ntwofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (Q. 73, A. 6): one\nwhich is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the\nother is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's mystical body,\nwhich is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives\nthis sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ,\nand incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith,\nwhich no one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest\nthat whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty\nof lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he\nprofanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.\n\nReply Obj. 1: When Christ appeared under His proper species, He did\nnot give Himself to be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union\nwith Himself, as He gives Himself to be received in this sacrament.\nAnd therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper species did\nnot incur the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in\nreceiving this sacrament.\n\nFurthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin;\nconsequently He fittingly allowed Himself to be touched by sinners.\nBut as soon as the body of sin was taken away by the glory of the\nResurrection, he forbade the woman to touch Him, for her faith in Him\nwas defective, according to John 20:17: \"Do not touch Me, for I am\nnot yet ascended to My Father,\" i.e. \"in your heart,\" as Augustine\nexplains (Tract. cxxi in Joan.). And therefore sinners, who lack\nliving faith regarding Christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness;\nbecause the tonic given to those who are recovering from fever would\nbe hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition. So\nlikewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines, given to\ntake away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a medicine\ngiven to strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to them who\nare quit of sin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: By the greatest gifts Augustine understands the soul's\nvirtues, \"which no one uses to evil purpose,\" as though they were\nprinciples of evil. Nevertheless sometimes a man makes a bad use of\nthem, as objects of an evil use, as is seen in those who are proud of\ntheir virtues. So likewise this sacrament, so far as the sacrament is\nconcerned, is not the principle of an evil use, but the object\nthereof. Hence Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): \"Many receive\nChrist's body unworthily; whence we are taught what need there is to\nbeware of receiving a good thing evilly . . . For behold, of a good\nthing, received evilly, evil is wrought\": just as on the other hand,\nin the Apostle's case, \"good was wrought through evil well received,\"\nnamely, by bearing patiently the sting of Satan.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Christ's body is not received by being seen, but only\nits sacrament, because sight does not penetrate to the substance of\nChrist's body, but only to the sacramental species, as stated above\n(Q. 76, A. 7). But he who eats, receives not only the sacramental\nspecies, but likewise Christ Himself Who is under them. Consequently,\nno one is forbidden to behold Christ's body, when once he has\nreceived Christ's sacrament, namely, Baptism: whereas the\nnon-baptized are not to be allowed even to see this sacrament, as is\nclear from Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. vii). But only those are to be\nallowed to share in the eating who are united with Christ not merely\nsacramentally, but likewise really.\n\nReply Obj. 5: The fact of a man being unconscious of his sin can come\nabout in two ways. First of all through his own fault, either because\nthrough ignorance of the law (which ignorance does not excuse him),\nhe thinks something not to be sinful which is a sin, as for example\nif one guilty of fornication were to deem simple fornication not to\nbe a mortal sin; or because he neglects to examine his conscience,\nwhich is opposed to what the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:28): \"Let a man\nprove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the\nchalice.\" And in this way nevertheless the sinner who receives\nChrist's body commits sin, although unconscious thereof, because the\nvery ignorance is a sin on his part.\n\nSecondly, it may happen without fault on his part, as, for instance,\nwhen he has sorrowed over his sin, but is not sufficiently contrite:\nand in such a case he does not sin in receiving the body of Christ,\nbecause a man cannot know for certain whether he is truly contrite.\nIt suffices, however, if he find in himself the marks of contrition,\nfor instance, if he \"grieve over past sins,\" and \"propose to avoid\nthem in the future\" [*Cf. Rule of Augustine]. But if he be ignorant\nthat what he did was a sinful act, through ignorance of the fact,\nwhich excuses, for instance, if a man approach a woman whom he\nbelieved to be his wife whereas she was not, he is not to be called a\nsinner on that account; in the same way if he has utterly forgotten\nhis sin, general contrition suffices for blotting it out, as will be\nsaid hereafter (Suppl., Q. 2, A. 3, ad 2); hence he is no longer to\nbe called a sinner.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 5]\n\nWhether to Approach This Sacrament with Consciousness of Sin Is the\nGravest of All Sins?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that to approach this sacrament with\nconsciousness of sin is the gravest of all sins; because the Apostle\nsays (1 Cor. 11:27): \"Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the\nchalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of\nthe blood of the Lord\": upon which the gloss observes: \"He shall be\npunished as though he slew Christ.\" But the sin of them who slew\nChrist seems to have been most grave. Therefore this sin, whereby a\nman approaches Christ's table with consciousness of sin, appears to\nbe the gravest.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Jerome says in an Epistle (xlix): \"What hast thou to\ndo with women, thou that speakest familiarly with God at the altar?\"\n[*The remaining part of the quotation is not from St. Jerome]. Say,\npriest, say, cleric, how dost thou kiss the Son of God with the same\nlips wherewith thou hast kissed the daughter of a harlot? \"Judas,\nthou betrayest the Son of Man with a kiss!\" And thus it appears that\nthe fornicator approaching Christ's table sins as Judas did, whose\nsin was most grave. But there are many other sins which are graver\nthan fornication, especially the sin of unbelief. Therefore the sin\nof every sinner approaching Christ's table is the gravest of all.\n\nObj. 3: Further, spiritual uncleanness is more abominable to God than\ncorporeal. But if anyone was to cast Christ's body into mud or a\ncess-pool, his sin would be reputed a most grave one. Therefore, he\nsins more deeply by receiving it with sin, which is spiritual\nuncleanness, upon his soul.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says on the words, \"If I had not come,\nand had not spoken to them, they would be without sin\" (Tract. lxxxix\nin Joan.), that this is to be understood of the sin of unbelief, \"in\nwhich all sins are comprised,\" and so the greatest of all sins\nappears to be, not this, but rather the sin of unbelief.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 73, AA. 3, 6;\nII-II, Q. 73, A. 3), one sin can be said to be graver than another in\ntwo ways: first of all essentially, secondly accidentally.\nEssentially, in regard to its species, which is taken from its\nobject: and so a sin is greater according as that against which it is\ncommitted is greater. And since Christ's Godhead is greater than His\nhumanity, and His humanity greater than the sacraments of His\nhumanity, hence it is that those are the gravest sins which are\ncommitted against the Godhead, such as unbelief and blasphemy. The\nsecond degree of gravity is held by those sins which are committed\nagainst His humanity: hence it is written (Matt. 12:32): \"Whosoever\nshall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him;\nbut he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be\nforgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come.\" In the\nthird place come sins committed against the sacraments, which belong\nto Christ's humanity; and after these are the other sins committed\nagainst mere creatures.\n\nAccidentally, one sin can be graver than another on the sinner's\npart. For example, the sin which is the result of ignorance or of\nweakness is lighter than one arising from contempt, or from sure\nknowledge; and the same reason holds good of other circumstances. And\naccording to this, the above sin can be graver in some, as happens in\nthem who from actual contempt and with consciousness of sin approach\nthis sacrament: but in others it is less grave; for instance, in\nthose who from fear of their sin being discovered, approach this\nsacrament with consciousness of sin.\n\nSo, then, it is evident that this sin is specifically graver than\nmany others, yet it is not the greatest of all.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The sin of the unworthy recipient is compared to the\nsin of them who slew Christ, by way of similitude, because each is\ncommitted against Christ's body; but not according to the degree of\nthe crime. Because the sin of Christ's slayers was much graver, first\nof all, because their sin was against Christ's body in its own\nspecies, while this sin is against it under sacramental species;\nsecondly, because their sin came of the intent of injuring Christ,\nwhile this does not.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The sin of the fornicator receiving Christ's body is\nlikened to Judas kissing Christ, as to the resemblance of the sin,\nbecause each outrages Christ with the sign of friendship. but not as\nto the extent of the sin, as was observed above (ad 1). And this\nresemblance in crime applies no less to other sinners than to\nfornicators: because by other mortal sins, sinners act against the\ncharity of Christ, of which this sacrament is the sign, and all the\nmore according as their sins are graver. But in a measure the sin of\nfornication makes one more unfit for receiving this sacrament,\nbecause thereby especially the spirit becomes enslaved by the flesh,\nwhich is a hindrance to the fervor of love required for this\nsacrament.\n\nHowever, the hindrance to charity itself weighs more than the\nhindrance to its fervor. Hence the sin of unbelief, which\nfundamentally severs a man from the unity of the Church, simply\nspeaking, makes him to be utterly unfit for receiving this sacrament;\nbecause it is the sacrament of the Church's unity, as stated above\n(Q. 61, A. 2). Hence the unbeliever who receives this sacrament sins\nmore grievously than the believer who is in sin; and shows greater\ncontempt towards Christ Who is in the sacrament, especially if he\ndoes not believe Christ to be truly in this sacrament; because, so\nfar as lies in him, he lessens the holiness of the sacrament, and the\npower of Christ acting in it, and this is to despise the sacrament in\nitself. But the believer who receives the sacrament with\nconsciousness of sin, by receiving it unworthily despises the\nsacrament, not in itself, but in its use. Hence the Apostle (1 Cor.\n11:29) in assigning the cause of this sin, says, \"not discerning the\nbody of the Lord,\" that is, not distinguishing it from other food:\nand this is what he does who disbelieves Christ's presence in this\nsacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The man who would throw this sacrament into the mire\nwould be guilty of more heinous sin than another approaching the\nsacrament fully conscious of mortal sin. First of all, because he\nwould intend to outrage the sacrament, whereas the sinner receiving\nChrist's body unworthily has no such intent; secondly, because the\nsinner is capable of grace; hence he is more capable of receiving\nthis sacrament than any irrational creature. Hence he would make a\nmost revolting use of this sacrament who would throw it to dogs to\neat, or fling it in the mire to be trodden upon.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Priest Ought to Deny the Body of Christ to the Sinner\nSeeking It?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the priest should deny the body of Christ\nto the sinner seeking it. For Christ's precept is not to be set aside\nfor the sake of avoiding scandal or on account of infamy to anyone.\nBut (Matt. 7:6) our Lord gave this command: \"Give not that which is\nholy to dogs.\" Now it is especially casting holy things to dogs to\ngive this sacrament to sinners. Therefore, neither on account of\navoiding scandal or infamy should this sacrament be administered to\nthe sinner who asks for it.\n\nObj. 2: Further, one must choose the lesser of two evils. But it\nseems to be the lesser evil if the sinner incur infamy; or if an\nunconsecrated host be given to him; than for him to sin mortally by\nreceiving the body of Christ. Consequently, it seems that the course\nto be adopted is either that the sinner seeking the body of Christ be\nexposed to infamy, or that an unconsecrated host be given to him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the body of Christ is sometimes given to those\nsuspected of crime in order to put them to proof. Because we read in\nthe Decretals: \"It often happens that thefts are perpetrated in\nmonasteries of monks; wherefore we command that when the brethren\nhave to exonerate themselves of such acts, that the abbot shall\ncelebrate Mass, or someone else deputed by him, in the presence of\nthe community; and so, when the Mass is over, all shall communicate\nunder these words: 'May the body of Christ prove thee today.'\" And\nfurther on: \"If any evil deed be imputed to a bishop or priest, for\neach charge he must say Mass and communicate, and show that he is\ninnocent of each act imputed.\" But secret sinners must not be\ndisclosed, for, once the blush of shame is set aside, they will\nindulge the more in sin, as Augustine says (De Verbis. Dom.; cf.\nSerm. lxxxii). Consequently, Christ's body is not to be given to\noccult sinners, even if they ask for it.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on Ps. 21:30: \"All the fat ones of the earth have\neaten and have adored,\" Augustine says: \"Let not the dispenser hinder\nthe fat ones of the earth,\" i.e. sinners, \"from eating at the table\nof the Lord.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A distinction must be made among sinners: some are\nsecret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as\npublic usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil\nmen by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy\nCommunion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it.\nHence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): \"You were so kind as to\nconsider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, and that\nmagician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as\nto whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such\nwith the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the\nDivine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church's modesty\nand honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion.\"\n\nBut if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion\nshould not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every\nChristian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the\nLord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some\nopen cause. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, \"If he who is called a brother\namong you,\" etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: \"We cannot inhibit any\nperson from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been\nnamed and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal.\"\nNevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately\nwarn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from\napproaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins\nand have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and\nreconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners,\nespecially in the hour of death. Hence in the (3rd) Council of\nCarthage (Can. xxxv) we read: \"Reconciliation is not to be denied to\nstage-players or actors, or others of the sort, or to apostates,\nafter their conversion to God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is,\nto notorious sinners: whereas hidden deeds may not be published, but\nare to be left to the Divine judgment.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although it is worse for the secret sinner to sin\nmortally in taking the body of Christ, rather than be defamed,\nnevertheless for the priest administering the body of Christ it is\nworse to commit mortal sin by unjustly defaming the hidden sinner\nthan that the sinner should sin mortally; because no one ought to\ncommit mortal sin in order to keep another out of mortal sin. Hence\nAugustine says (Quaest. super Gen. 42): \"It is a most dangerous\nexchange, for us to do evil lest another perpetrate a greater evil.\"\nBut the secret sinner ought rather to prefer infamy than approach the\nLord's table unworthily.\n\nYet by no means should an unconsecrated host be given in place of a\nconsecrated one; because the priest by so doing, so far as he is\nconcerned, makes others, either the bystanders or the communicant,\ncommit idolatry by believing that it is a consecrated host; because,\nas Augustine says on Ps. 98:5: \"Let no one eat Christ's flesh, except\nhe first adore it.\" Hence in the Decretals (Extra, De Celeb. Miss.,\nCh. De Homine) it is said: \"Although he who reputes himself unworthy\nof the Sacrament, through consciousness of his sin, sins gravely, if\nhe receive; still he seems to offend more deeply who deceitfully has\npresumed to simulate it.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Those decrees were abolished by contrary enactments of\nRoman Pontiffs: because Pope Stephen V writes as follows: \"The Sacred\nCanons do not allow of a confession being extorted from any person by\ntrial made by burning iron or boiling water; it belongs to our\ngovernment to judge of public crimes committed, and that by means of\nconfession made spontaneously, or by proof of witnesses: but private\nand unknown crimes are to be left to Him Who alone knows the hearts\nof the sons of men.\" And the same is found in the Decretals (Extra,\nDe Purgationibus, Ch. Ex tuarum). Because in all such practices there\nseems to be a tempting of God; hence such things cannot be done\nwithout sin. And it would seem graver still if anyone were to incur\njudgment of death through this sacrament, which was instituted as a\nmeans of salvation. Consequently, the body of Christ should never be\ngiven to anyone suspected of crime, as by way of examination.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 7]\n\nWhether the Seminal Loss That Occurs During Sleep Hinders Anyone from\nReceiving This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that seminal loss does not hinder anyone from\nreceiving the body of Christ: because no one is prevented from\nreceiving the body of Christ except on account of sin. But seminal\nloss happens without sin: for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii) that\n\"the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker may present\nitself to the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter be unable to\ndistinguish the image from the reality, and is moved carnally and\nwith the result that usually follows such motions; and there is as\nlittle sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking\nabout such things.\" Consequently these motions do not prevent one\nfrom receiving this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Gregory says in a Letter to Augustine, Bishop of the\nEnglish (Regist. xi): \"Those who pay the debt of marriage not from\nlust, but from desire to have children, should be left to their own\njudgment, as to whether they should enter the church and receive the\nmystery of our Lord's body, after such intercourse: because they\nought not to be forbidden from receiving it, since they have passed\nthrough the fire unscorched.\"\n\nFrom this it is evident that seminal loss even of one awake, if it be\nwithout sin, is no hindrance to receiving the body of Christ.\nConsequently, much less is it in the case of one asleep.\n\nObj. 3: Further, these movements of the flesh seem to bring with them\nonly bodily uncleanness. But there are other bodily defilements which\naccording to the Law forbade entrance into the holy places, yet which\nunder the New Law do not prevent receiving this sacrament: as, for\ninstance, in the case of a woman after child-birth, or in her\nperiods, or suffering from issue of blood, as Gregory writes to\nAugustine, Bishop of the English (Regist. xi). Therefore it seems\nthat neither do these movements of the flesh hinder a man from\nreceiving this sacrament.\n\nObj. 4: Further, venial sin is no hindrance to receiving the\nsacrament, nor is mortal sin after repentance. But even supposing\nthat seminal loss arises from some foregoing sin, whether of\nintemperance, or of bad thoughts, for the most part such sin is\nvenial; and if occasionally it be mortal, a man may repent of it by\nmorning and confess it. Consequently, it seems that he ought not to\nbe prevented from receiving this sacrament.\n\nObj. 5: Further, a sin against the Fifth Commandment is greater than\na sin against the Sixth. But if a man dream that he has broken the\nFifth or Seventh or any other Commandment, he is not on that account\ndebarred from receiving this sacrament. Therefore it seems that much\nless should he be debarred through defilement resulting from a dream\nagainst the Sixth Commandment.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Lev. 15:16): \"The man from whom the\nseed of copulation goeth out . . . shall be unclean until evening.\"\nBut for the unclean there is no approaching to the sacraments.\nTherefore, it seems that owing to such defilement of the flesh a man\nis debarred from taking this which is the greatest of the sacraments.\n\n_I answer that,_ There are two things to be weighed regarding the\naforesaid movements: one on account of which they necessarily prevent\na man from receiving this sacrament; the other, on account of which\nthey do so, not of necessity, but from a sense of propriety.\n\nMortal sin alone necessarily prevents anyone from partaking of this\nsacrament: and although these movements during sleep, considered in\nthemselves, cannot be a mortal sin, nevertheless, owing to their\ncause, they [sometimes] have mortal sin connected with them; which\ncause, therefore, must be investigated. Sometimes they are due to an\nexternal spiritual cause, viz. the deception of the demons, who can\nstir up phantasms, as was stated in the First Part (I, Q. 111, A. 3),\nthrough the apparition of which, these movements occasionally follow.\nSometimes they are due to an internal spiritual cause, such as\nprevious thoughts. At other times they arise from some internal\ncorporeal cause, as from abundance or weakness of nature, or even\nfrom surfeit of meat or drink. Now every one of these three causes\ncan be without sin at all, or else with venial sin, or with mortal\nsin. If it be without sin, or with venial sin, it does not\nnecessarily prevent the receiving of this sacrament, so as to make a\nman guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: but should it be with\nmortal sin, it prevents it of necessity.\n\nFor such illusions on the part of demons sometimes come from one's\nnot striving to receive fervently; and this can be either a mortal or\na venial sin. At other times it is due to malice alone on the part of\nthe demons who wish to keep men from receiving this sacrament. So we\nread in the Conferences of the Fathers (Cassian, Collat. xxii) that\nwhen a certain one always suffered thus on those feast-days on which\nhe had to receive Communion, his superiors, discovering that there\nwas no fault on his part, ruled that he was not to refrain from\ncommunicating on that account, and the demoniacal illusion ceased.\n\nIn like fashion previous evil thoughts can sometimes be without any\nsin whatever, as when one has to think of such things on account of\nlecturing or debating; and if it be done without concupiscence and\ndelectation, the thoughts will not be unclean but honest; and yet\ndefilement can come of such thoughts, as is clear from the authority\nof Augustine (Obj. 1). At other times such thoughts come of\nconcupiscence and delectation, and should there be consent, it will\nbe a mortal sin: otherwise it will be a venial sin.\n\nIn the same way too the corporeal cause can be without sin, as when\nit arises from bodily debility, and hence some individuals suffer\nseminal loss without sin even in their wakeful hours; or it can come\nfrom the abundance of nature: for, just as blood can flow without\nsin, so also can the semen which is superfluity of the blood,\naccording to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i). But occasionally\nit is with sin, as when it is due to excess of food or drink. And\nthis also can be either venial or mortal sin; although more\nfrequently the sin is mortal in the case of evil thoughts on account\nof the proneness to consent, rather than in the case of consumption\nof food and drink. Hence Gregory, writing to Augustine, Bishop of the\nEnglish (Regist. xi), says that one ought to refrain from Communion\nwhen this arises from evil thoughts, but not when it arises from\nexcess of food or drink, especially if necessity call for Communion.\nSo, then, one must judge from its cause whether such bodily\ndefilement of necessity hinders the receiving of this sacrament.\n\nAt the same time a sense of decency forbids Communion on two\naccounts. The first of these is always verified, viz. the bodily\ndefilement, with which, out of reverence for the sacrament, it is\nunbecoming to approach the altar (and hence those who wish to touch\nany sacred object, wash their hands): except perchance such\nuncleanness be perpetual or of long standing, such as leprosy or\nissue of blood, or anything else of the kind. The other reason is the\nmental distraction which follows after the aforesaid movements,\nespecially when they take place with unclean imaginings. Now this\nobstacle, which arises from a sense of decency, can be set aside\nowing to any necessity, as Gregory says (Regist. xi): \"As when\nperchance either a festival day calls for it, or necessity compels\none to exercise the ministry because there is no other priest at\nhand.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: A person is hindered necessarily, only by mortal sin,\nfrom receiving this sacrament: but from a sense of decency one may be\nhindered through other causes, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Conjugal intercourse, if it be without sin, (for\ninstance, if it be done for the sake of begetting offspring, or of\npaying the marriage debt), does not prevent the receiving of this\nsacrament for any other reason than do those movements in question\nwhich happen without sin, as stated above; namely, on account of the\ndefilement to the body and distraction to the mind. On this account\nJerome expresses himself in the following terms in his commentary on\nMatthew (Epist. xxviii, among St. Jerome's works): \"If the loaves of\nProposition might not be eaten by them who had known their wives\ncarnally, how much less may this bread which has come down from\nheaven be defiled and touched by them who shortly before have been in\nconjugal embraces? It is not that we condemn marriages, but that at\nthe time when we are going to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not\nto indulge in carnal acts.\" But since this is to be understood in the\nsense of decency, and not of necessity, Gregory says that such a\nperson \"is to be left to his own judgment.\" \"But if,\" as Gregory says\n(Regist. xi), \"it be not desire of begetting offspring, but lust that\nprevails,\" then such a one should be forbidden to approach this\nsacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Gregory says in his Letter quoted above to\nAugustine, Bishop of the English, in the Old Testament some persons\nwere termed polluted figuratively, which the people of the New Law\nunderstand spiritually. Hence such bodily uncleannesses, if perpetual\nor of long standing, do not hinder the receiving of this saving\nsacrament, as they prevented approaching those figurative sacraments;\nbut if they pass speedily, like the uncleanness of the aforesaid\nmovements, then from a sense of fittingness they hinder the receiving\nof this sacrament during the day on which it happens. Hence it is\nwritten (Deut. 23:10): \"If there be among you any man, that is\ndefiled in a dream by night, he shall go forth out of the camp; and\nhe shall not return before he be washed with water in the evening.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Although the stain of guilt be taken away by contrition\nand confession nevertheless the bodily defilement is not taken away,\nnor the mental distraction which follows therefrom.\n\nReply Obj. 5: To dream of homicide brings no bodily uncleanness, nor\nsuch distraction of mind as fornication, on account of its intense\ndelectation; still if the dream of homicide comes of a cause sinful\nin itself, especially if it be mortal sin, then owing to its cause it\nhinders the receiving of this sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Food or Drink Taken Beforehand Hinders the Receiving of This\nSacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that food or drink taken beforehand does not\nhinder the receiving of this sacrament. For this sacrament was\ninstituted by our Lord at the supper. But when the supper was ended\nour Lord gave the sacrament to His disciples, as is evident from Luke\n22:20, and from 1 Cor. 11:25. Therefore it seems that we ought to\ntake this sacrament after receiving other food.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (1 Cor. 11:33): \"When you come\ntogether to eat,\" namely, the Lord's body, \"wait for one another; if\nany man be hungry, let him eat at home\": and thus it seems that after\neating at home a man may eat Christ's body in the Church.\n\nObj. 3: Further, we read in the (3rd) Council of Carthage (Can.\nxxix): \"Let the sacraments of the altar be celebrated only by men who\nare fasting, with the exception of the anniversary day on which the\nLord's Supper is celebrated.\" Therefore, at least on that day, one\nmay receive the body of Christ after partaking of other food.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the taking of water or medicine, or of any other\nfood or drink in very slight quantity, or of the remains of food\ncontinuing in the mouth, neither breaks the Church's fast, nor takes\naway the sobriety required for reverently receiving this sacrament.\nConsequently, one is not prevented by the above things from receiving\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 5: Further, some eat and drink late at night, and possibly after\npassing a sleepless night receive the sacred mysteries in the morning\nwhen the food is not digested. But it would savor more of moderation\nif a man were to eat a little in the morning and afterwards receive\nthis sacrament about the ninth hour, since also there is occasionally\na longer interval of time. Consequently, it seems that such taking of\nfood beforehand does not keep one from this sacrament.\n\nObj. 6: Further, there is no less reverence due to this sacrament\nafter receiving it, than before. But one may take food and drink\nafter receiving the sacrament. Therefore one may do so before\nreceiving it.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar., Ep. liv): \"It\nhas pleased the Holy Ghost that, out of honor for this great\nsacrament, the Lord's body should enter the mouth of a Christian\nbefore other foods.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing may prevent the receiving of this sacrament\nin two ways: first of all in itself, like mortal sin, which is\nrepugnant to what is signified by this sacrament, as stated above (A.\n4): secondly, on account of the Church's prohibition; and thus a man\nis prevented from taking this sacrament after receiving food or\ndrink, for three reasons. First, as Augustine says (Resp. ad Januar.,\nEp. liv), \"out of respect for this sacrament,\" so that it may enter\ninto a mouth not yet contaminated by any food or drink. Secondly,\nbecause of its signification, i.e. to give us to understand that\nChrist, Who is the reality of this sacrament, and His charity, ought\nto be first of all established in our hearts, according to Matt.\n6:33: \"Seek first the kingdom of God.\" Thirdly, on account of the\ndanger of vomiting and intemperance, which sometimes arise from\nover-indulging in food, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:21): \"One,\nindeed, is hungry, and another is drunk.\"\n\nNevertheless the sick are exempted from this general rule, for they\nshould be given Communion at once, even after food, should there be\nany doubt as to their danger, lest they die without Communion,\nbecause necessity has no law. Hence it is said in the Canon de\nConsecratione: \"Let the priest at once take Communion to the sick\nperson, lest he die without Communion.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Augustine says in the same book, \"the fact that our\nLord gave this sacrament after taking food is no reason why the\nbrethren should assemble after dinner or supper in order to partake\nof it, or receive it at meal-time, as did those whom the Apostle\nreproves and corrects. For our Saviour, in order the more strongly to\ncommend the depth of this mystery, wished to fix it closely in the\nhearts and memories of the disciples; and on that account He gave no\ncommand for it to be received in that order, leaving this to the\napostles, to whom He was about to entrust the government of the\nchurches.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The text quoted is thus paraphrased by the gloss: \"If\nany man be hungry and loath to await the rest, let him partake of his\nfood at home, that is, let him fill himself with earthly bread,\nwithout partaking of the Eucharist afterwards.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The wording of this decree is in accordance with the\nformer custom observed by some of receiving the body of Christ on\nthat day after breaking their fast, so as to represent the Lord's\nsupper. But this is now abrogated, because as Augustine says (Resp.\nad Januar., Ep. liv), it is customary throughout the whole world for\nChrist's body to be received before breaking the fast.\n\nReply Obj. 4: As stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 147, A. 6, ad\n2), there are two kinds of fast. First, there is the natural fast,\nwhich implies privation of everything taken before-hand by way of\nfood or drink: and such fast is required for this sacrament for the\nreasons given above. And therefore it is never lawful to take this\nsacrament after taking water, or other food or drink, or even\nmedicine, no matter how small the quantity be. Nor does it matter\nwhether it nourishes or not, whether it be taken by itself or with\nother things, provided it be taken by way of food or drink. But the\nremains of food left in the mouth, if swallowed accidentally, do not\nhinder receiving this sacrament, because they are swallowed not by\nway of food but by way of saliva. The same holds good of the\nunavoidable remains of the water or wine wherewith the mouth is\nrinsed, provided they be not swallowed in great quantity, but mixed\nwith saliva.\n\nSecondly, there is the fast of the Church, instituted for afflicting\nthe body: and this fast is not hindered by the things mentioned (in\nthe objection), because they do not give much nourishment, but are\ntaken rather as an alterative.\n\nReply Obj. 5: That this sacrament ought to enter into the mouth of a\nChristian before any other food must not be understood absolutely of\nall time, otherwise he who had once eaten or drunk could never\nafterwards take this sacrament: but it must be understood of the same\nday; and although the beginning of the day varies according to\ndifferent systems of reckoning (for some begin their day at noon,\nsome at sunset, others at midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman\nChurch begins it at midnight. Consequently, if any person takes\nanything by way of food or drink after midnight, he may not receive\nthis sacrament on that day; but he can do so if the food was taken\nbefore midnight. Nor does it matter, so far as the precept is\nconcerned, whether he has slept after taking food or drink, or\nwhether he has digested it; but it does matter as to the mental\ndisturbance which one suffers from want of sleep or from indigestion,\nfor, if the mind be much disturbed, one becomes unfit for receiving\nthis sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 6: The greatest devotion is called for at the moment of\nreceiving this sacrament, because it is then that the effect of the\nsacrament is bestowed, and such devotion is hindered more by what\ngoes before it than by what comes after it. And therefore it was\nordained that men should fast before receiving the sacrament rather\nthan after. Nevertheless there ought to be some interval between\nreceiving this sacrament and taking other food. Consequently, both\nthe Postcommunion prayer of thanksgiving is said in the Mass, and the\ncommunicants say their own private prayers.\n\nHowever, according to the ancient Canons, the following ordination was\nmade by Pope Clement I, (Ep. ii), \"If the Lord's portion be eaten in\nthe morning, the ministers who have taken it shall fast until the\nsixth hour, and if they take it at the third or fourth hour, they\nshall fast until evening.\" For in olden times, the priest celebrated\nMass less frequently, and with greater preparation: but now, because\nthe sacred mysteries have to be celebrated oftener, the same could not\nbe easily observed, and so it has been abrogated by contrary custom.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 9]\n\nWhether Those Who Have Not the Use of Reason Ought to Receive This\nSacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that those who have not the use of reason ought\nnot to receive this sacrament. For it is required that man should\napproach this sacrament with devotion and previous self-examination,\naccording to 1 Cor. 11:28: \"Let a man prove himself, and so let him\neat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.\" But this is not\npossible for those who are devoid of reason. Therefore this sacrament\nshould not be given to them.\n\nObj. 2: Further, among those who have not the use of reason are the\npossessed, who are called energumens. But such persons are kept from\neven beholding this sacrament, according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier.\niii). Therefore this sacrament ought not to be given to those who\nhave not the use of reason.\n\nObj. 3: Further, among those that lack the use of reason are\nchildren, the most innocent of all. But this sacrament is not given\nto children. Therefore much less should it be given to others\ndeprived of the use of reason.\n\n_On the contrary,_ We read in the First Council of Orange, (Canon\n13); and the same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): \"All\nthings that pertain to piety are to be given to the insane\": and\nconsequently, since this is the \"sacrament of piety,\" it must be\ngiven to them.\n\n_I answer that,_ Men are said to be devoid of reason in two ways.\nFirst, when they are feeble-minded, as a man who sees dimly is said\nnot to see: and since such persons can conceive some devotion towards\nthis sacrament, it is not to be denied them.\n\nIn another way men are said not to possess fully the use of reason.\nEither, then, they never had the use of reason, and have remained so\nfrom birth; and in that case this sacrament is not to be given to\nthem, because in no way has there been any preceding devotion towards\nthe sacrament: or else, they were not always devoid of reason, and\nthen, if when they formerly had their wits they showed devotion\ntowards this sacrament, it ought to be given to them in the hour of\ndeath; unless danger be feared of vomiting or spitting it out. Hence\nwe read in the acts of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Canon 76). and\nthe same is to be found in the Decretals (xxvi, 6): \"If a sick man\nask to receive the sacrament of Penance; and if, when the priest who\nhas been sent for comes to him, he be so weak as to be unable to\nspeak, or becomes delirious, let them, who heard him ask, bear\nwitness, and let him receive the sacrament of Penance. then if it be\nthought that he is going to die shortly, let him be reconciled by\nimposition of hands, and let the Eucharist be placed in his mouth.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Those lacking the use of reason can have devotion\ntowards the sacrament; actual devotion in some cases, and past in\nothers.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Dionysius is speaking there of energumens who are not\nyet baptized, in whom the devil's power is not yet extinct, since it\nthrives in them through the presence of original sin. But as to\nbaptized persons who are vexed in body by unclean spirits, the same\nreason holds good of them as of others who are demented. Hence\nCassian says (Collat. vii): \"We do not remember the most Holy\nCommunion to have ever been denied by our elders to them who are\nvexed by unclean spirits.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The same reason holds good of newly born children as of\nthe insane who never have had the use of reason: consequently, the\nsacred mysteries are not to be given to them. Although certain Greeks\ndo the contrary, because Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. ii) that Holy\nCommunion is to be given to them who are baptized; not understanding\nthat Dionysius is speaking there of the Baptism of adults. Nor do\nthey suffer any loss of life from the fact of our Lord saying (John\n6:54), \"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His\nblood, you shall not have life in you\"; because, as Augustine writes\nto Boniface (Pseudo-Beda, Comment. in 1 Cor. 10:17), \"then every one\nof the faithful becomes a partaker,\" i.e. spiritually, \"of the body\nand blood of the Lord, when he is made a member of Christ's body in\nBaptism.\" But when children once begin to have some use of reason so\nas to be able to conceive some devotion for the sacrament, then it\ncan be given to them.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 10]\n\nWhether It Is Lawful to Receive This Sacrament Daily?\n\nObjection 1: It does not appear to be lawful to receive this\nsacrament daily, because, as Baptism shows forth our Lord's Passion,\nso also does this sacrament. Now one may not be baptized several\ntimes, but only once, because \"Christ died once\" only \"for our sins,\"\naccording to 1 Pet. 3:18. Therefore, it seems unlawful to receive\nthis sacrament daily.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the reality ought to answer to the figure. But the\nPaschal Lamb, which was the chief figure of this sacrament, as was\nsaid above (Q. 73, A. 9) was eaten only once in the year; while the\nChurch once a year commemorates Christ's Passion, of which this\nsacrament is the memorial. It seems, then, that it is lawful to\nreceive this sacrament not daily, but only once in the year.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the greatest reverence is due to this sacrament as\ncontaining Christ. But it is a token of reverence to refrain from\nreceiving this sacrament; hence the Centurion is praised for saying\n(Matt. 8:8), \"Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my\nroof\"; also Peter, for saying (Luke 5:8), \"Depart from me, for I am a\nsinful man, O Lord.\" Therefore, it is not praiseworthy for a man to\nreceive this sacrament daily.\n\nObj. 4: Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this\nsacrament frequently, then the oftener it were taken the more\npraise-worthy it would be. But there would be greater frequency if\none were to receive it several times daily; and yet this is not the\ncustom of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to\nreceive it daily.\n\nObj. 5: Further, the Church by her statutes intends to promote the\nwelfare of the faithful. But the Church's statute only requires\nCommunion once a year; hence it is enacted (Extra, De Poenit. et\nRemiss. xii): \"Let every person of either sex devoutly receive the\nsacrament of the Eucharist at least at Easter; unless by the advice\nof his parish priest, and for some reasonable cause, he considers he\nought to refrain from receiving for a time.\" Consequently, it is not\npraiseworthy to receive this sacrament daily.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxviii):\n\"This is our daily bread; take it daily, that it may profit thee\ndaily.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There are two things to be considered regarding the\nuse of this sacrament. The first is on the part of the sacrament\nitself, the virtue of which gives health to men; and consequently it\nis profitable to receive it daily so as to receive its fruits daily.\nHence Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): \"If, whenever Christ's blood is\nshed, it is shed for the forgiveness of sins, I who sin often, should\nreceive it often: I need a frequent remedy.\" The second thing to be\nconsidered is on the part of the recipient, who is required to\napproach this sacrament with great reverence and devotion.\nConsequently, if anyone finds that he has these dispositions every\nday, he will do well to receive it daily. Hence, Augustine after\nsaying, \"Receive daily, that it may profit thee daily,\" adds: \"So\nlive, as to deserve to receive it daily.\" But because many persons\nare lacking in this devotion, on account of the many drawbacks both\nspiritual and corporal from which they suffer, it is not expedient\nfor all to approach this sacrament every day; but they should do so\nas often as they find themselves properly disposed. Hence it is said\nin De Eccles. Dogmat. liii: \"I neither praise nor blame daily\nreception of the Eucharist.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: In the sacrament of Baptism a man is conformed to\nChrist's death, by receiving His character within him. And therefore,\nas Christ died but once, so a man ought to be baptized but once. But\na man does not receive Christ's character in this sacrament; He\nreceives Christ Himself, Whose virtue endures for ever. Hence it is\nwritten (Heb. 10:14): \"By one oblation He hath perfected for ever\nthem that are sanctified.\" Consequently, since man has daily need of\nChrist's health-giving virtue, he may commendably receive this\nsacrament every day.\n\nAnd since Baptism is above all a spiritual regeneration, therefore,\nas a man is born naturally but once, so ought he by Baptism to be\nreborn spiritually but once, as Augustine says (Tract. xi in Joan.),\ncommenting on John 3:4, \"How can a man be born again, when he is\ngrown old?\" But this sacrament is spiritual food; hence, just as\nbodily food is taken every day, so is it a good thing to receive this\nsacrament every day. Hence it is that our Lord (Luke 11:3), teaches\nus to pray, \"Give us this day our daily bread\": in explaining which\nwords Augustine observes (De Verb. Dom., Serm. xxviii): \"If you\nreceive it,\" i.e. this sacrament, every day, \"every day is today for\nthee, and Christ rises again every day in thee, for when Christ\nriseth it is today.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The Paschal Lamb was the figure of this sacrament\nchiefly as to Christ's Passion represented therein; and therefore it\nwas partaken of once a year only, since Christ died but once. And on\nthis account the Church celebrates once a year the remembrance of\nChrist's Passion. But in this sacrament the memorial of His Passion\nis given by way of food which is partaken of daily; and therefore in\nthis respect it is represented by the manna which was given daily to\nthe people in the desert.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Reverence for this sacrament consists in fear\nassociated with love; consequently reverential fear of God is called\nfilial fear, as was said in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 67, A. 4, ad 2;\nII-II, Q. 19, AA. 9, 11, 12); because the desire of receiving arises\nfrom love, while the humility of reverence springs from fear.\nConsequently, each of these belongs to the reverence due to this\nsacrament; both as to receiving it daily, and as to refraining from\nit sometimes. Hence Augustine says (Ep. liv): \"If one says that the\nEucharist should not be received daily, while another maintains the\ncontrary, let each one do as according to his devotion he thinketh\nright; for Zaccheus and the Centurion did not contradict one another\nwhile the one received the Lord with joy, whereas the other said:\n'Lord I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof'; since\nboth honored our Saviour, though not in the same way.\" But love and\nhope, whereunto the Scriptures constantly urge us, are preferable to\nfear. Hence, too, when Peter had said, \"Depart from me, for I am a\nsinful man, O Lord,\" Jesus answered: \"Fear not.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Because our Lord said (Luke 11:3), \"Give us this day\nour daily bread,\" we are not on that account to communicate several\ntimes daily, for, by one daily communion the unity of Christ's\nPassion is set forth.\n\nReply Obj. 5: Various statutes have emanated according to the various\nages of the Church. In the primitive Church, when the devotion of the\nChristian faith was more flourishing, it was enacted that the\nfaithful should communicate daily: hence Pope Anaclete says (Ep. i):\n\"When the consecration is finished, let all communicate who do not\nwish to cut themselves off from the Church; for so the apostles have\nordained, and the holy Roman Church holds.\" Later on, when the fervor\nof faith relaxed, Pope Fabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) gave\npermission \"that all should communicate, if not more frequently, at\nleast three times in the year, namely, at Easter, Pentecost, and\nChristmas.\" Pope Soter likewise (Second Council of Chalon, Canon\nxlvii) declares that Communion should be received \"on Holy Thursday,\"\nas is set forth in the Decretals (De Consecratione, dist. 2). Later\non, when \"iniquity abounded and charity grew cold\" (Matt. 24:12),\nPope Innocent III commanded that the faithful should communicate \"at\nleast once a year,\" namely, \"at Easter.\" However, in De Eccles.\nDogmat. xxiii, the faithful are counseled \"to communicate on all\nSundays.\"\n_______________________\n\nELEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 11]\n\nWhether It Is Lawful to Abstain Altogether from Communion?\n\nObjection 1: It seems to be lawful to abstain altogether from\nCommunion. Because the Centurion is praised for saying (Matt. 8:8):\n\"Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst enter under my roof\"; and\nhe who deems that he ought to refrain entirely from Communion can be\ncompared to the Centurion, as stated above (A. 10, ad 3). Therefore,\nsince we do not read of Christ entering his house, it seems to be\nlawful for any individual to abstain from Communion his whole life\nlong.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is lawful for anyone to refrain from what is not\nof necessity for salvation. But this sacrament is not of necessity\nfor salvation, as was stated above (Q. 73, A. 3). Therefore it is\npermissible to abstain from Communion altogether.\n\nObj. 3: Further, sinners are not bound to go to Communion: hence Pope\nFabian (Third Council of Tours, Canon 1) after saying, \"Let all\ncommunicate thrice each year,\" adds: \"Except those who are hindered\nby grievous crimes.\" Consequently, if those who are not in the state\nof sin are bound to go to Communion, it seems that sinners are better\noff than good people, which is unfitting. Therefore, it seems lawful\neven for the godly to refrain from Communion.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (John 6:54): \"Except ye eat the\nflesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life\nin you.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), there are two ways of\nreceiving this sacrament namely, spiritually and sacramentally. Now\nit is clear that all are bound to eat it at least spiritually,\nbecause this is to be incorporated in Christ, as was said above (Q.\n73, A. 3, ad 1). Now spiritual eating comprises the desire or\nyearning for receiving this sacrament, as was said above (A. 1, ad 3,\nA. 2). Therefore, a man cannot be saved without desiring to receive\nthis sacrament.\n\nNow a desire would be vain except it were fulfilled when opportunity\npresented itself. Consequently, it is evident that a man is bound to\nreceive this sacrament, not only by virtue of the Church's precept,\nbut also by virtue of the Lord's command (Luke 22:19): \"Do this in\nmemory of Me.\" But by the precept of the Church there are fixed times\nfor fulfilling Christ's command.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Gregory says: \"He is truly humble, who is not\nobstinate in rejecting what is commanded for his good.\" Consequently,\nhumility is not praiseworthy if anyone abstains altogether from\nCommunion against the precept of Christ and the Church. Again the\nCenturion was not commanded to receive Christ into his house.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This sacrament is said not to be as necessary as\nBaptism, with regard to children, who can be saved without the\nEucharist, but not without the sacrament of Baptism: both, however,\nare of necessity with regard to adults.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Sinners suffer great loss in being kept back from\nreceiving this sacrament, so that they are not better off on that\naccount; and although while continuing in their sins they are not on\nthat account excused from transgressing the precept, nevertheless, as\nPope Innocent III says, penitents, \"who refrain on the advice of\ntheir priest,\" are excused.\n_______________________\n\nTWELFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 80, Art. 12]\n\nWhether It Is Lawful to Receive the Body of Christ Without the Blood?\n\nObjection 1: It seems unlawful to receive the body of Christ without\nthe blood. For Pope Gelasius says (cf. De Consecr. ii): \"We have\nlearned that some persons after taking only a portion of the sacred\nbody, abstain from the chalice of the sacred blood. I know not for\nwhat superstitious motive they do this: therefore let them either\nreceive the entire sacrament, or let them be withheld from the\nsacrament altogether.\" Therefore it is not lawful to receive the body\nof Christ without His blood.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood\nare required for the perfection of this sacrament, as stated above\n(Q. 73, A. 2; Q. 76, A. 2, ad 1). Consequently, if the body be taken\nwithout the blood, it will be an imperfect sacrament, which seems to\nsavor of sacrilege; hence Pope Gelasius adds (cf. De Consecr. ii),\n\"because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot happen\nwithout a great sacrilege.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, this sacrament is celebrated in memory of our Lord's\nPassion, as stated above (Q. 73, AA. 4, 5; Q. 74, A. 1), and is\nreceived for the health of soul. But the Passion is expressed in the\nblood rather than in the body; moreover, as stated above (Q. 74, A.\n1), the blood is offered for the health of the soul. Consequently,\none ought to refrain from receiving the body rather than the blood.\nTherefore, such as approach this sacrament ought not to take Christ's\nbody without His blood.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is the custom of many churches for the body of\nChrist to be given to the communicant without His blood.\n\n_I answer that,_ Two points should be observed regarding the use of\nthis sacrament, one on the part of the sacrament, the other on the\npart of the recipients; on the part of the sacrament it is proper for\nboth the body and the blood to be received, since the perfection of\nthe sacrament lies in both, and consequently, since it is the\npriest's duty both to consecrate and finish the sacrament, he ought\non no account to receive Christ's body without the blood.\n\nBut on the part of the recipient the greatest reverence and caution\nare called for, lest anything happen which is unworthy of so great a\nmystery. Now this could especially happen in receiving the blood,\nfor, if incautiously handled, it might easily be spilt. And because\nthe multitude of the Christian people increased, in which there are\nold, young, and children, some of whom have not enough discretion to\nobserve due caution in using this sacrament, on that account it is a\nprudent custom in some churches for the blood not to be offered to\nthe reception of the people, but to be received by the priest alone.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Pope Gelasius is speaking of priests, who, as they\nconsecrate the entire sacrament, ought to communicate in the entire\nsacrament. For, as we read in the (Twelfth) Council of Toledo, \"What\nkind of a sacrifice is that, wherein not even the sacrificer is known\nto have a share?\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in the\nuse of the faithful, but in the consecration of the matter. And hence\nthere is nothing derogatory to the perfection of this sacrament; if\nthe people receive the body without the blood, provided that the\npriest who consecrates receive both.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Our Lord's Passion is represented in the very\nconsecration of this sacrament, in which the body ought not to be\nconsecrated without the blood. But the body can be received by the\npeople without the blood: nor is this detrimental to the sacrament.\nBecause the priest both offers and consumes the blood on behalf of\nall; and Christ is fully contained under either species, as was shown\nabove (Q. 76, A. 2).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 81\n\nOF THE USE WHICH CHRIST MADE OF THIS SACRAMENT AT ITS INSTITUTION\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the use which Christ made of this sacrament\nat its institution; under which heading there are four points of\ninquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ received His own body and blood?\n\n(2) Whether He gave it to Judas?\n\n(3) What kind of body did He receive or give, namely, was it passible\nor impassible?\n\n(4) What would have been the condition of Christ's body under this\nsacrament, if it had been reserved or consecrated during the three\ndays He lay dead?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 81, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Received His Own Body and Blood?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ did not receive His own body and\nblood, because nothing ought to be asserted of either Christ's doings\nor sayings, which is not handed down by the authority of Sacred\nScripture. But it is not narrated in the gospels that He ate His own\nbody or drank His own blood. Therefore we must not assert this as a\nfact.\n\nObj. 2: Further, nothing can be within itself except perchance by\nreason of its parts, for instance, as one part is in another, as is\nstated in _Phys._ iv. But what is eaten and drunk is in the eater and\ndrinker. Therefore, since the entire Christ is under each species of\nthe sacrament, it seems impossible for Him to have received this\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the receiving of this sacrament is twofold, namely,\nspiritual and sacramental. But the spiritual was unsuitable for\nChrist, as He derived no benefit from the sacrament; and in\nconsequence so was the sacramental, since it is imperfect without the\nspiritual, as was observed above (Q. 80, A. 1). Consequently, in no\nway did Christ partake of this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Jerome says (Ad Hedib., Ep. xxx), \"The Lord Jesus\nChrist, Himself the guest and banquet, is both the partaker and what\nis eaten.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have said that Christ during the supper gave\nHis body and blood to His disciples, but did not partake of it\nHimself. But this seems improbable. Because Christ Himself was the\nfirst to fulfill what He required others to observe: hence He willed\nfirst to be baptized when imposing Baptism upon others: as we read in\nActs 1:1: \"Jesus began to do and to teach.\" Hence He first of all\ntook His own body and blood, and afterwards gave it to be taken by\nthe disciples. And hence the gloss upon Ruth 3:7, \"When he had eaten\nand drunk, says: Christ ate and drank at the supper, when He gave to\nthe disciples the sacrament of His body and blood. Hence, 'because\nthe children partook [*Vulg.: 'are partakers' (Heb. 2:14)] of His\nflesh and blood, He also hath been partaker in the same.'\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: We read in the Gospels how Christ \"took the bread . . .\nand the chalice\"; but it is not to be understood that He took them\nmerely into His hands, as some say, but that He took them in the same\nway as He gave them to others to take. Hence when He said to the\ndisciples, \"Take ye and eat,\" and again, \"Take ye and drink,\" it is\nto be understood that He Himself, in taking it, both ate and drank.\nHence some have composed this rhyme:\n\n\"The King at supper sits,\nThe twelve as guests He greets,\nClasping Himself in His hands,\nThe food Himself now eats.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As was said above (Q. 76, A. 5), Christ as contained\nunder this sacrament stands in relation to place, not according to\nHis own dimensions, but according to the dimensions of the\nsacramental species; so that Christ is Himself in every place where\nthose species are. And because the species were able to be both in\nthe hands and the mouth of Christ, the entire Christ could be in both\nHis hands and mouth. Now this could not come to pass were His\nrelation to place to be according to His proper dimensions.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As was stated above (Q. 79, A. 1, ad 2), the effect of\nthis sacrament is not merely an increase of habitual grace, but\nfurthermore a certain actual delectation of spiritual sweetness. But\nalthough grace was not increased in Christ through His receiving this\nsacrament, yet He had a certain spiritual delectation from the new\ninstitution of this sacrament. Hence He Himself said (Luke 22:15):\n\"With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you,\" which words\nEusebius explains of the new mystery of the New Testament, which He\ngave to the disciples. And therefore He ate it both spiritually and\nsacramentally, inasmuch as He received His own body under the\nsacrament which sacrament of His own body He both understood and\nprepared; yet differently from others who partake of it both\nsacramentally and spiritually, for these receive an increase of\ngrace, and they have need of the sacramental signs for perceiving its\ntruth.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 81, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Christ Gave His Body to Judas?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ did not give His body to Judas.\nBecause, as we read (Matt. 26:29), our Lord, after giving His body\nand blood to the disciples, said to them: \"I will not drink from\nhenceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall\ndrink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father.\" From this it\nappears that those to whom He had given His body and blood were to\ndrink of it again with Him. But Judas did not drink of it afterwards\nwith Him. Therefore he did not receive Christ's body and blood with\nthe other disciples.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what the Lord commanded, He Himself fulfilled, as is\nsaid in Acts 1:1: \"Jesus began to do and to teach.\" But He gave the\ncommand (Matt. 7:6): \"Give not that which is holy to dogs.\"\nTherefore, knowing Judas to be a sinner, seemingly He did not give\nhim His body and blood.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is distinctly related (John 13:26) that Christ\ngave dipped bread to Judas. Consequently, if He gave His body to him,\nit appears that He gave it him in the morsel, especially since we\nread (John 13:26) that \"after the morsel, Satan entered into him.\"\nAnd on this passage Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.): \"From this\nwe learn how we should beware of receiving a good thing in an evil\nway . . . For if he be 'chastised' who does 'not discern,' i.e.\ndistinguish, the body of the Lord from other meats, how must he be\n'condemned' who, feigning himself a friend, comes to His table a\nfoe?\" But (Judas) did not receive our Lord's body with the dipped\nmorsel; thus Augustine commenting on John 13:26, \"When He had dipped\nthe bread, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon the Iscariot [Vulg.:\n'to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon'],\" says (Tract. lxii in Joan.):\n\"Judas did not receive Christ's body then, as some think who read\ncarelessly.\" Therefore it seems that Judas did not receive the body\nof Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxii in Matth.): \"Judas\nwas not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries: hence on\nboth sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued\nwith such a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because he\nbecame none the better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from\nthe benefit received, nor from the honor conferred on him.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Hilary, in commenting on Matt. 26:17, held that\nChrist did not give His body and blood to Judas. And this would have\nbeen quite proper, if the malice of Judas be considered. But since\nChrist was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping\nwith His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from\nCommunion with the others without an accuser and evident proof; lest\nthe Church's prelates might have an example for doing the like, and\nlest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning.\nTherefore, it remains to be said that Judas received our Lord's body\nand blood with the other disciples, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier.\niii), and Augustine (Tract. lxii in Joan.).\n\nReply Obj. 1: This is Hilary's argument, to show that Judas did not\nreceive Christ's body. But it is not cogent; because Christ is\nspeaking to the disciples, from whose company Judas separated\nhimself: and it was not Christ that excluded him. Therefore Christ\nfor His part drinks the wine even with Judas in the kingdom of God;\nbut Judas himself repudiated this banquet.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The wickedness of Judas was known to Christ as God; but\nit was unknown to Him, after the manner in which men know it.\nConsequently, Christ did not repel Judas from Communion; so as to\nfurnish an example that such secret sinners are not to be repelled by\nother priests.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Without any doubt Judas did not receive Christ's body\nin the dipped bread; he received mere bread. Yet as Augustine\nobserves (Tract. lxii in Joan.), \"perchance the feigning of Judas is\ndenoted by the dipping of the bread; just as some things are dipped\nto be dyed. If, however, the dipping signifies here anything good\"\n(for instance, the sweetness of the Divine goodness, since bread is\nrendered more savory by being dipped), \"then, not undeservedly, did\ncondemnation follow his ingratitude for that same good.\" And owing to\nthat ingratitude, \"what is good became evil to him, as happens to\nthem who receive Christ's body unworthily.\"\n\nAnd as Augustine says (Tract. lxii in Joan.), \"it must be understood\nthat our Lord had already distributed the sacrament of His body and\nblood to all His disciples, among whom was Judas also, as Luke\nnarrates: and after that, we came to this, where, according to the\nrelation of John, our Lord, by dipping and handing the morsel, does\nmost openly declare His betrayer.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 81, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Christ Received and Gave to the Disciples His Impassible Body?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ both received and gave to the\ndisciples His impassible body. Because on Matt. 17:2, \"He was\ntransfigured before them,\" the gloss says: \"He gave to the disciples\nat the supper that body which He had through nature, but neither\nmortal nor passible.\" And again, on Lev. 2:5, \"if thy oblation be\nfrom the frying-pan,\" the gloss says: \"The Cross mightier than all\nthings made Christ's flesh fit for being eaten, which before the\nPassion did not seem so suited.\" But Christ gave His body as suited\nfor eating. Therefore He gave it just as it was after the Passion,\nthat is, impassible and immortal.\n\nObj. 2: Further, every passible body suffers by contact and by being\neaten. Consequently, if Christ's body was passible, it would have\nsuffered both from contact and from being eaten by the disciples.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the sacramental words now spoken by the priest in\nthe person of Christ are not more powerful than when uttered by\nChrist Himself. But now by virtue of the sacramental words it is\nChrist's impassible and immortal body which is consecrated upon the\naltar. Therefore, much more so was it then.\n\n_On the contrary,_ As Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), \"He\nbestowed on the disciples His body such as it was.\" But then He had a\npassible and a mortal body. Therefore, He gave a passible and mortal\nbody to the disciples.\n\n_I answer that,_ Hugh of Saint Victor (Innocent III, De Sacr. Alt.\nMyst. iv), maintained, that before the Passion, Christ assumed at\nvarious times the four properties of a glorified body--namely,\nsubtlety in His birth, when He came forth from the closed womb of the\nVirgin; agility, when He walked dryshod upon the sea; clarity, in the\nTransfiguration; and impassibility at the Last Supper, when He gave\nHis body to the disciples to be eaten. And according to this He gave\nHis body in an impassible and immortal condition to His disciples.\n\nBut whatever may be the case touching the other qualities, concerning\nwhich we have already stated what should be held (Q. 28, A. 2, ad 3;\nQ. 45, A. 2), nevertheless the above opinion regarding impassibility\nis inadmissible. For it is manifest that the same body of Christ\nwhich was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received\nby them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species\nit was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion.\nTherefore, neither was Christ's body impassible when given under the\nsacramental species.\n\nYet there was present in the sacrament, in an impassible manner, that\nwhich was passible of itself; just as that was there invisibly which\nof itself was visible. For as sight requires that the body seen be in\ncontact with the adjacent medium of sight, so does passion require\ncontact of the suffering body with the active agents. But Christ's\nbody, according as it is under the sacrament, as stated above (A. 1,\nad 2; Q. 76, A. 5), is not compared with its surroundings through the\nintermediary of its own dimensions, whereby bodies touch each other,\nbut through the dimensions of the bread and wine; consequently, it is\nthose species which are acted upon and are seen, but not Christ's own\nbody.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ is said not to have given His mortal and\npassible body at the supper, because He did not give it in mortal and\npassible fashion. But the Cross made His flesh adapted for eating,\ninasmuch as this sacrament represents Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This argument would hold, if Christ's body, as it was\npassible, were also present in a passible manner in this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 76, A. 4), the accidents of\nChrist's body are in this sacrament by real concomitance, but not by\nthe power of the sacrament, whereby the substance of Christ's body\ncomes to be there. And therefore the power of the sacramental words\nextends to this, that the body, i.e. Christ's, is under this\nsacrament, whatever accidents really exist in it.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 81, Art. 4]\n\nWhether, If This Sacrament Had Been Reserved in a Pyx, or Consecrated\nat the Moment of Christ's Death by One of the Apostles, Christ\nHimself Would Have Died There?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that if this sacrament had been reserved in a\npyx at the moment of Christ's death, or had then been consecrated by\none of the apostles, that Christ would not have died there. For\nChrist's death happened through His Passion. But even then He was in\nthis sacrament in an impassible manner. Therefore, He could not die\nin this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, on the death of Christ, His blood was separated from\nthe body. But His flesh and blood are together in this sacrament.\nTherefore He could not die in this sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, death ensues from the separation of the soul from\nthe body. But both the body and the soul of Christ are contained in\nthis sacrament. Therefore Christ could not die in this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The same Christ Who was upon the cross would have\nbeen in this sacrament. But He died upon the cross. Therefore, if\nthis sacrament had been reserved, He would have died therein.\n\n_I answer that,_ Christ's body is substantially the same in this\nsacrament, as in its proper species, but not after the same fashion;\nbecause in its proper species it comes in contact with surrounding\nbodies by its own dimensions: but it does not do so as it is in this\nsacrament, as stated above (A. 3). And therefore, all that belongs to\nChrist, as He is in Himself, can be attributed to Him both in His\nproper species, and as He exists in the sacrament; such as to live,\nto die, to grieve, to be animate or inanimate, and the like; while\nall that belongs to Him in relation to outward bodies, can be\nattributed to Him as He exists in His proper species, but not as He\nis in this sacrament; such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be\ncrucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed\nthis verse:\n\n\"Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils\nBut cannot feel the piercing of the thorns and nails.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As was stated above, suffering belongs to a body that\nsuffers in respect of some extrinsic body. And therefore Christ, as\nin this sacrament, cannot suffer; yet He can die.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As was said above (Q. 76, A. 2), in virtue of the\nconsecration, the body of Christ is under the species of bread, while\nHis blood is under the species of wine. But now that His blood is not\nreally separated from His body; by real concomitance, both His blood\nis present with the body under the species of the bread, and His body\ntogether with the blood under the species of the wine. But at the\ntime when Christ suffered, when His blood was really separated from\nHis body, if this sacrament had been consecrated, then the body only\nwould have been present under the species of the bread, and the blood\nonly under the species of the wine.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As was observed above (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 1), Christ's\nsoul is in this sacrament by real concomitance; because it is not\nwithout the body: but it is not there in virtue of the consecration.\nAnd therefore, if this sacrament had been consecrated then, or\nreserved, when His soul was really separated from His body, Christ's\nsoul would not have been under this sacrament, not from any defect in\nthe form of the words, but owing to the different dispositions of the\nthing contained.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 82\n\nOF THE MINISTER OF THIS SACRAMENT\n(In Ten Articles)\n\nWe now proceed to consider the minister of this sacrament: under\nwhich head there are ten points for our inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether it belongs to a priest alone to consecrate this sacrament?\n\n(2) Whether several priests can at the same time consecrate the same\nhost?\n\n(3) Whether it belongs to the priest alone to dispense this sacrament?\n\n(4) Whether it is lawful for the priest consecrating to refrain from\ncommunicating?\n\n(5) Whether a priest in sin can perform this sacrament?\n\n(6) Whether the Mass of a wicked priest is of less value than that of\na good one?\n\n(7) Whether those who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated,\ncan perform this sacrament?\n\n(8) Whether degraded priests can do so?\n\n(9) Whether communicants receiving at their hands are guilty of\nsinning?\n\n(10) Whether a priest may lawfully refrain altogether from\ncelebrating?\n\n[*This is the order observed by St. Thomas in writing the Articles;\nbut in writing this prologue, he placed Article 10 immediately after\nArticle 4 (Cf. Leonine edition).]\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Consecration of This Sacrament Belongs to a Priest Alone?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the consecration of this sacrament does\nnot belong exclusively to a priest. Because it was said above (Q. 78,\nA. 4) that this sacrament is consecrated in virtue of the words,\nwhich are the form of this sacrament. But those words are not\nchanged, whether spoken by a priest or by anyone else. Therefore, it\nseems that not only a priest, but anyone else, can consecrate this\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the priest performs this sacrament in the person of\nChrist. But a devout layman is united with Christ through charity.\nTherefore, it seems that even a layman can perform this sacrament.\nHence Chrysostom (Opus imperfectum in Matth., Hom. xliii) says that\n\"every holy man is a priest.\"\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Baptism is ordained for the salvation of mankind,\nso also is this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Q.\n74, A. 1; Q. 79, A. 2). But a layman can also baptize, as was stated\nabove (Q. 67, A. 3). Consequently, the consecration of this sacrament\nis not proper to a priest.\n\nObj. 4: Further, this sacrament is completed in the consecration of\nthe matter. But the consecration of other matters such as the chrism,\nthe holy oil, and blessed oil, belongs exclusively to a bishop; yet\ntheir consecration does not equal the dignity of the consecration of\nthe Eucharist, in which the entire Christ is contained. Therefore it\nbelongs, not to a priest, but only to a bishop, to perform this\nsacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Isidore says in an Epistle to Ludifred (Decretals,\ndist. 25): \"It belongs to a priest to consecrate this sacrament of\nthe Lord's body and blood upon God's altar.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 78, AA. 1, 4), such is the\ndignity of this sacrament that it is performed only as in the person\nof Christ. Now whoever performs any act in another's stead, must do\nso by the power bestowed by such a one. But as the power of receiving\nthis sacrament is conceded by Christ to the baptized person, so\nlikewise the power of consecrating this sacrament on Christ's behalf\nis bestowed upon the priest at his ordination: for thereby he is put\nupon a level with them to whom the Lord said (Luke 22:19): \"Do this\nfor a commemoration of Me.\" Therefore, it must be said that it\nbelongs to priests to accomplish this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The sacramental power is in several things, and not\nmerely in one: thus the power of Baptism lies both in the words and\nin the water. Accordingly the consecrating power is not merely in the\nwords, but likewise in the power delivered to the priest in his\nconsecration and ordination, when the bishop says to him: \"Receive\nthe power of offering up the Sacrifice in the Church for the living\nas well as for the dead.\" For instrumental power lies in several\ninstruments through which the chief agent acts.\n\nReply Obj. 2: A devout layman is united with Christ by spiritual\nunion through faith and charity, but not by sacramental power:\nconsequently he has a spiritual priesthood for offering spiritual\nsacrifices, of which it is said (Ps. 1:19): \"A sacrifice to God is an\nafflicted spirit\"; and (Rom. 12:1): \"Present your bodies a living\nsacrifice.\" Hence, too, it is written (1 Pet. 2:5): \"A holy\npriesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The receiving of this sacrament is not of such\nnecessity as the receiving of Baptism, as is evident from what was\nsaid above (Q. 65, AA. 3, 4; Q. 80, A. 11, ad 2). And therefore,\nalthough a layman can baptize in case of necessity, he cannot perform\nthis sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The bishop receives power to act on Christ's behalf\nupon His mystical body, that is, upon the Church; but the priest\nreceives no such power in his consecration, although he may have it\nby commission from the bishop. Consequently all such things as do not\nbelong to the mystical body are not reserved to the bishop, such as\nthe consecration of this sacrament. But it belongs to the bishop to\ndeliver, not only to the people, but likewise to priests, such things\nas serve them in the fulfillment of their respective duties. And\nbecause the blessing of the chrism, and of the holy oil, and of the\noil of the sick, and other consecrated things, such as altars,\nchurches, vestments, and sacred vessels, makes such things fit for\nuse in performing the sacraments which belong to the priestly duty,\ntherefore such consecrations are reserved to the bishop as the head\nof the whole ecclesiastical order.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Several Priests Can Consecrate One and the Same Host?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that several priests cannot consecrate one and\nthe same host. For it was said above (Q. 67, A. 6), that several\ncannot at the same time baptize one individual. But the power of a\npriest consecrating is not less than that of a man baptizing.\nTherefore, several priests cannot consecrate one host at the same\ntime.\n\nObj. 2: Further, what can be done by one, is superfluously done by\nseveral. But there ought to be nothing superfluous in the sacraments.\nSince, then, one is sufficient for consecrating, it seems that\nseveral cannot consecrate one host.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), this is\n\"the sacrament of unity.\" But multitude seems to be opposed to unity.\nTherefore it seems inconsistent with the sacrament for several\npriests to consecrate the same host.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is the custom of some Churches for priests\nnewly ordained to co-celebrate with the bishop ordaining them.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), when a priest is ordained he\nis placed on a level with those who received consecrating power from\nour Lord at the Supper. And therefore, according to the custom of\nsome Churches, as the apostles supped when Christ supped, so the\nnewly ordained co-celebrate with the ordaining bishop. Nor is the\nconsecration, on that account, repeated over the same host, because\nas Innocent III says (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), the intention of all\nshould be directed to the same instant of the consecration.\n\nReply Obj. 1: We do not read of Christ baptizing with the apostles\nwhen He committed to them the duty of baptizing; consequently there\nis no parallel.\n\nReply Obj. 2: If each individual priest were acting in his own power,\nthen other celebrants would be superfluous, since one would be\nsufficient. But whereas the priest does not consecrate except as in\nChrist's stead; and since many are \"one in Christ\" (Gal. 3:28);\nconsequently it does not matter whether this sacrament be consecrated\nby one or by many, except that the rite of the Church must be\nobserved.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of ecclesiastical unity,\nwhich is brought about by many being \"one in Christ.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Dispensing of This Sacrament Belongs to a Priest Alone?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not\nbelong to a priest alone. For Christ's blood belongs to this\nsacrament no less than His body. But Christ's blood is dispensed by\ndeacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus\n(Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): \"Try whether you have\nchosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of\nthe Lord's blood.\" Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of\nChrist's body does not belong to priests only.\n\nObj. 2: Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the\nsacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of\nthe matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs.\nTherefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense\nthe Lord's body.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this\nsacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs,\nnot to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore\nlikewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to\nthe priest.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): \"It has\ncome to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord's body to a\nlayman or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore\nforbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself\ncommunicate the sick.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the\npriest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (A. 1),\nhe consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated\nHis body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken\nof by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs\nto the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.\nSecondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between\nGod and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's\ngifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to\nthe people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament,\nnothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and\nthe chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for\ntouching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to\ntouch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon\nthe ground, or else in some other case of urgency.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a\ncertain share in the latter's duties, so that he may dispense the\nblood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding\nof a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ's blood is\ncontained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by\nthe dispenser, as Christ's body is touched. Secondly, because the\nblood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence\nit is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the\npeople. And because deacons are between priest and people, the\ndispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than\nthe dispensing of the body.\n\nReply Obj. 2: For the reason given above, it belongs to the same\nperson to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest's\n\"power of enlightening\" (Eccl. Hier. v), inasmuch as he dispenses the\nblood, so the priest shares in the \"perfective dispensing\" (Eccl.\nHier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament\nwhereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other\nperfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to others, are\nreserved to the bishop.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Priest Who Consecrates Is Bound to Receive This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the priest who consecrates is not bound to\nreceive this sacrament. Because, in the other consecrations, he who\nconsecrates the matter does not use it, just as the bishop\nconsecrating the chrism is not anointed therewith. But this sacrament\nconsists in the consecration of the matter. Therefore, the priest\nperforming this sacrament need not use the same, but may lawfully\nrefrain from receiving it.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in the other sacraments the minister does not give\nthe sacrament to himself: for no one can baptize himself, as stated\nabove (Q. 66, A. 5, ad 4). But as Baptism is dispensed in due order,\nso also is this sacrament. Therefore the priest who consecrates this\nsacrament ought not to receive it at his own hands.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it sometimes happens that Christ's body appears upon\nthe altar under the guise of flesh, and the blood under the guise of\nblood; which are unsuited for food and drink: hence, as was said\nabove (Q. 75, A. 5), it is on that account that they are given under\nanother species, lest they beget revulsion in the communicants.\nTherefore the priest who consecrates is not always bound to receive\nthis sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ We read in the acts of the (Twelfth) Council of\nToledo (Can. v), and again (De Consecr., dist. 2): \"It must be\nstrictly observed that as often as the priest sacrifices the body and\nblood of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the altar, he must himself be a\npartaker of Christ's body and blood.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 79, AA. 5, 7), the Eucharist is\nnot only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. Now whoever offers\nsacrifice must be a sharer in the sacrifice, because the outward\nsacrifice he offers is a sign of the inner sacrifice whereby he\noffers himself to God, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei x). Hence by\npartaking of the sacrifice he shows that the inner one is likewise\nhis. In the same way also, by dispensing the sacrifice to the people\nhe shows that he is the dispenser of Divine gifts, of which he ought\nhimself to be the first to partake, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier.\niii). Consequently, he ought to receive before dispensing it to the\npeople. Accordingly we read in the chapter mentioned above (Twelfth\nCouncil of Toledo, Can. v): \"What kind of sacrifice is that wherein\nnot even the sacrificer is known to have a share?\" But it is by\npartaking of the sacrifice that he has a share in it, as the Apostle\nsays (1 Cor. 10:18): \"Are not they that eat of the sacrifices,\npartakers of the altar?\" Therefore it is necessary for the priest, as\noften as he consecrates, to receive this sacrament in its integrity.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The consecration of chrism or of anything else is not a\nsacrifice, as the consecration of the Eucharist is: consequently\nthere is no parallel.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The sacrament of Baptism is accomplished in the use of\nthe matter, and consequently no one can baptize himself, because the\nsame person cannot be active and passive in a sacrament. Hence\nneither in this sacrament does the priest consecrate himself, but he\nconsecrates the bread and wine, in which consecration the sacrament\nis completed. But the use thereof follows the sacrament, and\ntherefore there is no parallel.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If Christ's body appears miraculously upon the altar\nunder the guise of flesh, or the blood under the guise of blood, it\nis not to be received. For Jerome says upon Leviticus (cf. De\nConsecr., dist. 2): \"It is lawful to eat of this sacrifice which is\nwonderfully performed in memory of Christ: but it is not lawful for\nanyone to eat of that one which Christ offered on the altar of the\ncross.\" Nor does the priest transgress on that account, because\nmiraculous events are not subject to human laws. Nevertheless the\npriest would be well advised to consecrate again and receive the\nLord's body and blood.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 5]\n\nWhether a Wicked Priest Can Consecrate the Eucharist?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a wicked priest cannot consecrate the\nEucharist. For Jerome, commenting on Sophon. iii, 4, says: \"The\npriests who perform the Eucharist, and who distribute our Lord's\nblood to the people, act wickedly against Christ's law, in deeming\nthat the Eucharist is consecrated by a prayer rather than by a good\nlife; and that only the solemn prayer is requisite, and not the\npriest's merits: of whom it is said: 'Let not the priest, in whatever\ndefilement he may be, approach to offer oblations to the Lord'\" (Lev.\n21:21, Septuagint). But the sinful priest, being defiled, has neither\nthe life nor the merits befitting this sacrament. Therefore a sinful\npriest cannot consecrate the Eucharist.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that \"the bread\nand wine are changed supernaturally into the body and blood of our\nLord, by the coming of the Holy Ghost.\" But Pope Gelasius I says (Ep.\nad Elphid., cf. Decret. i, q. 1): \"How shall the Holy Spirit, when\ninvoked, come for the consecration of the Divine Mystery, if the\npriest invoking him be proved full of guilty deeds?\" Consequently,\nthe Eucharist cannot be consecrated by a wicked priest.\n\nObj. 3: Further, this sacrament is consecrated by the priest's\nblessing. But a sinful priest's blessing is not efficacious for\nconsecrating this sacrament, since it is written (Malachi 2:2): \"I\nwill curse your blessings.\" Again, Dionysius says in his Epistle\n(viii) to the monk Demophilus: \"He who is not enlightened has\ncompletely fallen away from the priestly order; and I wonder that\nsuch a man dare to employ his hands in priestly actions, and in the\nperson of Christ to utter, over the Divine symbols, his unclean\ninfamies, for I will not call them prayers.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Paschasius) says (De Corp. Dom. xii):\n\"Within the Catholic Church, in the mystery of the Lord's body and\nblood, nothing greater is done by a good priest, nothing less by an\nevil priest, because it is not by the merits of the consecrator that\nthe sacrament is accomplished, but by the Creator's word, and by the\npower of the Holy Spirit.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (AA. 1, 3), the priest consecrates\nthis sacrament not by his own power, but as the minister of Christ,\nin Whose person he consecrates this sacrament. But from the fact of\nbeing wicked he does not cease to be Christ's minister; because our\nLord has good and wicked ministers or servants. Hence (Matt. 24:45)\nour Lord says: \"Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant?\"\nand afterwards He adds: \"But if that evil servant shall say in his\nheart,\" etc. And the Apostle (1 Cor. 4:1) says: \"Let a man so account\nof us as of the ministers of Christ\"; and afterwards he adds: \"I am\nnot conscious to myself of anything; yet am I not hereby justified.\"\nHe was therefore certain that he was Christ's minister; yet he was\nnot certain that he was a just man. Consequently, a man can be\nChrist's minister even though he be not one of the just. And this\nbelongs to Christ's excellence, Whom, as the true God, things both\ngood and evil serve, since they are ordained by His providence for\nHis glory. Hence it is evident that priests, even though they be not\ngodly, but sinners, can consecrate the Eucharist.\n\nReply Obj. 1: In those words Jerome is condemning the error of\npriests who believed they could consecrate the Eucharist worthily,\nfrom the mere fact of being priests, even though they were sinners;\nand Jerome condemns this from the fact that persons defiled are\nforbidden to approach the altar; but this does not prevent the\nsacrifice, which they offer, from being a true sacrifice, if they do\napproach.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Previous to the words quoted, Pope Gelasius expresses\nhimself as follows: \"That most holy rite, which contains the Catholic\ndiscipline, claims for itself such reverence that no one may dare to\napproach it except with clean conscience.\" From this it is evident\nthat his meaning is that the priest who is a sinner ought not to\napproach this sacrament. Hence when he resumes, \"How shall the Holy\nSpirit come when summoned,\" it must be understood that He comes, not\nthrough the priest's merits, but through the power of Christ, Whose\nwords the priest utters.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As the same action can be evil, inasmuch as it is done\nwith a bad intention of the servant; and good from the good intention\nof the master; so the blessing of a sinful priest, inasmuch as he\nacts unworthily is deserving of a curse, and is reputed an infamy and\na blasphemy, and not a prayer; whereas, inasmuch as it is pronounced\nin the person of Christ, it is holy and efficacious. Hence it is said\nwith significance: \"I will curse your blessings.\"\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Mass of a Sinful Priest Is of Less Worth Than the Mass of\na Good Priest?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the mass of a sinful priest is not of less\nworth than that of a good priest. For Pope Gregory says in the\nRegister: \"Alas, into what a great snare they fall who believe that\nthe Divine and hidden mysteries can be sanctified more by some than\nby others; since it is the one and the same Holy Ghost Who hallows\nthose mysteries in a hidden and invisible manner.\" But these hidden\nmysteries are celebrated in the mass. Therefore the mass of a sinful\npriest is not of less value than the mass of a good priest.\n\nObj. 2: Further, as Baptism is conferred by a minister through the\npower of Christ Who baptizes, so likewise this sacrament is\nconsecrated in the person of Christ. But Baptism is no better when\nconferred by a better priest, as was said above (Q. 64, A. 1, ad 2).\nTherefore neither is a mass the better, which is celebrated by a\nbetter priest.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as the merits of priests differ in the point of\nbeing good and better, so they likewise differ in the point of being\ngood and bad. Consequently, if the mass of a better priest be itself\nbetter, it follows that the mass of a bad priest must be bad. Now\nthis is unreasonable, because the malice of the ministers cannot\naffect Christ's mysteries, as Augustine says in his work on Baptism\n(Contra Donat. xii). Therefore neither is the mass of a better priest\nthe better.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is stated in Decretal i, q. 1: \"The worthier\nthe priest, the sooner is he heard in the needs for which he prays.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There are two things to be considered in the mass.\nnamely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief thing; and the\nprayers which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead.\nSo far as the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked priest\nis not of less value than that of a good priest, because the same\nsacrifice is offered by both.\n\nAgain, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two\nrespects: first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the\ndevotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect there is no\ndoubt but that the mass of the better priest is the more fruitful. In\nanother respect, inasmuch as the prayer is said by the priest in the\nmass in the place of the entire Church, of which the priest is the\nminister; and this ministry remains even in sinful men, as was said\nabove (A. 5) in regard to Christ's ministry. Hence, in this respect\nthe prayer even of the sinful priest is fruitful, not only that which\nhe utters in the mass, but likewise all those he recites in the\necclesiastical offices, wherein he takes the place of the Church. on\nthe other hand, his private prayers are not fruitful, according to\nProv. 28:9: \"He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his\nprayer shall be an abomination.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: Gregory is speaking there of the holiness of the Divine\nsacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In the sacrament of Baptism solemn prayers are not made\nfor all the faithful, as in the mass; therefore there is no parallel\nin this respect. There is, however, a resemblance as to the effect of\nthe sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: By reason of the power of the Holy Ghost, Who\ncommunicates to each one the blessings of Christ's members on account\nof their being united in charity, the private blessing in the mass of\na good priest is fruitful to others. But the private evil of one man\ncannot hurt another, except the latter, in some way, consent, as\nAugustine says (Contra Parmen. ii).\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 7]\n\nWhether Heretics, Schismatics, and Excommunicated Persons Can\nConsecrate?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated\npersons are not able to consecrate the Eucharist. For Augustine says\n(Liber sentent. Prosperi xv) that \"there is no such thing as a true\nsacrifice outside the Catholic Church\": and Pope Leo I says (Ep.\nlxxx; cf. Decretal i, q. 1): Elsewhere \"(i.e. than in the Church\nwhich is Christ's body) there is neither valid priesthood nor true\nsacrifice.\" But heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons are\nsevered from the Church. Therefore they are unable to offer a true\nsacrifice.\n\nObj. 2: Further (Decretal, caus. i, q. 1), Innocent I is quoted as\nsaying: \"Because we receive the laity of the Arians and other\npestilential persons, if they seem to repent, it does not follow that\ntheir clergy have the dignity of the priesthood or of any other\nministerial office, for we allow them to confer nothing save\nBaptism.\" But none can consecrate the Eucharist, unless he have the\ndignity of the priesthood. Therefore heretics and the like cannot\nconsecrate the Eucharist.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it does not seem feasible for one outside the Church\nto act on behalf of the Church. But when the priest consecrates the\nEucharist, he does so in the person of the entire Church, as is\nevident from the fact of his putting up all prayers in the person of\nthe Church. Therefore, it seems that those who are outside the\nChurch, such as those who are heretics, schismatics, and\nexcommunicate, are not able to consecrate the Eucharist.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): \"Just as\nBaptism remains in them,\" i.e. in heretics, schismatics, and those\nwho are excommunicate, \"so do their orders remain intact.\" Now, by\nthe power of his ordination, a priest can consecrate the Eucharist.\nTherefore, it seems that heretics, schismatics, and those who are\nexcommunicate, can consecrate the Eucharist, since their orders\nremain entire.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and\nthe excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot\nperform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as\nAugustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), \"it is one thing to lack\nsomething utterly, and another to have it improperly\"; and in like\nfashion, \"it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow,\nbut not rightly.\" Accordingly, such as, being within the Church,\nreceived the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being\nordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they\nuse it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by\nheresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while\nseparated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do\nthey use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is\nclear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they\nreturn to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are\nreceived in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist\nis an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are\nseparated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can\nindeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them\ncontains Christ's true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin\nby doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the\nsacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Such and similar authorities are to be understood in\nthis sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church.\nHence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is\na true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a true\nsacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above\n(Q. 80, A. 3), that the sinner receives Christ's body sacramentally,\nbut not spiritually.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics,\nand schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of\nnecessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist,\nor confer the other sacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass, speaks\ninstead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating\nthe sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he\nholds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest severed\nfrom the unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost the\npower of order, he consecrates Christ's true body and blood; but\nbecause he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have\nno efficacy.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 8]\n\nWhether a Degraded Priest Can Consecrate This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that a degraded priest cannot consecrate this\nsacrament. For no one can perform this sacrament except he have the\npower of consecrating. But the priest \"who has been degraded has no\npower of consecrating, although he has the power of baptizing\" (App.\nGratiani). Therefore it seems that a degraded priest cannot\nconsecrate the Eucharist.\n\nObj. 2: Further, he who gives can take away. But the bishop in\nordaining gives to the priest the power of consecrating. Therefore he\ncan take it away by degrading him.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the priest, by degradation, loses either the power\nof consecrating, or the use of such power. But he does not lose\nmerely the use, for thus the degraded one would lose no more than one\nexcommunicated, who also lacks the use. Therefore it seems that he\nloses the power to consecrate, and in consequence that he cannot\nperform this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine (Contra Parmen. ii) proves that\n\"apostates\" from the faith \"are not deprived of their Baptism,\" from\nthe fact that \"it is not restored to them when they return repentant;\nand therefore it is deemed that it cannot be lost.\" But in like\nfashion, if the degraded man be restored, he has not to be ordained\nover again. Consequently, he has not lost the power of consecrating,\nand so the degraded priest can perform this sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ The power of consecrating the Eucharist belongs to\nthe character of the priestly order. But every character is\nindelible, because it is given with a kind of consecration, as was\nsaid above (Q. 63, A. 5), just as the consecrations of all other\nthings are perpetual, and cannot be lost or repeated. Hence it is\nclear that the power of consecrating is not lost by degradation. For,\nagain, Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii): \"Both are sacraments,\"\nnamely Baptism and order, \"and both are given to a man with a kind of\nconsecration; the former, when he is baptized; the latter when he is\nordained; and therefore it is not lawful for Catholics to repeat\neither of them.\" And thus it is evident that the degraded priest can\nperform this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: That Canon is speaking, not as by way of assertion, but\nby way of inquiry, as can be gleaned from the context.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The bishop gives the priestly power of order, not as\nthough coming from himself, but instrumentally, as God's minister,\nand its effect cannot be taken away by man, according to Matt. 19:6:\n\"What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.\" And\ntherefore the bishop cannot take this power away, just as neither can\nhe who baptizes take away the baptismal character.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Excommunication is medicinal. And therefore the\nministry of the priestly power is not taken away from the\nexcommunicate, as it were, perpetually, but only for a time, that\nthey may mend; but the exercise is withdrawn from the degraded, as\nthough condemned perpetually.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 9]\n\nWhether It Is Permissible to Receive Communion from Heretical,\nExcommunicate, or Sinful Priests, and to Hear Mass Said by Them?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that one may lawfully receive Communion from\nheretical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, and to hear mass\nsaid by them. Because, as Augustine says (Contra Petilian. iii), \"we\nshould not avoid God's sacraments, whether they be given by a good\nman or by a wicked one.\" But priests, even if they be sinful, or\nheretics, or excommunicate, perform a valid sacrament. Therefore it\nseems that one ought not to refrain from receiving Communion at their\nhands, or from hearing their mass.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's true body is figurative of His mystical\nbody, as was said above (Q. 67, A. 2). But Christ's true body is\nconsecrated by the priests mentioned above. Therefore it seems that\nwhoever belongs to His mystical body can communicate in their\nsacrifices.\n\nObj. 3: Further, there are many sins graver than fornication. But it\nis not forbidden to hear the masses of priests who sin otherwise.\nTherefore, it ought not to be forbidden to hear the masses of priests\nguilty of this sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Canon says (Dist. 32): \"Let no one hear the\nmass of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine.\"\nMoreover, Gregory says (Dial. iii) that \"the faithless father sent an\nArian bishop to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the\nconsecrated Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop\narrived, God's devoted servant rebuked him, as was right for him to\ndo.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (AA. 5, 7), heretical,\nschismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they\nhave the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a\nproper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever\ncommunicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin.\nHence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that \"He that\nsaith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.\"\nConsequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to\nassist at their mass.\n\nStill there is a difference among the above, because heretics,\nschismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's\nsentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever\nhears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin.\nBut not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence\nfrom using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine\nsentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any\necclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is\npronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to\nhear their mass. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, \"with such a one not so much\nas to eat,\" Augustine's gloss runs thus: \"In saying this he was\nunwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary\nsuspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by\nGod's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of\nhis own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, or to\nreceive Communion from them, we are not shunning God's sacraments; on\nthe contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor (hence a host\nconsecrated by such priests is to be adored, and if it be reserved,\nit can be consumed by a lawful priest): but what we shun is the sin\nof the unworthy ministers.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The unity of the mystical body is the fruit of the true\nbody received. But those who receive or minister unworthily, are\ndeprived of the fruit, as was said above (A. 7; Q. 80, A. 4). And\ntherefore, those who belong to the unity of the Faith are not to\nreceive the sacrament from their dispensing.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although fornication is not graver than other sins, yet\nmen are more prone to it, owing to fleshly concupiscence.\nConsequently, this sin is specially inhibited to priests by the\nChurch, lest anyone hear the mass of one living in concubinage.\nHowever, this is to be understood of one who is notorious, either\nfrom being convicted and sentenced, or from having acknowledged his\nguilt in legal form, or from it being impossible to conceal his guilt\nby any subterfuge.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 82, Art. 10]\n\nWhether It Is Lawful for a Priest to Refrain Entirely from\nConsecrating the Eucharist?\n\nObjection 1: It seems to be lawful for a priest to refrain entirely\nfrom consecrating the Eucharist. Because, as it is the priest's\noffice to consecrate the Eucharist, so it is likewise to baptize and\nadminister the other sacraments. But the priest is not bound to act\nas a minister of the other sacraments, unless he has undertaken the\ncare of souls. Therefore, it seems that likewise he is not bound to\nconsecrate the Eucharist except he be charged with the care of souls.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no one is bound to do what is unlawful for him to\ndo; otherwise he would be in two minds. But it is not lawful for the\npriest who is in a state of sin, or excommunicate, to consecrate the\nEucharist, as was said above (A. 7). Therefore it seems that such men\nare not bound to celebrate, and so neither are the others; otherwise\nthey would be gainers by their fault.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the priestly dignity is not lost by subsequent\nweakness: because Pope Gelasius I says (cf. Decretal, Dist. 55): \"As\nthe canonical precepts do not permit them who are feeble in body to\napproach the priesthood, so if anyone be disabled when once in that\nstate, he cannot lose that he received at the time he was well.\" But\nit sometimes happens that those who are already ordained as priests\nincur defects whereby they are hindered from celebrating, such as\nleprosy or epilepsy, or the like. Consequently, it does not appear\nthat priests are bound to celebrate.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says in one of his Orations (xxxiii): \"It\nis a grave matter if we do not approach Thy altar with clean heart\nand pure hands; but it is graver still if while shunning sins we also\nfail to offer our sacrifice.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have said that a priest may lawfully refrain\naltogether from consecrating, except he be bound to do so, and to\ngive the sacraments to the people, by reason of his being entrusted\nwith the care of souls.\n\nBut this is said quite unreasonably, because everyone is bound to use\nthe grace entrusted to him, when opportunity serves, according to 2\nCor. 6:1: \"We exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in\nvain.\" But the opportunity of offering sacrifice is considered not\nmerely in relation to the faithful of Christ to whom the sacraments\nmust be administered, but chiefly with regard to God to Whom the\nsacrifice of this sacrament is offered by consecrating. Hence, it is\nnot lawful for the priest, even though he has not the care of souls,\nto refrain altogether from celebrating; and he seems to be bound to\ncelebrate at least on the chief festivals, and especially on those\ndays on which the faithful usually communicate. And hence it is that\n(2 Macc. 4:14) it is said against some priests that they \"were not\nnow occupied about the offices of the altar . . . despising the\ntemple and neglecting the sacrifices.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The other sacraments are accomplished in being used by\nthe faithful, and therefore he alone is bound to administer them who\nhas undertaken the care of souls. But this sacrament is performed in\nthe consecration of the Eucharist, whereby a sacrifice is offered to\nGod, to which the priest is bound from the order he has received.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The sinful priest, if deprived by the Church's sentence\nfrom exercising his order, simply or for a time, is rendered\nincapable of offering sacrifice; consequently, the obligation lapses.\nBut if not deprived of the power of celebrating, the obligation is\nnot removed; nor is he in two minds, because he can repent of his sin\nand then celebrate.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Weakness or sickness contracted by a priest after his\nordination does not deprive him of his orders; but hinders him from\nexercising them, as to the consecration of the Eucharist: sometimes\nby making it impossible to exercise them, as, for example, if he lose\nhis sight, or his fingers, or the use of speech; and sometimes on\naccount of danger, as in the case of one suffering from epilepsy, or\nindeed any disease of the mind; and sometimes, on account of\nloathsomeness, as is evident in the case of a leper, who ought not to\ncelebrate in public: he can, however, say mass privately, unless the\nleprosy has gone so far that it has rendered him incapable owing to\nthe wasting away of his limbs.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 83\n\nOF THE RITE OF THIS SACRAMENT\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe have now to consider the Rite of this sacrament, under which head\nthere are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Christ is sacrificed in the celebration of this mystery?\n\n(2) Of the time of celebrating;\n\n(3) Of the place and other matters relating to the equipment for this\ncelebration;\n\n(4) Of the words uttered in celebrating this mystery;\n\n(5) Of the actions performed in celebrating this mystery.\n\n(6) Of the defects which occur in the celebration of this sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Christ Is Sacrificed in This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that Christ is not sacrificed in the\ncelebration of this sacrament. For it is written (Heb. 10:14) that\n\"Christ by one oblation hath perfected for ever them that are\nsanctified.\" But that oblation was His oblation. Therefore Christ is\nnot sacrificed in the celebration of this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's sacrifice was made upon the cross, whereon\n\"He delivered Himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for\nan odor of sweetness,\" as is said in Eph. 5:2. But Christ is not\ncrucified in the celebration of this mystery. Therefore, neither is\nHe sacrificed.\n\nObj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv), in Christ's\nsacrifice the priest and the victim are one and the same. But in the\ncelebration of this sacrament the priest and the victim are not the\nsame. Therefore, the celebration of this sacrament is not a sacrifice\nof Christ.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in the Liber Sentent. Prosp. (cf.\nEp. xcviii): \"Christ was sacrificed once in Himself, and yet He is\nsacrificed daily in the Sacrament.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The celebration of this sacrament is called a\nsacrifice for two reasons. First, because, as Augustine says (Ad\nSimplician. ii), \"the images of things are called by the names of the\nthings whereof they are the images; as when we look upon a picture or\na fresco, we say, 'This is Cicero and that is Sallust.'\" But, as was\nsaid above (Q. 79, A. 1), the celebration of this sacrament is an\nimage representing Christ's Passion, which is His true sacrifice.\nAccordingly the celebration of this sacrament is called Christ's\nsacrifice. Hence it is that Ambrose, in commenting on Heb. 10:1,\nsays: \"In Christ was offered up a sacrifice capable of giving eternal\nsalvation; what then do we do? Do we not offer it up every day in\nmemory of His death?\" Secondly it is called a sacrifice, in respect\nof the effect of His Passion: because, to wit, by this sacrament, we\nare made partakers of the fruit of our Lord's Passion. Hence in one\nof the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after Pentecost) we say:\n\"Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work\nof our redemption is enacted.\" Consequently, according to the first\nreason, it is true to say that Christ was sacrificed, even in the\nfigures of the Old Testament: hence it is stated in the Apocalypse\n(13:8): \"Whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb,\nwhich was slain from the beginning of the world.\" But according to\nthe second reason, it is proper to this sacrament for Christ to be\nsacrificed in its celebration.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As Ambrose says (commenting on Heb. 10:1), \"there is\nbut one victim,\" namely that which Christ offered, and which we\noffer, \"and not many victims, because Christ was offered but once:\nand this latter sacrifice is the pattern of the former. For, just as\nwhat is offered everywhere is one body, and not many bodies, so also\nis it but one sacrifice.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: As the celebration of this sacrament is an image\nrepresenting Christ's Passion, so the altar is representative of the\ncross itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species.\n\nReply Obj. 3: For the same reason (cf. Reply Obj. 2) the priest also\nbears Christ's image, in Whose person and by Whose power he\npronounces the words of consecration, as is evident from what was\nsaid above (Q. 82, AA. 1, 3). And so, in a measure, the priest and\nvictim are one and the same.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 2]\n\nWhether the Time for Celebrating This Mystery Has Been Properly\nDetermined?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the time for celebrating this mystery has\nnot been properly determined. For as was observed above (A. 1), this\nsacrament is representative of our Lord's Passion. But the\ncommemoration of our Lord's Passion takes place in the Church once in\nthe year: because Augustine says (Enarr. ii in Ps. 21): \"Is not\nChrist slain as often as the Pasch is celebrated? Nevertheless, the\nanniversary remembrance represents what took place in by-gone days;\nand so it does not cause us to be stirred as if we saw our Lord\nhanging upon the cross.\" Therefore this sacrament ought to be\ncelebrated but once a year.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's Passion is commemorated in the Church on\nthe Friday before Easter, and not on Christmas Day. Consequently,\nsince this sacrament is commemorative of our Lord's Passion, it seems\nunsuitable for this sacrament to be celebrated thrice on Christmas\nDay, and to be entirely omitted on Good Friday.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church\nought to imitate Christ's institution. But it was in the evening that\nChrist consecrated this sacrament. Therefore it seems that this\nsacrament ought to be celebrated at that time of day.\n\nObj. 4: Further, as is set down in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist.\ni), Pope Leo I wrote to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, that \"it is\npermissible to celebrate mass in the first part of the day.\" But the\nday begins at midnight, as was said above (Q. 80, A. 8, ad 5).\nTherefore it seems that after midnight it is lawful to celebrate.\n\nObj. 5: Further, in one of the Sunday Secrets (Ninth Sunday after\nPentecost) we say: \"Grant us, Lord, we beseech Thee, to frequent\nthese mysteries.\" But there will be greater frequency if the priest\ncelebrates several times a day. Therefore it seems that the priest\nought not to be hindered from celebrating several times daily.\n\nOn the contrary is the custom which the Church observes according to\nthe statutes of the Canons.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), in the celebration of this\nmystery, we must take into consideration the representation of our\nLord's Passion, and the participation of its fruits; and the time\nsuitable for the celebration of this mystery ought to be determined\nby each of these considerations. Now since, owing to our daily\ndefects, we stand in daily need of the fruits of our Lord's Passion,\nthis sacrament is offered regularly every day in the Church. Hence\nour Lord teaches us to pray (Luke 11:3): \"Give us this day our daily\nbread\": in explanation of which words Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.\nxxviii): \"If it be a daily bread, why do you take it once a year, as\nthe Greeks have the custom in the east? Receive it daily that it may\nbenefit you every day.\"\n\nBut since our Lord's Passion was celebrated from the third to the\nninth hour, therefore this sacrament is solemnly celebrated by the\nChurch in that part of the day.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Christ's Passion is recalled in this sacrament,\ninasmuch as its effect flows out to the faithful; but at Passion-tide\nChrist's Passion is recalled inasmuch as it was wrought in Him Who is\nour Head. This took place but once; whereas the faithful receive\ndaily the fruits of His Passion: consequently, the former is\ncommemorated but once in the year, whereas the latter takes place\nevery day, both that we may partake of its fruit and in order that we\nmay have a perpetual memorial.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The figure ceases on the advent of the reality. But\nthis sacrament is a figure and a representation of our Lord's\nPassion, as stated above. And therefore on the day on which our\nLord's Passion is recalled as it was really accomplished, this\nsacrament is not consecrated. Nevertheless, lest the Church be\ndeprived on that day of the fruit of the Passion offered to us by\nthis sacrament, the body of Christ consecrated the day before is\nreserved to be consumed on that day; but the blood is not reserved,\non account of danger, and because the blood is more specially the\nimage of our Lord's Passion, as stated above (Q. 78, A. 3, ad 2). Nor\nis it true, as some affirm, that the wine is changed into blood when\nthe particle of Christ's body is dropped into it. Because this cannot\nbe done otherwise than by consecration under the due form of words.\n\nOn Christmas Day, however, several masses are said on account of\nChrist's threefold nativity. Of these the first is His eternal birth,\nwhich is hidden in our regard, and therefore one mass is sung in the\nnight, in the \"Introit\" of which we say: \"The Lord said unto Me: Thou\nart My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.\" The second is His\nnativity in time, and the spiritual birth, whereby Christ rises \"as\nthe day-star in our [Vulg.: 'your'] hearts\" (2 Pet. 1:19), and on\nthis account the mass is sung at dawn, and in the \"Introit\" we say:\n\"The light will shine on us today.\" The third is Christ's temporal\nand bodily birth, according as He went forth from the virginal womb,\nbecoming visible to us through being clothed with flesh: and on that\naccount the third mass is sung in broad daylight, in the \"Introit\" of\nwhich we say: \"A child is born to us.\" Nevertheless, on the other\nhand, it can be said that His eternal generation, of itself, is in\nthe full light, and on this account in the gospel of the third mass\nmention is made of His eternal birth. But regarding His birth in the\nbody, He was literally born during the night, as a sign that He came\nto the darknesses of our infirmity; hence also in the midnight mass\nwe say the gospel of Christ's nativity in the flesh.\n\nLikewise on other days upon which many of God's benefits have to be\nrecalled or besought, several masses are celebrated on one day, as\nfor instance, one for the feast, and another for a fast or for the\ndead.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As already observed (Q. 73, A. 5), Christ wished to\ngive this sacrament last of all, in order that it might make a deeper\nimpression on the hearts of the disciples; and therefore it was after\nsupper, at the close of day, that He consecrated this sacrament and\ngave it to His disciples. But we celebrate at the hour when our Lord\nsuffered, i.e. either, as on feast-days, at the hour of Terce, when\nHe was crucified by the tongues of the Jews (Mk. 15:25), and when the\nHoly Ghost descended upon the disciples (Acts 2:15); or, as when no\nfeast is kept, at the hour of Sext, when He was crucified at the\nhands of the soldiers (John 19:14), or, as on fasting days, at None,\nwhen crying out with a loud voice He gave up the ghost (Matt. 27:46,\n50).\n\nNevertheless the mass can be postponed, especially when Holy orders\nhave to be conferred, and still more on Holy Saturday; both on\naccount of the length of the office, and also because orders belong\nto the Sunday, as is set forth in the Decretals (dist. 75).\n\nMasses, however, can be celebrated \"in the first part of the day,\"\nowing to any necessity; as is stated De Consecr., dist. 1.\n\nReply Obj. 4: As a rule mass ought to be said in the day and not in\nthe night, because Christ is present in this sacrament, Who says\n(John 9:4, 5): \"I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it\nis day: because the night cometh when no man can work; as long as I\nam in the world, I am the light of the world.\" Yet this should be\ndone in such a manner that the beginning of the day is not to be\ntaken from midnight; nor from sunrise, that is, when the substance of\nthe sun appears above the earth; but when the dawn begins to show:\nbecause then the sun is said to be risen when the brightness of his\nbeams appears. Accordingly it is written (Mk. 16:1) that \"the women\ncame to the tomb, the sun being now risen\"; though, as John relates\n(John 20:1), \"while it was yet dark they came to the tomb.\" It is in\nthis way that Augustine explains this difference (De Consens. Evang.\niii).\n\nException is made on the night of Christmas eve, when mass is\ncelebrated, because our Lord was born in the night (De Consecr.,\ndist. 1). And in like manner it is celebrated on Holy Saturday\ntowards the beginning of the night, since our Lord rose in the night,\nthat is, \"when it was yet dark, before the sun's rising was manifest.\"\n\nReply Obj. 5: As is set down in the decree (De Consecr., dist. 1), in\nvirtue of a decree of Pope Alexander II, \"it is enough for a priest\nto celebrate one mass each day, because Christ suffered once and\nredeemed the whole world; and very happy is he who can worthily\ncelebrate one mass. But there are some who say one mass for the dead,\nand another of the day, if need be. But I do not deem that those\nescape condemnation who presume to celebrate several masses daily,\neither for the sake of money, or to gain flattery from the laity.\"\nAnd Pope Innocent III says (Extra, De Celebr. Miss., chap.\nConsuluisti) that \"except on the day of our Lord's birth, unless\nnecessity urges, it suffices for a priest to celebrate only one mass\neach day.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 3]\n\nWhether This Sacrament Ought to Be Celebrated in a House and with\nSacred Vessels?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated\nin a house and with sacred vessels. For this sacrament is a\nrepresentation of our Lord's Passion. But Christ did not suffer in a\nhouse, but outside the city gate, according to Heb. 1:12: \"Jesus,\nthat He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered without\nthe gate.\" Therefore, it seems that this sacrament ought not to be\ncelebrated in a house, but rather in the open air.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in the celebration of this sacrament the Church\nought to imitate the custom of Christ and the apostles. But the house\nwherein Christ first wrought this sacrament was not consecrated, but\nmerely an ordinary supper-room prepared by the master of the house,\nas related in Luke 22:11, 12. Moreover, we read (Acts 2:46) that \"the\napostles were continuing daily with one accord in the temple; and,\nbreaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with\ngladness.\" Consequently, there is no need for houses, in which this\nsacrament is celebrated, to be consecrated.\n\nObj. 3: Further, nothing that is to no purpose ought to be done in\nthe Church, which is governed by the Holy Ghost. But it seems useless\nto consecrate a church, or an altar, or such like inanimate things,\nsince they are not capable of receiving grace or spiritual virtue.\nTherefore it is unbecoming for such consecrations to be performed in\nthe Church.\n\nObj. 4: Further, only Divine works ought to be recalled with\nsolemnity, according to Ps. 91:5: \"I shall rejoice in the works of\nThy hands.\" Now the consecration of a church or altar, is the work of\na man; as is also the consecration of the chalice, and of the\nministers, and of other such things. But these latter consecrations\nare not commemorated in the Church. Therefore neither ought the\nconsecration of a church or of an altar to be commemorated with\nsolemnity.\n\nObj. 5: Further, the truth ought to correspond with the figure. But\nin the Old Testament, which was a figure of the New, the altar was\nnot made of hewn stones: for, it is written (Ex. 20:24): \"You shall\nmake an altar of earth unto Me . . . and if thou make an altar of\nstone unto Me, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones.\" Again, the\naltar is commanded to be made of \"setim-wood,\" covered \"with brass\"\n(Ex. 27:1, 2), or \"with gold\" (Ex. 25). Consequently, it seems\nunfitting for the Church to make exclusive use of altars made of\nstone.\n\nObj. 6: Further, the chalice with the paten represents Christ's tomb,\nwhich was \"hewn in a rock,\" as is narrated in the Gospels.\nConsequently, the chalice ought to be of stone, and not of gold or of\nsilver or tin.\n\nObj. 7: Further, just as gold is the most precious among the\nmaterials of the altar vessels, so are cloths of silk the most\nprecious among other cloths. Consequently, since the chalice is of\ngold, the altar cloths ought to be made of silk and not of linen.\n\nObj. 8: Further, the dispensing and ordering of the sacraments belong\nto the Church's ministers, just as the ordering of temporal affairs\nis subject to the ruling of secular princes; hence the Apostle says\n(1 Cor. 4:1): \"Let a man so esteem us as the ministers of Christ and\nthe dispensers of the mysteries of God.\" But if anything be done\nagainst the ordinances of princes it is deemed void. Therefore, if\nthe various items mentioned above are suitably commanded by the\nChurch's prelates, it seems that the body of Christ could not be\nconsecrated unless they be observed; and so it appears to follow that\nChrist's words are not sufficient of themselves for consecrating this\nsacrament: which is contrary to the fact. Consequently, it does not\nseem fitting for such ordinances to be made touching the celebration\nof this sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Church's ordinances are Christ's own\nordinances; since He said (Matt. 18:20): \"Wherever two or three are\ngathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ There are two things to be considered regarding the\nequipment of this sacrament: one of these belongs to the\nrepresentation of the events connected with our Lord's Passion; while\nthe other is connected with the reverence due to the sacrament, in\nwhich Christ is contained verily, and not in figure only.\n\nHence we consecrate those things which we make use of in this\nsacrament; both that we may show our reverence for the sacrament, and\nin order to represent the holiness which is the effect of the Passion\nof Christ, according to Heb. 13:12: \"Jesus, that He might sanctify\nthe people by His own blood,\" etc.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This sacrament ought as a rule to be celebrated in a\nhouse, whereby the Church is signified, according to 1 Tim. 3:15:\n\"That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the\nhouse of God, which is the Church of the living God.\" Because\n\"outside the Church there is no place for the true sacrifice,\" as\nAugustine says (Liber Sentent. Prosp. xv). And because the Church was\nnot to be confined within the territories of the Jewish people, but\nwas to be established throughout the whole world, therefore Christ's\nPassion was not celebrated within the city of the Jews, but in the\nopen country, that so the whole world might serve as a house for\nChrist's Passion. Nevertheless, as is said in De Consecr., dist. 1,\n\"if a church be not to hand, we permit travelers to celebrate mass in\nthe open air, or in a tent, if there be a consecrated altar-table to\nhand, and the other requisites belonging to the sacred function.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: The house in which this sacrament is celebrated denotes\nthe Church, and is termed a church; and so it is fittingly\nconsecrated, both to represent the holiness which the Church acquired\nfrom the Passion, as well as to denote the holiness required of them\nwho have to receive this sacrament. By the altar Christ Himself is\nsignified, of Whom the Apostle says (Heb. 13:15): \"Through Him we\noffer a sacrifice of praise to God.\" Hence the consecration of the\naltar signifies Christ's holiness, of which it was said (Luke 1:35):\n\"The Holy one born of thee shall be called the Son of God.\" Hence we\nread in De Consecr., dist. 1: \"It has seemed pleasing for the altars\nto be consecrated not merely with the anointing of chrism, but\nlikewise with the priestly blessing.\"\n\nAnd therefore, as a rule, it is not lawful to celebrate this\nsacrament except in a consecrated house. Hence it is enacted (De\nConsecr., dist. 1): \"Let no priest presume to say mass except in\nplaces consecrated by the bishop.\" And furthermore because pagans and\nother unbelievers are not members of the Church, therefore we read\n(De Consecr., dist. 1): \"It is not lawful to bless a church in which\nthe bodies of unbelievers are buried, but if it seem suitable for\nconsecration, then, after removing the corpses and tearing down the\nwalls or beams, let it be rebuilt. If, however, it has been already\nconsecrated, and the faithful lie in it, it is lawful to celebrate\nmass therein.\" Nevertheless in a case of necessity this sacrament can\nbe performed in houses which have not been consecrated, or which have\nbeen profaned; but with the bishop's consent. Hence we read in the\nsame distinction: \"We deem that masses are not to be celebrated\neverywhere, but in places consecrated by the bishop, or where he\ngives permission.\" But not without a portable altar consecrated by\nthe bishop: hence in the same distinction we read: \"We permit that,\nif the churches be devastated or burned, masses may be celebrated in\nchapels, with a consecrated altar.\" For because Christ's holiness is\nthe fount of all the Church's holiness, therefore in necessity a\nconsecrated altar suffices for performing this sacrament. And on this\naccount a church is never consecrated without consecrating the altar.\nYet sometimes an altar is consecrated apart from the church, with the\nrelics of the saints, \"whose lives are hidden with Christ in God\"\n(Col. 3:3). Accordingly under the same distinction we read: \"It is\nour pleasure that altars, in which no relics of saints are found\nenclosed, be thrown down, if possible, by the bishops presiding over\nsuch places.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The church, altar, and other like inanimate things are\nconsecrated, not because they are capable of receiving grace, but\nbecause they acquire special spiritual virtue from the consecration,\nwhereby they are rendered fit for the Divine worship, so that man\nderives devotion therefrom, making him more fitted for Divine\nfunctions, unless this be hindered by want of reverence. Hence it is\nwritten (2 Macc. 3:38): \"There is undoubtedly in that place a certain\npower of God; for He that hath His dwelling in the heavens is the\nvisitor, and the protector of that place.\"\n\nHence it is that such places are cleansed and exorcised before being\nconsecrated, that the enemy's power may be driven forth. And for the\nsame reason churches defiled by shedding of blood or seed are\nreconciled: because some machination of the enemy is apparent on\naccount of the sin committed there. And for this reason we read in\nthe same distinction: \"Wherever you find churches of the Arians,\nconsecrate them as Catholic churches without delay by means of devout\nprayers and rites.\" Hence, too, it is that some say with probability,\nthat by entering a consecrated church one obtains forgiveness of\nvenial sins, just as one does by the sprinkling of holy water;\nalleging the words of Ps. 84:2, 3: \"Lord, Thou hast blessed Thy land\n. . . Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of Thy people.\" And therefore,\nin consequence of the virtue acquired by a church's consecration, the\nconsecration is never repeated. Accordingly we find in the same\ndistinction the following words quoted from the Council of Nicaea:\n\"Churches which have once been consecrated, must not be consecrated\nagain, except they be devastated by fire, or defiled by shedding of\nblood or of anyone's seed; because, just as a child once baptized in\nthe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ought\nnot to be baptized again, so neither ought a place, once dedicated to\nGod, to be consecrated again, except owing to the causes mentioned\nabove; provided that the consecrators held faith in the Holy\nTrinity\": in fact, those outside the Church cannot consecrate. But,\nas we read in the same distinction: \"Churches or altars of doubtful\nconsecration are to be consecrated anew.\"\n\nAnd since they acquire special spiritual virtue from their\nconsecration, we find it laid down in the same distinction that \"the\nbeams of a dedicated church ought not to be used for any other\npurpose, except it be for some other church, or else they are to be\nburned, or put to the use of brethren in some monastery: but on no\naccount are they to be discarded for works of the laity.\" We read\nthere, too, that \"the altar covering, chair, candlesticks, and veil,\nare to be burned when warn out; and their ashes are to be placed in\nthe baptistery, or in the walls, or else cast into the trenches\nbeneath the flag-stones, so as not to be defiled by the feet of those\nthat enter.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Since the consecration of the altar signifies Christ's\nholiness, and the consecration of a house the holiness of the entire\nChurch, therefore the consecration of a church or of an altar is more\nfittingly commemorated. And on this account the solemnity of a church\ndedication is observed for eight days, in order to signify the happy\nresurrection of Christ and of the Church's members. Nor is the\nconsecration of a church or altar man's doing only, since it has a\nspiritual virtue. Hence in the same distinction (De Consecr.) it is\nsaid: \"The solemnities of the dedication of churches are to be\nsolemnly celebrated each year: and that dedications are to be kept up\nfor eight days, you will find in the third book of Kings\" (8:66).\n\nReply Obj. 5: As we read in De Consecr., dist. 1, \"altars, if not of\nstone, are not to be consecrated with the anointing of chrism.\" And\nthis is in keeping with the signification of this sacrament; both\nbecause the altar signifies Christ, for in 1 Cor. 10:3, it is\nwritten, \"But the rock was Christ\": and because Christ's body was\nlaid in a stone sepulchre. This is also in keeping with the use of\nthe sacrament. Because stone is solid, and may be found everywhere,\nwhich was not necessary in the old Law, when the altar was made in\none place. As to the commandment to make the altar of earth, or of\nunhewn stones, this was given in order to remove idolatry.\n\nReply Obj. 6: As is laid down in the same distinction, \"formerly the\npriests did not use golden but wooden chalices; but Pope Zephyrinus\nordered the mass to be said with glass patens; and subsequently Pope\nUrban had everything made of silver.\" Afterwards it was decided that\n\"the Lord's chalice with the paten should be made entirely of gold,\nor of silver or at least of tin. But it is not to be made of brass,\nor copper, because the action of the wine thereon produces verdigris,\nand provokes vomiting. But no one is to presume to sing mass with a\nchalice of wood or of glass,\" because as the wood is porous, the\nconsecrated blood would remain in it; while glass is brittle and\nthere might arise danger of breakage; and the same applies to stone.\nConsequently, out of reverence for the sacrament, it was enacted that\nthe chalice should be made of the aforesaid materials.\n\nReply Obj. 7: Where it could be done without danger, the Church gave\norder for that thing to be used which more expressively represents\nChrist's Passion. But there was not so much danger regarding the body\nwhich is placed on the corporal, as there is with the blood contained\nin the chalice. And consequently, although the chalice is not made of\nstone, yet the corporal is made of linen, since Christ's body was\nwrapped therein. Hence we read in an Epistle of Pope Silvester,\nquoted in the same distinction: \"By a unanimous decree we command\nthat no one shall presume to celebrate the sacrifice of the altar\nupon a cloth of silk, or dyed material, but upon linen consecrated by\nthe bishop; as Christ's body was buried in a clean linen\nwinding-sheet.\" Moreover, linen material is becoming, owing to its\ncleanness, to denote purity of conscience, and, owing to the manifold\nlabor with which it is prepared, to denote Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 8: The dispensing of the sacraments belongs to the\nChurch's ministers; but their consecration is from God Himself.\nConsequently, the Church's ministers can make no ordinances regarding\nthe form of the consecration, and the manner of celebrating. And\ntherefore, if the priest pronounces the words of consecration over\nthe proper matter with the intention of consecrating, then, without\nevery one of the things mentioned above--namely, without house, and\naltar, consecrated chalice and corporal, and the other things\ninstituted by the Church--he consecrates Christ's body in very truth;\nyet he is guilty of grave sin, in not following the rite of the\nChurch.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Words Spoken in This Sacrament Are Properly Framed?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the words spoken in this sacrament are not\nproperly framed. For, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), this sacrament\nis consecrated with Christ's own words. Therefore no other words\nbesides Christ's should be spoken in this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Christ's words and deeds are made known to us\nthrough the Gospel. But in consecrating this sacrament words are used\nwhich are not set down in the Gospels: for we do not read in the\nGospel, of Christ lifting up His eyes to heaven while consecrating\nthis sacrament: and similarly it is said in the Gospel: \"Take ye and\neat\" (_comedite_) without the addition of the word \"all,\" whereas in\ncelebrating this sacrament we say: \"Lifting up His eyes to heaven,\"\nand again, \"Take ye and eat (_manducate_) of this.\" Therefore such\nwords as these are out of place when spoken in the celebration of\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, all the other sacraments are ordained for the\nsalvation of all the faithful. But in the celebration of the other\nsacraments there is no common prayer put up for the salvation of all\nthe faithful and of the departed. Consequently it is unbecoming in\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Baptism especially is called the sacrament of faith.\nConsequently, the truths which belong to instruction in the faith\nought rather to be given regarding Baptism than regarding this\nsacrament, such as the doctrine of the apostles and of the Gospels.\n\nObj. 5: Further, devotion on the part of the faithful is required in\nevery sacrament. Consequently, the devotion of the faithful ought not\nto be stirred up in this sacrament more than in the others by Divine\npraises and by admonitions, such as, \"Lift up your hearts.\"\n\nObj. 6: Further, the minister of this sacrament is the priest, as\nstated above (Q. 82, A. 1). Consequently, all the words spoken in\nthis sacrament ought to be uttered by the priest, and not some by the\nministers, and some by the choir.\n\nObj. 7: Further, the Divine power works this sacrament unfailingly.\nTherefore it is to no purpose that the priest asks for the perfecting\nof this sacrament, saying: \"Which oblation do thou, O God, in all,\"\netc.\n\nObj. 8: Further, the sacrifice of the New Law is much more excellent\nthan the sacrifice of the fathers of old. Therefore, it is unfitting\nfor the priest to pray that this sacrifice may be as acceptable as\nthe sacrifice of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedech.\n\nObjection 9: Further, just as Christ's body does not begin to be in\nthis sacrament by change of place, as stated above (Q. 75, A. 2), so\nlikewise neither does it cease to be there. Consequently, it is\nimproper for the priest to ask: \"Bid these things be borne by the\nhands of thy holy angel unto Thine altar on high.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ We find it stated in _De Consecr.,_ dist. 1, that\n\"James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil,\nbishop of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the mass\": and\nfrom their authority it is manifest that whatever words are employed\nin this matter, are chosen becomingly.\n\n_I answer that,_ Since the whole mystery of our salvation is\ncomprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater\nsolemnity than the other sacraments. And since it is written (Eccles.\n4:17): \"Keep thy foot when thou goest into the house of God\"; and\n(Ecclus. 18:23): \"Before prayer prepare thy soul,\" therefore the\ncelebration of this mystery is preceded by a certain preparation in\norder that we may perform worthily that which follows after. The\nfirst part of this preparation is Divine praise, and consists in the\n\"Introit\": according to Ps. 49:23: \"The sacrifice of praise shall\nglorify me; and there is the way by which I will show him the\nsalvation of God\": and this is taken for the most part from the\nPsalms, or, at least, is sung with a Psalm, because, as Dionysius\nsays (Eccl. Hier. iii): \"The Psalms comprise by way of praise\nwhatever is contained in Sacred Scripture.\"\n\nThe second part contains a reference to our present misery, by reason\nof which we pray for mercy, saying: \"Lord, have mercy on us,\" thrice\nfor the Person of the Father, and \"Christ, have mercy on us,\" thrice\nfor the Person of the Son, and \"Lord, have mercy on us,\" thrice for\nthe Person of the Holy Ghost; against the threefold misery of\nignorance, sin, and punishment; or else to express the\n\"circuminsession\" of all the Divine Persons.\n\nThe third part commemorates the heavenly glory, to the possession of\nwhich, after this life of misery, we are tending, in the words,\n\"Glory be to God on high,\" which are sung on festival days, on which\nthe heavenly glory is commemorated, but are omitted in those\nsorrowful offices which commemorate our unhappy state.\n\nThe fourth part contains the prayer which the priest makes for the\npeople, that they may be made worthy of such great mysteries.\n\nThere precedes, in the second place, the instruction of the faithful,\nbecause this sacrament is \"a mystery of faith,\" as stated above (Q.\n78, A. 3, ad 5). Now this instruction is given \"dispositively,\" when\nthe Lectors and Sub-deacons read aloud in the church the teachings of\nthe prophets and apostles: after this \"lesson,\" the choir sing the\n\"Gradual,\" which signifies progress in life; then the \"Alleluia\" is\nintoned, and this denotes spiritual joy; or in mournful offices the\n\"Tract\", expressive of spiritual sighing; for all these things ought\nto result from the aforesaid teaching. But the people are instructed\n\"perfectly\" by Christ's teaching contained in the Gospel, which is\nread by the higher ministers, that is, by the Deacons. And because we\nbelieve Christ as the Divine truth, according to John 8:46, \"If I\ntell you the truth, why do you not believe Me?\" after the Gospel has\nbeen read, the \"Creed\" is sung in which the people show that they\nassent by faith to Christ's doctrine. And it is sung on those\nfestivals of which mention is made therein, as on the festivals of\nChrist, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the apostles, who laid the\nfoundations of this faith, and on other such days.\n\nSo then, after the people have been prepared and instructed, the next\nstep is to proceed to the celebration of the mystery, which is both\noffered as a sacrifice, and consecrated and received as a sacrament:\nsince first we have the oblation; then the consecration of the matter\noffered; and thirdly, its reception.\n\nIn regard to the oblation, two things are done, namely, the people's\npraise in singing the \"offertory,\" expressing the joy of the\nofferers, and the priest's prayer asking for the people's oblation to\nbe made acceptable to God. Hence David said (1 Para 29:17): \"In the\nsimplicity of my heart, I have . . . offered all these things: and I\nhave seen with great joy Thy people which are here present, offer\nThee their offerings\": and then he makes the following prayer: \"O\nLord God . . . keep . . . this will.\"\n\nThen, regarding the consecration, performed by supernatural power,\nthe people are first of all excited to devotion in the \"Preface,\"\nhence they are admonished \"to lift up their hearts to the Lord,\" and\ntherefore when the \"Preface\" is ended the people devoutly praise\nChrist's Godhead, saying with the angels: \"Holy, Holy, Holy\"; and His\nhumanity, saying with the children: \"Blessed is he that cometh.\" In\nthe next place the priest makes a \"commemoration,\" first of those for\nwhom this sacrifice is offered, namely, for the whole Church, and\n\"for those set in high places\" (1 Tim. 2:2), and, in a special\nmanner, of them \"who offer, or for whom the mass is offered.\"\nSecondly, he commemorates the saints, invoking their patronage for\nthose mentioned above, when he says: \"Communicating with, and\nhonoring the memory,\" etc. Thirdly, he concludes the petition when he\nsays: \"Wherefore that this oblation,\" etc., in order that the\noblation may be salutary to them for whom it is offered.\n\nThen he comes to the consecration itself. Here he asks first of all\nfor the effect of the consecration, when he says: \"Which oblation do\nThou, O God,\" etc. Secondly, he performs the consecration using our\nSaviour's words, when he says: \"Who the day before,\" etc. Thirdly, he\nmakes excuse for his presumption in obeying Christ's command, saying:\n\"Wherefore, calling to mind,\" etc. Fourthly, he asks that the\nsacrifice accomplished may find favor with God, when he says: \"Look\ndown upon them with a propitious,\" etc. Fifthly, he begs for the\neffect of this sacrifice and sacrament, first for the partakers,\nsaying: \"We humbly beseech Thee\"; then for the dead, who can no\nlonger receive it, saying: \"Be mindful also, O Lord,\" etc.; thirdly,\nfor the priests themselves who offer, saying: \"And to us sinners,\"\netc.\n\nThen follows the act of receiving the sacrament. First of all, the\npeople are prepared for Communion; first, by the common prayer of the\ncongregation, which is the Lord's Prayer, in which we ask for our\ndaily bread to be given us; and also by private prayer, which the\npriest puts up specially for the people, when he says: \"Deliver us,\nwe beseech Thee, O Lord,\" etc. Secondly, the people are prepared by\nthe \"Pax\" which is given with the words, \"Lamb of God,\" etc., because\nthis is the sacrament of unity and peace, as stated above (Q. 73, A.\n4; Q. 79, A. 1). But in masses for the dead, in which the sacrifice\nis offered not for present peace, but for the repose of the dead, the\n\"Pax\" is omitted.\n\nThen follows the reception of the sacrament, the priest receiving\nfirst, and afterwards giving it to others, because, as Dionysius says\n(Eccl. Hier. iii), he who gives Divine things to others, ought first\nto partake thereof himself.\n\nFinally, the whole celebration of mass ends with the thanksgiving,\nthe people rejoicing for having received the mystery (and this is the\nmeaning of the singing after the Communion); and the priest returning\nthanks by prayer, as Christ, at the close of the supper with His\ndisciples, \"said a hymn\" (Matt. 26:30).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The consecration is accomplished by Christ's words\nonly; but the other words must be added to dispose the people for\nreceiving it, as stated above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As is stated in the last chapter of John (verse 25),\nour Lord said and did many things which are not written down by the\nEvangelists; and among them is the uplifting of His eyes to heaven at\nthe supper; nevertheless the Roman Church had it by tradition from\nthe apostles. For it seems reasonable that He Who lifted up His eyes\nto the Father in raising Lazarus to life, as related in John 11:41,\nand in the prayer which He made for the disciples (John 17:1), had\nmore reason to do so in instituting this sacrament, as being of\ngreater import.\n\nThe use of the word _manducate_ instead of _comedite_ makes no\ndifference in the meaning, nor does the expression signify,\nespecially since those words are no part of the form, as stated above\n(Q. 78, A. 1, ad 2, 4).\n\nThe additional word \"all\" is understood in the Gospels, although not\nexpressed, because He had said (John 6:54): \"Except you eat the flesh\nof the Son of Man . . . you shall not have life in you.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: The Eucharist is the sacrament of the unity of the\nwhole Church: and therefore in this sacrament, more than in the\nothers, mention ought to be made of all that belongs to the salvation\nof the entire Church.\n\nReply Obj. 4: There is a twofold instruction in the Faith: the first\nis for those receiving it for the first time, that is to say, for\ncatechumens, and such instruction is given in connection with\nBaptism. The other is the instruction of the faithful who take part\nin this sacrament; and such instruction is given in connection with\nthis sacrament. Nevertheless catechumens and unbelievers are not\nexcluded therefrom. Hence in De Consecr., dist. 1, it is laid down:\n\"Let the bishop hinder no one from entering the church, and hearing\nthe word of God, be they Gentiles, heretics, or Jews, until the mass\nof the Catechumens begins,\" in which the instruction regarding the\nFaith is contained.\n\nReply Obj. 5: Greater devotion is required in this sacrament than in\nthe others, for the reason that the entire Christ is contained\ntherein. Moreover, this sacrament requires a more general devotion,\ni.e. on the part of the whole people, since for them it is offered;\nand not merely on the part of the recipients, as in the other\nsacraments. Hence Cyprian observes (De Orat. Domin. 31), \"The priest,\nin saying the Preface, disposes the souls of the brethren by saying,\n'Lift up your hearts,' and when the people answer--'We have lifted\nthem up to the Lord,' let them remember that they are to think of\nnothing else but God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 6: As was said above (ad 3), those things are mentioned in\nthis sacrament which belong to the entire Church; and consequently\nsome things which refer to the people are sung by the choir, and same\nof these words are all sung by the choir, as though inspiring the\nentire people with them; and there are other words which the priest\nbegins and the people take up, the priest then acting as in the\nperson of God; to show that the things they denote have come to the\npeople through Divine revelation, such as faith and heavenly glory;\nand therefore the priest intones the \"Creed\" and the \"Gloria in\nexcelsis Deo.\" Other words are uttered by the ministers, such as the\ndoctrine of the Old and New Testament, as a sign that this doctrine\nwas announced to the peoples through ministers sent by God. And there\nare other words which the priest alone recites, namely, such as\nbelong to his personal office, \"that he may offer up gifts and\nprayers for the people\" (Heb. 5:1). Some of these, however, he says\naloud, namely, such as are common to priest and people alike, such as\nthe \"common prayers\"; other words, however, belong to the priest\nalone, such as the oblation and the consecration; consequently, the\nprayers that are said in connection with these have to be said by the\npriest in secret. Nevertheless, in both he calls the people to\nattention by saying: \"The Lord be with you,\" and he waits for them to\nassent by saying \"Amen.\" And therefore before the secret prayers he\nsays aloud, \"The Lord be with you,\" and he concludes, \"For ever and\never.\" Or the priest secretly pronounces some of the words as a token\nthat regarding Christ's Passion the disciples acknowledged Him only\nin secret.\n\nReply Obj. 7: The efficacy of the sacramental words can be hindered\nby the priest's intention. Nor is there anything unbecoming in our\nasking of God for what we know He will do, just as Christ (John 17:1,\n5) asked for His glorification.\n\nBut the priest does not seem to pray there for the consecration to be\nfulfilled, but that it may be fruitful in our regard, hence he says\nexpressively: \"That it may become _to us_ the body and the blood.\"\nAgain, the words preceding these have that meaning, when he says:\n\"Vouchsafe to make this oblation blessed,\" i.e. according to\nAugustine (Paschasius, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xii), \"that we may\nreceive a blessing,\" namely, through grace; \"'enrolled,' i.e. that we\nmay be enrolled in heaven; 'ratified,' i.e. that we may be\nincorporated in Christ; 'reasonable,' i.e. that we may be stripped of\nour animal sense; 'acceptable,' i.e. that we who in ourselves are\ndispleasing, may, by its means, be made acceptable to His only Son.\"\n\nReply Obj. 8: Although this sacrament is of itself preferable to all\nancient sacrifices, yet the sacrifices of the men of old were most\nacceptable to God on account of their devotion. Consequently the\npriest asks that this sacrifice may be accepted by God through the\ndevotion of the offerers, just as the former sacrifices were accepted\nby Him.\n\nReply Obj. 9: The priest does not pray that the sacramental species\nmay be borne up to heaven; nor that Christ's true body may be borne\nthither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer\nfor Christ's mystical body, which is signified in this sacrament,\nthat the angel standing by at the Divine mysteries may present to God\nthe prayers of both priest and people, according to Apoc. 8:4: \"And\nthe smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up\nbefore God, from the hand of the angel.\" But God's \"altar on high\"\nmeans either the Church triumphant, unto which we pray to be\ntranslated, or else God Himself, in Whom we ask to share; because it\nis said of this altar (Ex. 20:26): \"Thou shalt not go up by steps\nunto My altar, i.e. thou shalt make no steps towards the Trinity.\" Or\nelse by the angel we are to understand Christ Himself, Who is the\n\"Angel of great counsel\" (Isa. 9:6: Septuagint), Who unites His\nmystical body with God the Father and the Church triumphant.\n\nAnd from this the mass derives its name (_missa_); because the priest\nsends (_mittit_) his prayers up to God through the angel, as the\npeople do through the priest, or else because Christ is the victim\nsent (_missa_) to us: accordingly the deacon on festival days\n\"dismisses\" the people at the end of the mass, by saying: \"Ite, missa\nest,\" that is, the victim has been sent (_missa est_) to God through\nthe angel, so that it may be accepted by God.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Actions Performed in Celebrating This Sacrament Are\nBecoming?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the actions performed in celebrating this\nmystery are not becoming. For, as is evident from its form, this\nsacrament belongs to the New Testament. But under the New Testament\nthe ceremonies of the old are not to be observed, such as that the\npriests and ministers were purified with water when they drew nigh to\noffer up the sacrifice: for we read (Ex. 30:19, 20): \"Aaron and his\nsons shall wash their hands and feet . . . when they are going into\nthe tabernacle of the testimony . . . and when they are to come to\nthe altar.\" Therefore it is not fitting that the priest should wash\nhis hands when celebrating mass.\n\nObj. 2: Further, (Ex. 30:7), the Lord commanded Aaron to \"burn\nsweet-smelling incense\" upon the altar which was \"before the\npropitiatory\": and the same action was part of the ceremonies of the\nOld Law. Therefore it is not fitting for the priest to use incense\nduring mass.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the ceremonies performed in the sacraments of the\nChurch ought not to be repeated. Consequently it is not proper for\nthe priest to repeat the sign of the cross many times over this\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 7:7): \"And without all\ncontradiction, that which is less, is blessed by the better.\" But\nChrist, Who is in this sacrament after the consecration, is much\ngreater than the priest. Therefore quite unseemingly the priest,\nafter the consecration, blesses this sacrament, by signing it with\nthe cross.\n\nObj. 5: Further, nothing which appears ridiculous ought to be done in\none of the Church's sacraments. But it seems ridiculous to perform\ngestures, e.g. for the priest to stretch out his arms at times, to\njoin his hands, to join together his fingers, and to bow down.\nConsequently, such things ought not to be done in this sacrament.\n\nObj. 6: Further, it seems ridiculous for the priest to turn round\nfrequently towards the people, and often to greet the people.\nConsequently, such things ought not to be done in the celebration of\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 7: Further, the Apostle (1 Cor. 13) deems it improper for Christ\nto be divided. But Christ is in this sacrament after the\nconsecration. Therefore it is not proper for the priest to divide the\nhost.\n\nObj. 8: Further, the ceremonies performed in this sacrament represent\nChrist's Passion. But during the Passion Christ's body was divided in\nthe places of the five wounds. Therefore Christ's body ought to be\nbroken into five parts rather than into three.\n\nObjection 9: Further, Christ's entire body is consecrated in this\nsacrament apart from the blood. Consequently, it is not proper for a\nparticle of the body to be mixed with the blood.\n\nObjection 10: Further, just as, in this sacrament, Christ's body is\nset before us as food, so is His blood, as drink. But in receiving\nChrist's body no other bodily food is added in the celebration of the\nmass. Therefore, it is out of place for the priest, after taking\nChrist's blood, to receive other wine which is not consecrated.\n\nObjection 11: Further, the truth ought to be conformable with the\nfigure. But regarding the Paschal Lamb, which was a figure of this\nsacrament, it was commanded that nothing of it should \"remain until\nthe morning.\" It is improper therefore for consecrated hosts to be\nreserved, and not consumed at once.\n\nObjection 12: Further, the priest addresses in the plural number\nthose who are hearing mass, when he says, \"The Lord be with you\":\nand, \"Let us return thanks.\" But it is out of keeping to address one\nindividual in the plural number, especially an inferior. Consequently\nit seems unfitting for a priest to say mass with only a single server\npresent. Therefore in the celebration of this sacrament it seems that\nsome of the things done are out of place.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The custom of the Church stands for these things:\nand the Church cannot err, since she is taught by the Holy Ghost.\n\n_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 60, A. 6), there is a twofold\nmanner of signification in the sacraments, by words, and by actions,\nin order that the signification may thus be more perfect. Now, in the\ncelebration of this sacrament words are used to signify things\npertaining to Christ's Passion, which is represented in this\nsacrament; or again, pertaining to Christ's mystical body, which is\nsignified therein; and again, things pertaining to the use of this\nsacrament, which use ought to be devout and reverent. Consequently,\nin the celebration of this mystery some things are done in order to\nrepresent Christ's Passion, or the disposing of His mystical body,\nand some others are done which pertain to the devotion and reverence\ndue to this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The washing of the hands is done in the celebration of\nmass out of reverence for this sacrament; and this for two reasons:\nfirst, because we are not wont to handle precious objects except the\nhands be washed; hence it seems indecent for anyone to approach so\ngreat a sacrament with hands that are, even literally, unclean.\nSecondly, on account of its signification, because, as Dionysius says\n(Eccl. Hier. iii), the washing of the extremities of the limbs\ndenotes cleansing from even the smallest sins, according to John\n13:10: \"He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet.\" And such\ncleansing is required of him who approaches this sacrament; and this\nis denoted by the confession which is made before the \"Introit\" of\nthe mass. Moreover, this was signified by the washing of the priests\nunder the Old Law, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii). However, the\nChurch observes this ceremony, not because it was prescribed under\nthe Old Law, but because it is becoming in itself, and therefore\ninstituted by the Church. Hence it is not observed in the same way as\nit was then: because the washing of the feet is omitted, and the\nwashing of the hands is observed; for this can be done more readily,\nand suffices for denoting perfect cleansing. For, since the hand is\nthe \"organ of organs\" (De Anima iii), all works are attributed to the\nhands: hence it is said in Ps. 25:6: \"I will wash my hands among the\ninnocent.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: We use incense, not as commanded by a ceremonial\nprecept of the Law, but as prescribed by the Church; accordingly we\ndo not use it in the same fashion as it was ordered under the Old\nLaw. It has reference to two things: first, to the reverence due to\nthis sacrament, i.e. in order by its good odor, to remove any\ndisagreeable smell that may be about the place; secondly, it serves\nto show the effect of grace, wherewith Christ was filled as with a\ngood odor, according to Gen. 27:27: \"Behold, the odor of my son is\nlike the odor of a ripe field\"; and from Christ it spreads to the\nfaithful by the work of His ministers, according to 2 Cor. 2:14: \"He\nmanifesteth the odor of his knowledge by us in every place\"; and\ntherefore when the altar which represents Christ, has been incensed\non every side, then all are incensed in their proper order.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The priest, in celebrating the mass, makes use of the\nsign of the cross to signify Christ's Passion which was ended upon\nthe cross. Now, Christ's Passion was accomplished in certain stages.\nFirst of all there was Christ's betrayal, which was the work of God,\nof Judas, and of the Jews; and this is signified by the triple sign\nof the cross at the words, \"These gifts, these presents, these holy\nunspotted sacrifices.\"\n\nSecondly, there was the selling of Christ. Now he was sold to the\nPriests, to the Scribes, and to the Pharisees: and to signify this\nthe threefold sign of the cross is repeated, at the words, \"blessed,\nenrolled, ratified.\" Or again, to signify the price for which He was\nsold, viz. thirty pence. And a double cross is added at the\nwords--\"that it may become to us the Body and the Blood,\" etc., to\nsignify the person of Judas the seller, and of Christ Who was sold.\n\nThirdly, there was the foreshadowing of the Passion at the last\nsupper. To denote this, in the third place, two crosses are made, one\nin consecrating the body, the other in consecrating the blood; each\ntime while saying, \"He blessed.\"\n\nFourthly, there was Christ's Passion itself. And so in order to\nrepresent His five wounds, in the fourth place, there is a fivefold\nsigning of the cross at the words, \"a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a\nspotless Victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of\neverlasting salvation.\"\n\nFifthly, the outstretching of Christ's body, and the shedding of the\nblood, and the fruits of the Passion, are signified by the triple\nsigning of the cross at the words, \"as many as shall receive the body\nand blood, may be filled with every blessing,\" etc.\n\nSixthly, Christ's threefold prayer upon the cross is represented; one\nfor His persecutors when He said, \"Father, forgive them\"; the second\nfor deliverance from death, when He cried, \"My God, My God, why hast\nThou forsaken Me?\" the third referring to His entrance into glory,\nwhen He said, \"Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit\"; and in\norder to denote these there is a triple signing with the cross made\nat the words, \"Thou dost sanctify, quicken, bless.\"\n\nSeventhly, the three hours during which He hung upon the cross, that\nis, from the sixth to the ninth hour, are represented; in\nsignification of which we make once more a triple sign of the cross\nat the words, \"Through Him, and with Him, and in Him.\"\n\nEighthly, the separation of His soul from the body is signified by\nthe two subsequent crosses made over the chalice.\n\nNinthly, the resurrection on the third day is represented by the\nthree crosses made at the words--\"May the peace of the Lord be ever\nwith you.\"\n\nIn short, we may say that the consecration of this sacrament, and the\nacceptance of this sacrifice, and its fruits, proceed from the virtue\nof the cross of Christ, and therefore wherever mention is made of\nthese, the priest makes use of the sign of the cross.\n\nReply Obj. 4: After the consecration, the priest makes the sign of\nthe cross, not for the purpose of blessing and consecrating, but only\nfor calling to mind the virtue of the cross, and the manner of\nChrist's suffering, as is evident from what has been said (ad 3).\n\nReply Obj. 5: The actions performed by the priest in mass are not\nridiculous gestures, since they are done so as to represent something\nelse. The priest in extending his arms signifies the outstretching of\nChrist's arms upon the cross. He also lifts up his hands as he prays,\nto point out that his prayer is directed to God for the people,\naccording to Lam. 3:41: \"Let us lift up our hearts with our hands to\nthe Lord in the heavens\": and Ex. 17:11: \"And when Moses lifted up\nhis hands Israel overcame.\" That at times he joins his hands, and\nbows down, praying earnestly and humbly, denotes the humility and\nobedience of Christ, out of which He suffered. He closes his fingers,\ni.e. the thumb and first finger, after the consecration, because,\nwith them, he had touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if\nany particle cling to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this\nbelongs to the reverence for this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 6: Five times does the priest turn round towards the\npeople, to denote that our Lord manifested Himself five times on the\nday of His Resurrection, as stated above in the treatise on Christ's\nResurrection (Q. 55, A. 3, Obj. 3). But the priest greets the people\nseven times, namely, five times, by turning round to the people, and\ntwice without turning round, namely, when he says, \"The Lord be with\nyou\" before the \"Preface,\" and again when he says, \"May the peace of\nthe Lord be ever with you\": and this is to denote the sevenfold grace\nof the Holy Ghost. But a bishop, when he celebrates on festival days,\nin his first greeting says, \"Peace be to you,\" which was our Lord's\ngreeting after Resurrection, Whose person the bishop chiefly\nrepresents.\n\nReply Obj. 7: The breaking of the host denotes three things: first,\nthe rending of Christ's body, which took place in the Passion;\nsecondly, the distinction of His mystical body according to its\nvarious states; and thirdly, the distribution of the graces which\nflow from Christ's Passion, as Dionysius observes (Eccl. Hier. iii).\nHence this breaking does not imply severance in Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 8: As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the\nDecretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), \"the Lord's body is threefold; the\npart offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ's risen body,\"\nnamely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints,\nif there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies. \"The\npart consumed denotes those still walking upon earth,\" because while\nliving upon earth they are united together by this sacrament; and are\nbruised by the passions, just as the bread eaten is bruised by the\nteeth. \"The part reserved on the altar till the close of the mass, is\nHis body hidden in the sepulchre, because the bodies of the saints\nwill be in their graves until the end of the world\": though their\nsouls are either in purgatory, or in heaven. However, this rite of\nreserving one part on the altar till the close of the mass is no\nlonger observed, on account of the danger; nevertheless, the same\nmeaning of the parts continues, which some persons have expressed in\nverse, thus:\n\n\"The host being rent--\nWhat is dipped, means the blest;\nWhat is dry, means the living;\nWhat is kept, those at rest.\"\n\nOthers, however, say that the part put into the chalice denotes those\nstill living in this world, while the part kept outside the chalice\ndenotes those fully blessed both in soul and body; while the part\nconsumed means the others.\n\nReply Obj. 9: Two things can be signified by the chalice: first, the\nPassion itself, which is represented in this sacrament, and according\nto this, by the part put into the chalice are denoted those who are\nstill sharers of Christ's sufferings; secondly, the enjoyment of the\nBlessed can be signified, which is likewise foreshadowed in this\nsacrament; and therefore those whose bodies are already in full\nbeatitude, are denoted by the part put into the chalice. And it is to\nbe observed that the part put into the chalice ought not to be given\nto the people to supplement the communion, because Christ gave dipped\nbread only to Judas the betrayer.\n\nReply Obj. 10: Wine, by reason of its humidity, is capable of\nwashing, consequently it is received in order to rinse the mouth\nafter receiving this sacrament, lest any particles remain: and this\nbelongs to reverence for the sacrament. Hence (Extra, De Celebratione\nmissae, chap. Ex parte), it is said: \"The priest should always\ncleanse his mouth with wine after receiving the entire sacrament of\nEucharist: except when he has to celebrate another mass on the same\nday, lest from taking the ablution-wine he be prevented from\ncelebrating again\"; and it is for the same reason that wine is poured\nover the fingers with which he had touched the body of Christ.\n\nReply Obj. 11: The truth ought to be conformable with the figure, in\nsome respect: namely, because a part of the host consecrated, of\nwhich the priest and ministers or even the people communicate, ought\nnot to be reserved until the day following. Hence, as is laid down\n(De Consecr., dist. ii), Pope Clement I ordered that \"as many hosts\nare to be offered on the altar as shall suffice for the people;\nshould any be left over, they are not to be reserved until the\nmorrow, but let the clergy carefully consume them with fear and\ntrembling.\" Nevertheless, since this sacrament is to be received\ndaily, whereas the Paschal Lamb was not, it is therefore necessary\nfor other hosts to be reserved for the sick. Hence we read in the\nsame distinction: \"Let the priest always have the Eucharist ready, so\nthat, when anyone fall sick, he may take Communion to him at once,\nlest he die without it.\"\n\nReply Obj. 12: Several persons ought to be present at the solemn\ncelebration of the mass. Hence Pope Soter says (De Consecr., dist.\n1): \"It has also been ordained, that no priest is to presume to\ncelebrate solemn mass, unless two others be present answering him,\nwhile he himself makes the third; because when he says in the plural,\n'The Lord be with you,' and again in the Secrets, 'Pray ye for me,'\nit is most becoming that they should answer his greeting.\" Hence it\nis for the sake of greater solemnity that we find it decreed (De\nConsecr. dist. 1) that a bishop is to solemnize mass with several\nassistants. Nevertheless, in private masses it suffices to have one\nserver, who takes the place of the whole Catholic people, on whose\nbehalf he makes answer in the plural to the priest.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 83, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Defects Occurring During the Celebration of This\nSacrament Can Be Sufficiently Met by Observing the Church's Statutes?\n\nObjection 1: It seems that the defects occurring during the\ncelebration of this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met by observing\nthe statutes of the Church. For it sometimes happens that before or\nafter the consecration the priest dies or goes mad, or is hindered by\nsome other infirmity from receiving the sacrament and completing the\nmass. Consequently it seems impossible to observe the Church's\nstatute, whereby the priest consecrating must communicate of his own\nsacrifice.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it sometimes happens that, before the consecration,\nthe priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk something, or that he\nis in mortal sin, or under excommunication, which he did not remember\npreviously. Therefore, in such a dilemma a man must necessarily\ncommit mortal sin by acting against the Church's statute, whether he\nreceives or not.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it sometimes happens that a fly or a spider, or some\nother poisonous creature falls into the chalice after the\nconsecration. Or even that the priest comes to know that poison has\nbeen put in by some evilly disposed person in order to kill him. Now\nin this instance, if he takes it, he appears to sin by killing\nhimself, or by tempting God: also in like manner if he does not take\nit, he sins by acting against the Church's statute. Consequently, he\nseems to be perplexed, and under necessity of sinning, which is not\nbecoming.\n\nObj. 4: Further, it sometimes happens from the server's want of heed\nthat water is not added to the chalice, or even the wine overlooked,\nand that the priest discovers this. Therefore he seems to be\nperplexed likewise in this case, whether he receives the body without\nthe blood, thus making the sacrifice to be incomplete, or whether he\nreceives neither the body nor the blood.\n\nObj. 5: Further, it sometimes happens that the priest cannot remember\nhaving said the words of consecration, or other words which are\nuttered in the celebration of this sacrament. In this case he seems\nto sin, whether he repeats the words over the same matter, which\nwords possibly he has said before, or whether he uses bread and wine\nwhich are not consecrated, as if they were consecrated.\n\nObj. 6: Further, it sometimes comes to pass owing to the cold that\nthe host will slip from the priest's hands into the chalice, either\nbefore or after the breaking. In this case then the priest will not\nbe able to comply with the Church's rite, either as to the breaking,\nor else as to this, that only a third part is put into the chalice.\n\nObj. 7: Further, sometimes, too, it happens, owing to the priest's\nwant of care, that Christ's blood is spilled, or that he vomits the\nsacrament received, or that the consecrated hosts are kept so long\nthat they become corrupt, or that they are nibbled by mice, or lost\nin any manner whatsoever; in which cases it does not seem possible\nfor due reverence to be shown towards this sacrament, as the Church's\nordinances require. It does not seem then that such defects or\ndangers can be met by keeping to the Church's statutes.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Just as God does not command an impossibility, so\nneither does the Church.\n\n_I answer that,_ Dangers or defects happening to this sacrament can\nbe met in two ways: first, by preventing any such mishaps from\noccurring: secondly, by dealing with them in such a way, that what\nmay have happened amiss is put right, either by employing a remedy,\nor at least by repentance on his part who has acted negligently\nregarding this sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: If the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness\nbefore the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there is no\nneed for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after the\nconsecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been\nconsecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after\nboth have been consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to\nbe finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii, q.\n1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of Toledo:\n\"We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred mysteries are\nconsecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness\nsupervenes, in consequence of which they cannot finish the mystery\nbegun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the\nconsecration of the office thus begun. For nothing else is suitable\nfor completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be\ncompleted either by the priest who began it, or by the one who\nfollows him: because they cannot be completed except they be\nperformed in perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the\nchange of persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures\nthe happy issue of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for\ncases of natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no\nminister or priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices\nunfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented from continuing. If\nanyone shall have rashly presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of\nexcommunication.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Where difficulty arises, the less dangerous course\nshould always be followed. But the greatest danger regarding this\nsacrament lies in whatever may prevent its completion, because this\nis a heinous sacrilege; while that danger is of less account which\nregards the condition of the receiver. Consequently, if after the\nconsecration has been begun the priest remembers that he has eaten or\ndrunk anything, he ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice and\nreceive the sacrament. Likewise, if he recalls a sin committed, he\nought to make an act of contrition, with the firm purpose of\nconfessing and making satisfaction for it: and thus he will not\nreceive the sacrament unworthily, but with profit. The same applies\nif he calls to mind that he is under some excommunication; for he\nought to make the resolution of humbly seeking absolution; and so he\nwill receive absolution from the invisible High Priest Jesus Christ\nfor his act of completing the Divine mysteries.\n\nBut if he calls to mind any of the above facts previous to the\nconsecration, I should deem it safer for him to interrupt the mass\nbegun, especially if he has broken his fast, or is under\nexcommunication, unless grave scandal were to be feared.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If a fly or a spider falls into the chalice before\nconsecration, or if it be discovered that the wine is poisoned, it\nought to be poured out, and after purifying the chalice, fresh wine\nshould be served for consecration. But if anything of the sort happen\nafter the consecration, the insect should be caught carefully and\nwashed thoroughly, then burned, and the \"ablution,\" together with the\nashes, thrown into the sacrarium. If it be discovered that the wine\nhas been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor\nadminister it to others on any account, lest the life-giving chalice\nbecome one of death, but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel\nwith the relics: and in order that the sacrament may not remain\nincomplete, he ought to put other wine into the chalice, resume the\nmass from the consecration of the blood, and complete the sacrifice.\n\nReply Obj. 4: If before the consecration of the blood, and after the\nconsecration of the body the priest detect that either the wine or\nthe water is absent, then he ought at once to add them and\nconsecrate. But if after the words of consecration he discover that\nthe water is absent, he ought notwithstanding to proceed straight on,\nbecause the addition of the water is not necessary for the sacrament,\nas stated above (Q. 74, A. 7): nevertheless the person responsible\nfor the neglect ought to be punished. And on no account should water\nbe mixed with the consecrated wine, because corruption of the\nsacrament would ensue in part, as was said above (Q. 77, A. 8). But\nif after the words of consecration the priest perceive that no wine\nhas been put in the chalice, and if he detect it before receiving the\nbody, then rejecting the water, he ought to pour in wine with water,\nand begin over again the consecrating words of the blood. But if he\nnotice it after receiving the body, he ought to procure another host\nwhich must be consecrated together with the blood; and I say so for\nthis reason, because if he were to say only the words of consecration\nof the blood, the proper order of consecrating would not be observed;\nand, as is laid down by the Council of Toledo, quoted above (ad 1),\nsacrifices cannot be perfect, except they be performed in perfect\norder. But if he were to begin from the consecration of the blood,\nand were to repeat all the words which follow, it would not suffice,\nunless there was a consecrated host present, since in those words\nthere are things to be said and done not only regarding the blood,\nbut also regarding the body; and at the close he ought once more to\nreceive the consecrated host and blood, even if he had already taken\nthe water which was in the chalice, because the precept of the\ncompleting this sacrament is of greater weight than the precept of\nreceiving the sacrament while fasting, as stated above (Q. 80, A. 8).\n\nReply Obj. 5: Although the priest may not recollect having said some\nof the words he ought to say, he ought not to be disturbed mentally\non that account; for a man who utters many words cannot recall to\nmind all that he has said; unless perchance in uttering them he\nadverts to something connected with the consecration; for so it is\nimpressed on the memory. Hence, if a man pays attention to what he is\nsaying, but without adverting to the fact that he is saying these\nparticular words, he remembers soon after that he has said them; for,\na thing is presented to the memory under the formality of the past\n(De Mem. et Remin. i).\n\nBut if it seem to the priest that he has probably omitted some of the\nwords that are not necessary for the sacrament, I think that he ought\nnot to repeat them on that account, changing the order of the\nsacrifice, but that he ought to proceed: but if he is certain that he\nhas left out any of those that are necessary for the sacrament,\nnamely, the form of the consecration, since the form of the\nconsecration is necessary for the sacrament, just as the matter is,\nit seems that the same thing ought to be done as was stated above (ad\n4) with regard to defect in the matter, namely, that he should begin\nagain with the form of the consecration, and repeat the other things\nin order, lest the order of the sacrifice be altered.\n\nReply Obj. 6: The breaking of the consecrated host, and the putting\nof only one part into the chalice, regards the mystical body, just as\nthe mixing with water signifies the people, and therefore the\nomission of either of them causes no such imperfection in the\nsacrifice, as calls for repetition regarding the celebration of this\nsacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 7: According to the decree, _De Consecr.,_ dist. ii,\nquoting a decree of Pope Pius I, \"If from neglect any of the blood\nfalls upon a board which is fixed to the ground, let it be taken up\nwith the tongue, and let the board be scraped. But if it be not a\nboard, let the ground be scraped, and the scrapings burned, and the\nashes buried inside the altar and let the priest do penance for forty\ndays. But if a drop fall from the chalice on to the altar, let the\nminister suck up the drop, and do penance during three days; if it\nfalls upon the altar cloth and penetrates to the second altar cloth,\nlet him do four days' penance; if it penetrates to the third, let him\ndo nine days' penance; if to the fourth, let him do twenty days'\npenance; and let the altar linens which the drop touched be washed\nthree times by the priest, holding the chalice below, then let the\nwater be taken and put away nigh to the altar.\" It might even be\ndrunk by the minister, unless it might be rejected from nausea. Some\npersons go further, and cut out that part of the linen, which they\nburn, putting the ashes in the altar or down the sacrarium. And the\nDecretal continues with a quotation from the Penitential of Bede the\nPriest: \"If, owing to drunkenness or gluttony, anyone vomits up the\nEucharist, let him do forty days' penance, if he be a layman; but let\nclerics or monks, deacons and priests, do seventy days' penance; and\nlet a bishop do ninety days'. But if they vomit from sickness, let\nthem do penance for seven days.\" And in the same distinction, we read\na decree of the (Fourth) Council of Arles: \"They who do not keep\nproper custody over the sacrament, if a mouse or other animal consume\nit, must do forty days' penance: he who loses it in a church, or if a\npart fall and be not found, shall do thirty days' penance.\" And the\npriest seems to deserve the same penance, who from neglect allows the\nhosts to putrefy. And on those days the one doing penance ought to\nfast, and abstain from Communion. However, after weighing the\ncircumstances of the fact and of the person, the said penances may be\nlessened or increased. But it must be observed that wherever the\nspecies are found to be entire, they must be preserved reverently, or\nconsumed; because Christ's body is there so long as the species last,\nas stated above (Q. 77, AA. 4, 5). But if it can be done\nconveniently, the things in which they are found are to be burned,\nand the ashes put in the sacrarium, as was said of the scrapings of\nthe altar-table, here above.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 84\n\nOF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE\n(In Ten Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the Sacrament of Penance. We shall consider\n(1)Penance itself; (2) Its effect; (3) Its Parts; (4) The recipients\nof this sacrament; (5) The power of the ministers, which pertains to\nthe keys; (6) The solemnization of this sacrament.\n\nThe first of these considerations will be twofold: (1) Penance as a\nsacrament; (2) Penance as a virtue.\n\nUnder the first head there are ten points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Penance is a sacrament?\n\n(2) Of its proper matter;\n\n(3) Of its form;\n\n(4) Whether imposition of hands is necessary for this sacrament?\n\n(5) Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?\n\n(6) Of its relation to the other sacraments;\n\n(7) Of its institution;\n\n(8) Of its duration;\n\n(9) Of its continuance;\n\n(10) Whether it can be repeated?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Penance Is a Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a sacrament. For\nGregory [*Cf. Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19] says: \"The sacraments are\nBaptism, Chrism, and the Body and Blood of Christ; which are called\nsacraments because under the veil of corporeal things the Divine\npower works out salvation in a hidden manner.\" But this does not\nhappen in Penance, because therein corporeal things are not employed\nthat, under them, the power of God may work our salvation. Therefore\nPenance is not a sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, the sacraments of the Church are shown forth by the\nministers of Christ, according to 1 Cor. 4:1: \"Let a man so account\nof us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the\nmysteries of God.\" But Penance is not conferred by the ministers of\nChrist, but is inspired inwardly into man by God, according to Jer.\n31:19: \"After Thou didst convert me, I did penance.\" Therefore it\nseems that Penance is not a sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, in the sacraments of which we have already spoken\nabove, there is something that is sacrament only, something that is\nboth reality and sacrament, and something that is reality only, as is\nclear from what has been stated (Q. 66, A. 1). But this does not\napply to Penance. Therefore Penance is not a sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ As Baptism is conferred that we may be cleansed\nfrom sin, so also is Penance: wherefore Peter said to Simon Magus\n(Acts 8:22): \"Do penance . . . from this thy wickedness.\" But Baptism\nis a sacrament as stated above (Q. 66, A. 1). Therefore for the same\nreason Penance is also a sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ As Gregory says [*Isidore, Etym. vi, ch. 19], \"a\nsacrament consists in a solemn act, whereby something is so done that\nwe understand it to signify the holiness which it confers.\" Now it is\nevident that in Penance something is done so that something holy is\nsignified both on the part of the penitent sinner, and on the part of\nthe priest absolving, because the penitent sinner, by deed and word,\nshows his heart to have renounced sin, and in like manner the priest,\nby his deed and word with regard to the penitent, signifies the work\nof God Who forgives his sins. Therefore it is evident that Penance,\nas practiced in the Church, is a sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: By corporeal things taken in a wide sense we may\nunderstand also external sensible actions, which are to this\nsacrament what water is to Baptism, or chrism to Confirmation. But it\nis to be observed that in those sacraments, whereby an exceptional\ngrace surpassing altogether the proportion of a human act, is\nconferred, some corporeal matter is employed externally, e.g. in\nBaptism, which confers full remission of all sins, both as to guilt\nand as to punishment, and in Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the\nHoly Ghost is bestowed, and in Extreme Unction, which confers perfect\nspiritual health derived from the virtue of Christ as from an\nextrinsic principle. Wherefore, such human acts as are in these\nsacraments, are not the essential matter of the sacrament, but are\ndispositions thereto. On the other hand, in those sacraments whose\neffect corresponds to that of some human act, the sensible human act\nitself takes the place of matter, as in the case of Penance and\nMatrimony, even as in bodily medicines, some are applied externally,\nsuch as plasters and drugs, while others are acts of the person who\nseeks to be cured, such as certain exercises.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In those sacraments which have a corporeal matter, this\nmatter needs to be applied by a minister of the Church, who stands in\nthe place of Christ, which denotes that the excellence of the power\nwhich operates in the sacraments is from Christ. But in the sacrament\nof Penance, as stated above (ad 1), human actions take the place of\nmatter, and these actions proceed from internal inspiration,\nwherefore the matter is not applied by the minister, but by God\nworking inwardly; while the minister furnishes the complement of the\nsacrament, when he absolves the penitent.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In Penance also, there is something which is sacrament\nonly, viz. the acts performed outwardly both by the repentant sinner,\nand by the priest in giving absolution; that which is reality and\nsacrament is the sinner's inward repentance; while that which is\nreality, and not sacrament, is the forgiveness of sin. The first of\nthese taken altogether is the cause of the second; and the first and\nsecond together are the cause of the third.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Sins Are the Proper Matter of This Sacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that sins are not the proper matter of\nthis sacrament. Because, in the other sacraments, the matter is\nhallowed by the utterance of certain words, and being thus hallowed\nproduces the sacramental effect. Now sins cannot be hallowed, for\nthey are opposed to the effect of the sacrament, viz. grace which\nblots out sin. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of this\nsacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says in his book _De Poenitentia_ [Cf.\nSerm. cccli]: \"No one can begin a new life, unless he repent of the\nold.\" Now not only sins but also the penalties of the present life\nbelong to the old life. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of\nPenance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, sin is either original, mortal or venial. Now the\nsacrament of Penance is not ordained against original sin, for this\nis taken away by Baptism, [nor against mortal sin, for this is taken\naway by the sinner's confession]*, nor against venial sin, which is\ntaken away by the beating of the breast and the sprinkling of holy\nwater and the like. Therefore sins are not the proper matter of\nPenance. [*The words in brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition].\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:21): \"(Who) have not\ndone penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness,\nthat they have committed.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Matter is twofold, viz. proximate and remote: thus\nthe proximate matter of a statue is a metal, while the remote matter\nis water. Now it has been stated (A. 1, ad 1, ad 2), that the\nproximate matter of this sacrament consists in the acts of the\npenitent, the matter of which acts are the sins over which he\ngrieves, which he confesses, and for which he satisfies. Hence it\nfollows that sins are the remote matter of Penance, as a matter, not\nfor approval, but for detestation, and destruction.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument considers the proximate matter of a\nsacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The old life that was subject to death is the object of\nPenance, not as regards the punishment, but as regards the guilt\nconnected with it.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Penance regards every kind of sin in a way, but not\neach in the same way. Because Penance regards actual mortal sin\nproperly and chiefly; properly, since, properly speaking, we are said\nto repent of what we have done of our own will; chiefly, since this\nsacrament was instituted chiefly for the blotting out of mortal sin.\nPenance regards venial sins, properly speaking indeed, in so far as\nthey are committed of our own will, but this was not the chief\npurpose of its institution. But as to original sin, Penance regards\nit neither chiefly, since Baptism, and not Penance, is ordained\nagainst original sin, nor properly, because original sin is not done\nof our own will, except in so far as Adam's will is looked upon as\nours, in which sense the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12): \"In whom all have\nsinned.\" Nevertheless, Penance may be said to regard original sin, if\nwe take it in a wide sense for any detestation of something past: in\nwhich sense Augustine uses the term in his book _De Poenitentia_\n(Serm. cccli).\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Form of This Sacrament Is: \"I Absolve Thee\"?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the form of this sacrament is not: \"I\nabsolve thee.\" Because the forms of the sacraments are received from\nChrist's institution and the Church's custom. But we do not read that\nChrist instituted this form. Nor is it in common use; in fact in\ncertain absolutions which are given publicly in church (e.g. at Prime\nand Compline and on Maundy Thursday), absolution is given not in the\nindicative form by saying: \"I absolve thee,\" but in the deprecatory\nform, by saying: \"May Almighty God have mercy on you,\" or: \"May\nAlmighty God grant you absolution and forgiveness.\" Therefore the\nform of this sacrament is not: \"I absolve thee.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, Pope Leo says (Ep. cviii) that God's forgiveness\ncannot be obtained without the priestly supplications: and he is\nspeaking there of God's forgiveness granted to the penitent.\nTherefore the form of this sacrament should be deprecatory.\n\nObj. 3: Further, to absolve from sin is the same as to remit sin. But\nGod alone remits sin, for He alone cleanses man inwardly from sin, as\nAugustine says (Contra Donatist. v, 21). Therefore it seems that God\nalone absolves from sin. Therefore the priest should say not: \"I\nabsolve thee,\" as neither does he say: \"I remit thy sins.\"\n\nObj. 4: Further, just as our Lord gave His disciples the power to\nabsolve from sins, so also did He give them the power \"to heal\ninfirmities,\" \"to cast out devils,\" and \"to cure diseases\" (Matt.\n10:1; Luke 9:1). Now the apostles, in healing the sick, did not use\nthe words: \"I heal thee,\" but: \"The Lord Jesus Christ heal [Vulg.:\n'heals'] thee,\" as Peter said to the palsied man (Acts 9:34).\nTherefore since priests have the power which Christ gave His\napostles, it seems that they should not use the form: \"I absolve\nthee,\" but: \"May Christ absolve thee.\"\n\nObj. 5: Further, some explain this form by stating that when they\nsay: \"I absolve thee,\" they mean \"I declare you to be absolved.\" But\nneither can this be done by a priest unless it be revealed to him by\nGod, wherefore, as we read in Matt. 16:19 before it was said to\nPeter: \"Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth,\" etc., it was said to\nhim (Matt. 16:17): \"Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh\nand blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in\nheaven.\" Therefore it seems presumptuous for a priest, who has\nreceived no revelation on the matter, to say: \"I absolve thee,\" even\nif this be explained to mean: \"I declare thee absolved.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ As our Lord said to His disciples (Matt. 28:19):\n\"Going . . . teach ye all nations, baptizing them,\" etc., so did He\nsay to Peter (Matt. 16:19): \"Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,\"\netc. Now the priest, relying on the authority of those words of\nChrist, says: \"I baptize thee.\" Therefore on the same authority he\nshould say in this sacrament: \"I absolve thee.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The perfection of a thing is ascribed to its form.\nNow it has been stated above (A. 1, ad 2) that this sacrament is\nperfected by that which is done by the priest. Wherefore the part\ntaken by the penitent, whether it consist of words or deeds, must\nneeds be the matter of this sacrament, while the part taken by the\npriest, takes the place of the form.\n\nNow since the sacraments of the New Law accomplish what they signify,\nas stated above (Q. 62, A. 1, ad 1), it behooves the sacramental form\nto signify the sacramental effect in a manner that is in keeping with\nthe matter. Hence the form of Baptism is: \"I baptize thee,\" and the\nform of Confirmation is: \"I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and\nI confirm thee with the chrism of salvation,\" because these\nsacraments are perfected in the use of their matter: while in the\nsacrament of the Eucharist, which consists in the very consecration\nof the matter, the reality of the consecration is expressed in the\nwords: \"This is My Body.\"\n\nNow this sacrament, namely the sacrament of Penance, consists not in\nthe consecration of a matter, nor in the use of a hallowed matter,\nbut rather in the removal of a certain matter, viz. sin, in so far as\nsins are said to be the matter of Penance, as explained above (A. 2).\nThis removal is expressed by the priest saying: \"I absolve thee\":\nbecause sins are fetters, according to Prov. 5:22. \"His own\niniquities catch the wicked, and he is fast bound with the ropes of\nhis own sins.\" Wherefore it is evident that this is the most fitting\nform of this sacrament: \"I absolve thee.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: This form is taken from Christ's very words which He\naddressed to Peter (Matt. 16:19): \"Whatsoever thou shalt loose on\nearth,\" etc., and such is the form employed by the Church in\nsacramental absolution. But such absolutions as are given in public\nare not sacramental, but are prayers for the remission of venial\nsins. Wherefore in giving sacramental absolution it would not suffice\nto say: \"May Almighty God have mercy on thee,\" or: \"May God grant\nthee absolution and forgiveness,\" because by such words the priest\ndoes not signify the giving of absolution, but prays that it may be\ngiven. Nevertheless the above prayer is said before the sacramental\nabsolution is given, lest the sacramental effect be hindered on the\npart of the penitent, whose acts are as matter in this sacrament, but\nnot in Baptism or Confirmation.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The words of Leo are to be understood of the prayer\nthat precedes the absolution, and do not exclude the fact that the\npriest pronounces absolution.\n\nReply Obj. 3: God alone absolves from sin and forgives sins\nauthoritatively; yet priests do both ministerially, because the words\nof the priest in this sacrament work as instruments of the Divine\npower, as in the other sacraments: because it is the Divine power\nthat works inwardly in all the sacramental signs, be they things or\nwords, as shown above (Q. 62, A. 4; Q. 64, AA. 1, 2). Wherefore our\nLord expressed both: for He said to Peter (Matt. 16:19): \"Whatsoever\nthou shalt loose on earth,\" etc., and to His disciples (John 20:23):\n\"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.\" Yet the\npriest says: \"I absolve thee,\" rather than: \"I forgive thee thy\nsins,\" because it is more in keeping with the words of our Lord, by\nexpressing the power of the keys whereby priests absolve.\nNevertheless, since the priest absolves ministerially, something is\nsuitably added in reference to the supreme authority of God, by the\npriest saying: \"I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost,\" or by the power of Christ's Passion, or\nby the authority of God. However, as this is not defined by the words\nof Christ, as it is for Baptism, this addition is left to the\ndiscretion of the priest.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Power was given to the apostles, not that they\nthemselves might heal the sick, but that the sick might be healed at\nthe prayer of the apostles: whereas power was given to them to work\ninstrumentally or ministerially in the sacraments; wherefore they\ncould express their own agency in the sacramental forms rather than\nin the healing of infirmities. Nevertheless in the latter case they\ndid not always use the deprecatory form, but sometimes employed the\nindicative or imperative: thus we read (Acts 3:6) that Peter said to\nthe lame man: \"What I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ\nof Nazareth, arise and walk.\"\n\nReply Obj. 5: It is true in a sense that the words, \"I absolve thee\"\nmean \"I declare thee absolved,\" but this explanation is incomplete.\nBecause the sacraments of the New Law not only signify, but effect\nwhat they signify. Wherefore, just as the priest in baptizing anyone,\ndeclares by deed and word that the person is washed inwardly, and\nthis not only significatively but also effectively, so also when he\nsays: \"I absolve thee,\" he declares the man to be absolved not only\nsignificatively but also effectively. And yet he does not speak as of\nsomething uncertain, because just as the other sacraments of the New\nLaw have, of themselves, a sure effect through the power of Christ's\nPassion, which effect, nevertheless, may be impeded on the part of\nthe recipient, so is it with this sacrament. Hence Augustine says (De\nAdult. Conjug. ii): \"There is nothing disgraceful or onerous in the\nreconciliation of husband and wife, when adultery committed has been\nwashed away, since there is no doubt that remission of sins is\ngranted through the keys of the kingdom of heaven.\" Consequently\nthere is no need for a special revelation to be made to the priest,\nbut the general revelation of faith suffices, through which sins are\nforgiven. Hence the revelation of faith is said to have been made to\nPeter.\n\nIt would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, \"I\nabsolve thee\" mean: \"I grant thee the sacrament of absolution.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Imposition of the Priest's Hands Is Necessary for This\nSacrament?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands\nis necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (Mk. 16:18): \"They\nshall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.\" Now sinners\nare sick spiritually, and obtain recovery through this sacrament.\nTherefore an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in this sacrament man regains the Holy Ghost Whom he\nhad lost, wherefore it is said in the person of the penitent (Ps.\n1:14): \"Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me\nwith a perfect spirit.\" Now the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition\nof hands; for we read (Acts 8:17) that the apostles \"laid their hands\nupon them, and they received the Holy Ghost\"; and (Matt. 19:13) that\n\"little children were presented\" to our Lord, \"that He should impose\nhands upon them.\" Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in\nthis sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the priest's words are not more efficacious in this\nthan in the other sacraments. But in the other sacraments the words\nof the minister do not suffice, unless he perform some action: thus,\nin Baptism, the priest while saying: \"I baptize thee,\" has to perform\na bodily washing. Therefore, also while saying: \"I absolve thee,\" the\npriest should perform some action in regard to the penitent, by\nlaying hands on him.\n\n_On the contrary,_ When our Lord said to Peter (Matt. 16:19):\n\"Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,\" etc., He made no mention of\nan imposition of hands; nor did He when He said to all the apostles\n(John 20:13): \"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.\"\nTherefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament.\n\n_I answer that,_ In the sacraments of the Church the imposition of\nhands is made, to signify some abundant effect of grace, through\nthose on whom the hands are laid being, as it were, united to the\nministers in whom grace should be plentiful. Wherefore an imposition\nof hands is made in the sacrament of Confirmation, wherein the\nfulness of the Holy Ghost is conferred; and in the sacrament of\norder, wherein is bestowed a certain excellence of power over the\nDivine mysteries; hence it is written (2 Tim. 1:6): \"Stir up the\ngrace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.\"\n\nNow the sacrament of Penance is ordained, not that man may receive\nsome abundance of grace, but that his sins may be taken away; and\ntherefore no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament, as\nneither is there for Baptism, wherein nevertheless a fuller remission\nof sins is bestowed.\n\nReply Obj. 1: That imposition of hands is not sacramental, but is\nintended for the working of miracles, namely, that by the contact of\na sanctified man's hand, even bodily infirmity might be removed; even\nas we read of our Lord (Mk. 6:5) that He cured the sick, \"laying His\nhands upon them,\" and (Matt. 8:3) that He cleansed a leper by\ntouching him.\n\nReply Obj. 2: It is not every reception of the Holy Ghost that\nrequires an imposition of hands, since even in Baptism man receives\nthe Holy Ghost, without any imposition of hands: it is at the\nreception of the fulness of the Holy Ghost which belongs to\nConfirmation that an imposition of hands is required.\n\nReply Obj. 3: In those sacraments which are perfected in the use of\nthe matter, the minister has to perform some bodily action on the\nrecipient of the sacrament, e.g. in Baptism, Confirmation, and\nExtreme Unction; whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use\nof matter employed outwardly, the matter being supplied by the part\ntaken by the penitent: wherefore, just as in the Eucharist the priest\nperfects the sacrament by merely pronouncing the words over the\nmatter, so the mere words which the priest while absolving pronounces\nover the penitent perfect the sacrament of absolution. If, indeed,\nany bodily act were necessary on the part of the priest, the sign of\nthe cross, which is employed in the Eucharist, would not be less\nbecoming than the imposition of hands, in token that sins are\nforgiven through the blood of Christ crucified; and yet this is not\nessential to this sacrament as neither is it to the Eucharist.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 5]\n\nWhether This Sacrament Is Necessary for Salvation?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for\nsalvation. Because on Ps. 125:5, \"They that sow in tears,\" etc., the\ngloss says: \"Be not sorrowful, if thou hast a good will, of which\npeace is the meed.\" But sorrow is essential to Penance, according to\n2 Cor. 7:10: \"The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance\nsteadfast unto salvation.\" Therefore a good will without Penance\nsuffices for salvation.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): \"Charity covereth all\nsins,\" and further on (Prov. 15:27): \"By mercy and faith sins are\npurged away.\" But this sacrament is for nothing else but the purging\nof sins. Therefore if one has charity, faith, and mercy, one can\nobtain salvation, without the sacrament of Penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church take their origin from\nthe institution of Christ. But according to John 8 Christ absolved\nthe adulterous woman without Penance. Therefore it seems that Penance\nis not necessary for salvation.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Luke 13:3): \"Unless you shall do\npenance, you shall all likewise perish.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A thing is necessary for salvation in two ways:\nfirst, absolutely; secondly, on a supposition. A thing is absolutely\nnecessary for salvation, if no one can obtain salvation without it,\nas, for example, the grace of Christ, and the sacrament of Baptism,\nwhereby a man is born again in Christ. The sacrament of Penance is\nnecessary on a supposition, for it is necessary, not for all, but for\nthose who are in sin. For it is written (2 Paral. 37 [*The prayer of\nManasses, among the Apocrypha]), \"Thou, Lord, God of the righteous,\nhast not appointed repentance to the righteous, to Abraham, Isaac and\nJacob, nor to those who sinned not against Thee.\" But \"sin, when it\nis completed, begetteth death\" (James 1:15). Consequently it is\nnecessary for the sinner's salvation that sin be taken away from him;\nwhich cannot be done without the sacrament of Penance, wherein the\npower of Christ's Passion operates through the priest's absolution\nand the acts of the penitent, who co-operates with grace unto the\ndestruction of his sin. For as Augustine says (Tract. lxxii in Joan.\n[*Implicitly in the passage referred to, but explicitly Serm. xv de\nverb. Apost.]), \"He Who created thee without thee, will not justify\nthee without thee.\" Therefore it is evident that after sin the\nsacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation, even as bodily\nmedicine after man has contracted a dangerous disease.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This gloss should apparently be understood as referring\nto the man who has a good will unimpaired by sin, for such a man has\nno cause for sorrow: but as soon as the good will is forfeited\nthrough sin, it cannot be restored without that sorrow whereby a man\nsorrows for his past sin, and which belongs to Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As soon as a man falls into sin, charity, faith, and\nmercy do not deliver him from sin, without Penance. Because charity\ndemands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against\nhis friend, and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction to his\nfriend; faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his\nsins through the power of Christ's Passion which operates in the\nsacraments of the Church; and well-ordered pity necessitates that man\nshould succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into\nwhich sin has brought him, according to Prov. 14:34: \"Sin maketh\nnations miserable\"; wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 30:24): \"Have\npity on thy own soul, pleasing God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: It was due to His power of _excellence,_ which He alone\nhad, as stated above (Q. 64, A. 3), that Christ bestowed on the\nadulterous woman the effect of the sacrament of Penance, viz. the\nforgiveness of sins, without the sacrament of Penance, although not\nwithout internal repentance, which He operated in her by grace.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Penance Is a Second Plank After Shipwreck?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a second plank after\nshipwreck. Because on Isa. 3:9, \"They have proclaimed abroad their\nsin as Sodom,\" a gloss says: \"The second plank after shipwreck is to\nhide one's sins.\" Now Penance does not hide sins, but reveals them.\nTherefore Penance is not a second plank.\n\nObj. 2: Further, in a building the foundation takes the first, not\nthe second place. Now in the spiritual edifice, Penance is the\nfoundation, according to Heb. 6:1: \"Not laying again the foundation\nof Penance from dead works\"; wherefore it precedes even Baptism,\naccording to Acts 2:38: \"Do penance, and be baptized every one of\nyou.\" Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank.\n\nObj. 3: Further, all the sacraments are planks, i.e. helps against\nsin. Now Penance holds, not the second but the fourth, place among\nthe sacraments, as is clear from what has been said above (Q. 65, AA.\n1, 2). Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank after\nshipwreck.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Jerome says (Ep. cxxx) that \"Penance is a second\nplank after shipwreck.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ That which is of itself precedes naturally that\nwhich is accidental, as substance precedes accident. Now some\nsacraments are, of themselves, ordained to man's salvation, e.g.\nBaptism, which is the spiritual birth, Confirmation which is the\nspiritual growth, the Eucharist which is the spiritual food; whereas\nPenance is ordained to man's salvation accidentally as it were, and\non something being supposed, viz. sin: for unless man were to sin\nactually, he would not stand in need of Penance and yet he would need\nBaptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; even as in the life of the\nbody, man would need no medical treatment, unless he were ill, and\nyet life, birth, growth, and food are, of themselves, necessary to\nman.\n\nConsequently Penance holds the second place with regard to the state\nof integrity which is bestowed and safeguarded by the aforesaid\nsacraments, so that it is called metaphorically \"a second plank after\nshipwreck.\" For just as the first help for those who cross the sea is\nto be safeguarded in a whole ship, while the second help when the\nship is wrecked, is to cling to a plank; so too the first help in\nthis life's ocean is that man safeguard his integrity, while the\nsecond help is, if he lose his integrity through sin, that he regain\nit by means of Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 1: To hide one's sins may happen in two ways: first, in\nthe very act of sinning. Now it is worse to sin in public than in\nprivate, both because a public sinner seems to sin more from\ncontempt, and because by sinning he gives scandal to others.\nConsequently in sin it is a kind of remedy to sin secretly, and it is\nin this sense that the gloss says that \"to hide one's sins is a\nsecond plank after shipwreck\"; not that it takes away sin, as Penance\ndoes, but because it makes the sin less grievous. Secondly, one hides\none's sin previously committed, by neglecting to confess it: this is\nopposed to Penance, and to hide one's sins thus is not a second\nplank, but is the reverse, since it is written (Prov. 28:13): \"He\nthat hideth his sins shall not prosper.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Penance cannot be called the foundation of the\nspiritual edifice simply, i.e. in the first building thereof; but it\nis the foundation in the second building which is accomplished by\ndestroying sin, because man, on his return to God, needs Penance\nfirst. However, the Apostle is speaking there of the foundation of\nspiritual doctrine. Moreover, the penance which precedes Baptism is\nnot the sacrament of Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The three sacraments which precede Penance refer to the\nship in its integrity, i.e. to man's state of integrity, with regard\nto which Penance is called a second plank.\n_______________________\n\nSEVENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 7]\n\nWhether This Sacrament Was Suitably Instituted in the New Law?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that this sacrament was unsuitably\ninstituted in the New Law. Because those things which belong to the\nnatural law need not to be instituted. Now it belongs to the natural\nlaw that one should repent of the evil one has done: for it is\nimpossible to love good without grieving for its contrary. Therefore\nPenance was unsuitably instituted in the New Law.\n\nObj. 2: Further, that which existed in the Old Law had not to be\ninstituted in the New. Now there was Penance in the old Law wherefore\nthe Lord complains (Jer. 8:6) saying: \"There is none that doth\npenance for his sin, saying: What have I done?\" Therefore Penance\nshould not have been instituted in the New Law.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Penance comes after Baptism, since it is a second\nplank, as stated above (A. 6). Now it seems that our Lord instituted\nPenance before Baptism, because we read that at the beginning of His\npreaching He said (Matt. 4:17): \"Do penance, for the kingdom of\nheaven is at hand.\" Therefore this sacrament was not suitably\ninstituted in the New Law.\n\nObj. 4: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by\nChrist, by Whose power they work, as stated above (Q. 62, A. 5; Q.\n64, A. 1). But Christ does not seem to have instituted this\nsacrament, since He made no use of it, as of the other sacraments\nwhich He instituted. Therefore this sacrament was unsuitably\ninstituted in the New Law.\n\n_On the contrary,_ our Lord said (Luke 24:46, 47): \"It behooved\nChrist to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day: and\nthat penance and remission of sins should be preached in His name\nunto all nations.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 1, ad 2), in this\nsacrament the acts of the penitent are as matter, while the part\ntaken by the priest, who works as Christ's minister, is the formal\nand completive element of the sacrament. Now in the other sacraments\nthe matter pre-exists, being provided by nature, as water, or by art,\nas bread: but that such and such a matter be employed for a sacrament\nrequires to be decided by the institution; while the sacrament\nderives its form and power entirely from the institution of Christ,\nfrom Whose Passion the power of the sacraments proceeds.\n\nAccordingly the matter of this sacrament pre-exists, being provided\nby nature; since it is by a natural principle of reason that man is\nmoved to repent of the evil he has done: yet it is due to Divine\ninstitution that man does penance in this or that way. Wherefore at\nthe outset of His preaching, our Lord admonished men, not only to\nrepent, but also to \"do penance,\" thus pointing to the particular\nmanner of actions required for this sacrament. As to the part to be\ntaken by the ministers, this was fixed by our Lord when He said to\nPeter (Matt. 16:19): \"To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of\nheaven,\" etc.; but it was after His resurrection that He made known\nthe efficacy of this sacrament and the source of its power, when He\nsaid (Luke 24:47) that \"penance and remission of sins should be\npreached in His name unto all nations,\" after speaking of His Passion\nand resurrection. Because it is from the power of the name of Jesus\nChrist suffering and rising again that this sacrament is efficacious\nunto the remission of sins.\n\nIt is therefore evident that this sacrament was suitably instituted\nin the New Law.\n\nReply Obj. 1: It is a natural law that one should repent of the evil\none has done, by grieving for having done it, and by seeking a remedy\nfor one's grief in some way or other, and also that one should show\nsome signs of grief, even as the Ninevites did, as we read in John 3.\nAnd yet even in their case there was also something of faith which\nthey had received through Jonas' preaching, inasmuch as they did\nthese things in the hope that they would receive pardon from God,\naccording as we read (John 3:9): \"Who can tell if God will turn and\nforgive, and will turn away from His fierce anger, and we shall not\nperish?\" But just as other matters which are of the natural law were\nfixed in detail by the institution of the Divine law, as we have\nstated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 91, A. 4; I-II, Q. 95, A. 2; Q.\n99), so was it with Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Things which are of the natural law were determined in\nvarious ways in the Old and in the New Law, in keeping with the\nimperfection of the Old, and the perfection of the New. Wherefore\nPenance was fixed in a certain way in the Old Law--with regard to\nsorrow, that it should be in the heart rather than in external signs,\naccording to Joel 2:13: \"Rend your hearts and not your garments\"; and\nwith regard to seeking a remedy for sorrow, that they should in some\nway confess their sins, at least in general, to God's ministers.\nWherefore the Lord said (Lev. 5:17, 18): \"If anyone sin through\nignorance . . . he shall offer of the flocks a ram without blemish to\nthe priest, according to the measure and estimation of the sin, and\nthe priest shall pray for him, because he did it ignorantly, and it\nshall be forgiven him\"; since by the very fact of making an offering\nfor his sin, a man, in a fashion, confessed his sin to the priest.\nAnd accordingly it is written (Prov. 28:13): \"He that hideth his\nsins, shall not prosper: but he that shall confess, and forsake them,\nshall obtain mercy.\" Not yet, however, was the power of the keys\ninstituted, which is derived from Christ's Passion, and consequently\nit was not yet ordained that a man should grieve for his sin, with\nthe purpose of submitting himself by confession and satisfaction to\nthe keys of the Church, in the hope of receiving forgiveness through\nthe power of Christ's Passion.\n\nReply Obj. 3: If we note carefully what our Lord said about the\nnecessity of Baptism (John 3:3, seqq.), we shall see that this was\nsaid before His words about the necessity of Penance (Matt. 4:17);\nbecause He spoke to Nicodemus about Baptism before the imprisonment\nof John, of whom it is related afterwards (John 3:23, 24) that he\nbaptized, whereas His words about Penance were said after John was\ncast into prison.\n\nIf, however, He had admonished men to do penance before admonishing\nthem to be baptized, this would be because also before Baptism some\nkind of penance is required, according to the words of Peter (Acts\n2:38): \"Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Christ did not use the Baptism which He instituted, but\nwas baptized with the baptism of John, as stated above (Q. 39, AA. 1,\n2). Nor did He use it actively by administering it Himself, because\nHe \"did not baptize\" as a rule, \"but His disciples\" did, as related\nin John 4:2, although it is to be believed that He baptized His\ndisciples, as Augustine asserts (Ep. cclxv, ad Seleuc.). But with\nregard to His institution of this sacrament it was nowise fitting\nthat He should use it, neither by repenting Himself, in Whom there\nwas no sin, nor by administering the sacrament to others, since, in\norder to show His mercy and power, He was wont to confer the effect\nof this sacrament without the sacrament itself, as stated above (A.\n5, ad 3). On the other hand, He both received and gave to others the\nsacrament of the Eucharist, both in order to commend the excellence\nof that sacrament, and because that sacrament is a memorial of His\nPassion, in which Christ is both priest and victim.\n_______________________\n\nEIGHTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 8]\n\nWhether Penance Should Last Till the End of Life?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that Penance should not last till the end\nof life. Because Penance is ordained for the blotting out of sin. Now\nthe penitent receives forgiveness of his sins at once, according to\nEzech. 18:21: \"If the wicked do penance for all his sins which he\nhath committed . . . he shall live and shall not die.\" Therefore\nthere is no need for Penance to be further prolonged.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Penance belongs to the state of beginners. But man\nought to advance from that state to the state of the proficient, and,\nfrom this, on to the state of the perfect. Therefore man need not do\nPenance till the end of his life.\n\nObj. 3: Further, man is bound to observe the laws of the Church in\nthis as in the other sacraments. But the duration of repentance is\nfixed by the canons, so that, to wit, for such and such a sin one is\nbound to do penance for so many years. Therefore it seems that\nPenance should not be prolonged till the end of life.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book, _De Poenitentia_ [*De\nvera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: \"What\nremains for us to do, save to sorrow ever in this life? For when\nsorrow ceases, repentance fails; and if repentance fails, what\nbecomes of pardon?\"\n\n_I answer that,_ Penance is twofold, internal and external. Internal\npenance is that whereby one grieves for a sin one has committed, and\nthis penance should last until the end of life. Because man should\nalways be displeased at having sinned, for if he were to be pleased\nthereat, he would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the\nfruit of pardon. Now displeasure causes sorrow in one who is\nsusceptible to sorrow, as man is in this life; but after this life\nthe saints are not susceptible to sorrow, wherefore they will be\ndispleased at, without sorrowing for, their past sins, according to\nIsa. 65:16. \"The former distresses are forgotten.\"\n\nExternal penance is that whereby a man shows external signs of\nsorrow, confesses his sins verbally to the priest who absolves him,\nand makes satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the\npriest. Such penance need not last until the end of life, but only\nfor a fixed time according to the measure of the sin.\n\nReply Obj. 1: True penance not only removes past sins, but also\npreserves man from future sins. Consequently, although a man receives\nforgiveness of past sins in the first instant of his true penance,\nnevertheless he must persevere in his penance, lest he fall again\ninto sin.\n\nReply Obj. 2: To do penance both internal and external belongs to the\nstate of beginners, of those, to wit, who are making a fresh start\nfrom the state of sin. But there is room for internal penance even in\nthe proficient and the perfect, according to Ps. 83:7: \"In his heart\nhe hath disposed to ascend by steps, in the vale of tears.\" Wherefore\nPaul says (1 Cor. 15:9): \"I . . . am not worthy to be called an\napostle because I persecuted the Church of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: These durations of time are fixed for penitents as\nregards the exercise of external penance.\n_______________________\n\nNINTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 9]\n\nWhether Penance Can Be Continuous?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that penance cannot be continuous. For it\nis written (Jer. 31:16): \"Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy\neyes from tears.\" But this would be impossible if penance were\ncontinuous, for it consists in weeping and tears. Therefore penance\ncannot be continuous.\n\nObj. 2: Further, man ought to rejoice at every good work, according\nto Ps. 99:1: \"Serve ye the Lord with gladness.\" Now to do penance is\na good work. Therefore man should rejoice at it. But man cannot\nrejoice and grieve at the same time, as the Philosopher declares\n(Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually for\nhis past sins, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance\ncannot be continuous.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:7): \"Comfort him,\" viz.\nthe penitent, \"lest perhaps such an one be swallowed up with overmuch\nsorrow.\" But comfort dispels grief, which is essential to penance.\nTherefore penance need not be continuous.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in his book on Penance [*De vera et\nfalsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: \"In doing\npenance grief should be continual.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ One is said to repent in two ways, actually and\nhabitually. It is impossible for a man continually to repent\nactually, for the acts, whether internal or external, of a penitent\nmust needs be interrupted by sleep and other things which the body\nneeds. Secondly, a man is said to repent habitually. And thus he\nshould repent continually, both by never doing anything contrary to\npenance, so as to destroy the habitual disposition of the penitent,\nand by being resolved that his past sins should always be displeasing\nto him.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Weeping and tears belong to the act of external\npenance, and this act needs neither to be continuous, nor to last\nuntil the end of life, as stated above (A. 8): wherefore it is\nsignificantly added: \"For there is a reward for thy work.\" Now the\nreward of the penitent's work is the full remission of sin both as to\nguilt and as to punishment; and after receiving this reward there is\nno need for man to proceed to acts of external penance. This,\nhowever, does not prevent penance being continual, as explained above.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Of sorrow and joy we may speak in two ways: first, as\nbeing passions of the sensitive appetite; and thus they can nowise\nbe together, since they are altogether contrary to one another,\neither on the part of the object (as when they have the same object),\nor at least on the part of the movement, for joy is with expansion\n[*Cf. I-II, Q. 33, A. 1] of the heart, whereas sorrow is with\ncontraction; and it is in this sense that the Philosopher speaks in\n_Ethic._ ix. Secondly, we may speak of joy and sorrow as being simple\nacts of the will, to which something is pleasing or displeasing.\nAccordingly, they cannot be contrary to one another, except on the\npart of the object, as when they concern the same object in the same\nrespect, in which way joy and sorrow cannot be simultaneous, because\nthe same thing in the same respect cannot be pleasing and\ndispleasing. If, on the other hand, joy and sorrow, understood thus,\nbe not of the same object in the same respect, but either of\ndifferent objects, or of the same object in different respects, in\nthat case joy and sorrow are not contrary to one another, so that\nnothing hinders a man from being joyful and sorrowful at the same\ntime--for instance, if we see a good man suffer, we both rejoice at\nhis goodness and at the same time grieve for his suffering. In this\nway a man may be displeased at having sinned, and be pleased at his\ndispleasure together with his hope for pardon, so that his very\nsorrow is a matter of joy. Hence Augustine says [*De vera et falsa\nPoenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: \"The penitent\nshould ever grieve and rejoice at his grief.\"\n\nIf, however, sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy, this would\nprevent the continuance, not of habitual penance, but only of actual\npenance.\n\nReply Obj. 3: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3, 6, 7, 9) it\nbelongs to virtue to establish the mean in the passions. Now the\nsorrow which, in the sensitive appetite of the penitent, arises from\nthe displeasure of his will, is a passion; wherefore it should be\nmoderated according to virtue, and if it be excessive it is sinful,\nbecause it leads to despair, as the Apostle teaches (2 Cor. 2:7),\nsaying: \"Lest such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.\"\nAccordingly comfort, of which the Apostle speaks, moderates sorrow\nbut does not destroy it altogether.\n_______________________\n\nTENTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 84, Art. 10]\n\nWhether the Sacrament of Penance May Be Repeated?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the sacrament of Penance should not\nbe repeated. For the Apostle says (Heb. 6:4, seqq.): \"It is\nimpossible for those, who were once illuminated, have tasted also the\nheavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost . . . and\nare fallen away, to be renewed again to penance.\" Now whosoever have\ndone penance, have been illuminated, and have received the gift of\nthe Holy Ghost. Therefore whosoever sin after doing penance, cannot\ndo penance again.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Poenit. ii): \"Some are to be found\nwho think they ought often to do penance, who take liberties with\nChrist: for if they were truly penitent, they would not think of\ndoing penance over again, since there is but one Penance even as\nthere is but one Baptism.\" Now Baptism is not repeated. Neither,\ntherefore, is Penance to be repeated.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the miracles whereby our Lord healed bodily\ndiseases, signify the healing of spiritual diseases, whereby men are\ndelivered from sins. Now we do not read that our Lord restored the\nsight to any blind man twice, or that He cleansed any leper twice, or\ntwice raised any dead man to life. Therefore it seems that He does\nnot twice grant pardon to any sinner.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.): \"Penance\nconsists in deploring past sins, and in not committing again those we\nhave deplored\": and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii): \"He is a mocker\nand no penitent who still does what he has repented of.\" If,\ntherefore, a man is truly penitent, he will not sin again. Therefore\nPenance cannot be repeated.\n\nObj. 5: Further, just as Baptism derives its efficacy from the\nPassion of Christ, so does Penance. Now Baptism is not repeated, on\naccount of the unity of Christ's Passion and death. Therefore in like\nmanner Penance is not repeated.\n\nObj. 6: Further, Ambrose says on Ps. 118:58, \"I entreated Thy face,\"\netc., that \"facility of obtaining pardon is an incentive to sin.\" If,\ntherefore, God frequently grants pardon through Penance, it seems\nthat He affords man an incentive to sin, and thus He seems to take\npleasure in sin, which is contrary to His goodness. Therefore Penance\ncannot be repeated.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Man is induced to be merciful by the example of\nDivine mercy, according to Luke 6:36: \"Be ye . . . merciful, as your\nFather also is merciful.\" Now our Lord commanded His disciples to be\nmerciful by frequently pardoning their brethren who had sinned\nagainst them; wherefore, as related in Matt. 18:21, when Peter asked:\n\"How often shall my brother off end against me, and I forgive him?\ntill seven times?\" Jesus answered: \"I say not to thee, till seven\ntimes, but till seventy times seven times.\" Therefore also God over\nand over again, through Penance, grants pardon to sinners, especially\nas He teaches us to pray (Matt. 6:12): \"Forgive us our trespasses, as\nwe forgive them that trespass against us.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As regards Penance, some have erred, saying that a\nman cannot obtain pardon of his sins through Penance a second time.\nSome of these, viz. the Novatians, went so far as to say that he who\nsins after the first Penance which is done in Baptism, cannot be\nrestored again through Penance. There were also other heretics who,\nas Augustine relates in _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et falsa\nPoenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], said that, after\nBaptism, Penance is useful, not many times, but only once.\n\nThese errors seem to have arisen from a twofold source: first from\nnot knowing the nature of true Penance. For since true Penance\nrequires charity, without which sins are not taken away, they thought\nthat charity once possessed could not be lost, and that,\nconsequently, Penance, if true, could never be removed by sin, so\nthat it should be necessary to repeat it. But this was refuted in the\nSecond Part (II, Q. 24, A. 11), where it was shown that on account of\nfree-will charity, once possessed, can be lost, and that,\nconsequently, after true Penance, a man can sin mortally.--Secondly,\nthey erred in their estimation of the gravity of sin. For they deemed\na sin committed by a man after he had received pardon, to be so grave\nthat it could not be forgiven. In this they erred not only with\nregard to sin which, even after a sin has been forgiven, can be\neither more or less grievous than the first, which was forgiven, but\nmuch more did they err against the infinity of Divine mercy, which\nsurpasses any number and magnitude of sins, according to Ps. 50:1, 2:\n\"Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy: and according\nto the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my iniquity.\"\nWherefore the words of Cain were reprehensible, when he said (Gen.\n4:13): \"My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon.\" And\nso God's mercy, through Penance, grants pardon to sinners without any\nend, wherefore it is written (2 Paralip. 37 [*Prayer of Manasses,\namong the Apocrypha. St. Thomas is evidently quoting from memory, and\nomits the words in brackets.]): \"Thy merciful promise is unmeasurable\nand unsearchable . . . (and Thou repentest) for the evil brought upon\nman.\" It is therefore evident that Penance can be repeated many times.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Some of the Jews thought that a man could be washed\nseveral times in the laver of Baptism, because among them the Law\nprescribed certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse\nthemselves repeatedly from their uncleannesses. In order to disprove\nthis the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews that \"it is impossible for\nthose who were once illuminated,\" viz. through Baptism, \"to be\nrenewed again to penance,\" viz. through Baptism, which is \"the laver\nof regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost,\" as stated in\nTitus 3:5: and he declares the reason to be that by Baptism man dies\nwith Christ, wherefore he adds (Heb. 6:6): \"Crucifying again to\nthemselves the Son of God.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Ambrose is speaking of solemn Penance, which is not\nrepeated in the Church, as we shall state further on (Suppl., Q. 28,\nA. 2).\n\nReply Obj. 3: As Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the\nauthorship of which is unknown], \"Our Lord gave sight to many blind\nmen at various times, and strength to many infirm, thereby showing,\nin these different men, that the same sins are repeatedly forgiven,\nat one time healing a man from leprosy and afterwards from blindness.\nFor this reason He healed so many stricken with fever, so many feeble\nin body, so many lame, blind, and withered, that the sinner might not\ndespair; for this reason He is not described as healing anyone but\nonce, that every one might fear to link himself with sin; for this\nreason He declares Himself to be the physician welcomed not of the\nhale, but of the unhealthy. What sort of a physician is he who knows\nnot how to heal a recurring disease? For if a man ail a hundred times\nit is for the physician to heal him a hundred times: and if he failed\nwhere others succeed, he would be a poor physician in comparison with\nthem.\"\n\nReply Obj. 4: Penance is to deplore past sins, and, _while deploring\nthem,_ not to commit again, either by act or by intention, those\nwhich we have to deplore. Because a man is a mocker and not a\npenitent, who, _while doing penance,_ does what he repents having\ndone, or intends to do again what he did before, or even commits\nactually the same or another kind of sin. But if a man sin afterwards\neither by act or intention, this does not destroy the fact that his\nformer penance was real, because the reality of a former act is never\ndestroyed by a subsequent contrary act: for even as he truly ran who\nafterwards sits, so he truly repented who subsequently sins.\n\nReply Obj. 5: Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a\nspiritual regeneration, with a spiritual death, of a previous life.\nNow \"it is appointed unto man once to die\" (Heb. 9:27), and to be\nborn once, wherefore man should be baptized but once. On the other\nhand, Penance derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a spiritual\nmedicine, which can be repeated frequently.\n\nReply Obj. 6: According to Augustine (De vera et falsa Poenitentia,\nthe authorship of which is unknown), \"it is evident that sins\ndisplease God exceedingly, for He is always ready to destroy them,\nlest what He created should perish, and what He loved be lost,\" viz.\nby despair.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 85\n\nOF PENANCE AS A VIRTUE\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe must now consider penance as a virtue, under which head there are\nsix points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether penance is a virtue?\n\n(2) Whether it is a special virtue?\n\n(3) To what species of virtue does it belong?\n\n(4) Of its subject;\n\n(5) Of its cause;\n\n(6) Of its relation to the other virtues.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Penance Is a Virtue?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that penance is not a virtue. For penance\nis a sacrament numbered among the other sacraments, as was shown\nabove (Q. 84, A. 1; Q. 65, A. 1). Now no other sacrament is a virtue.\nTherefore neither is penance a virtue.\n\nObj. 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 9), \"shame\nis not a virtue,\" both because it is a passion accompanied by a\nbodily alteration, and because it is not the disposition of a perfect\nthing, since it is about an evil act, so that it has no place in a\nvirtuous man. Now, in like manner, penance is a passion accompanied\nby a bodily alteration, viz. tears, according to Gregory, who says\n(Hom. xxxiv in Evang.) that \"penance consists in deploring past\nsins\": moreover it is about evil deeds, viz. sins, which have no\nplace in a virtuous man. Therefore penance is not a virtue.\n\nObj. 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), \"no\nvirtuous man is foolish.\" But it seems foolish to deplore what has\nbeen done in the past, since it cannot be otherwise, and yet this is\nwhat we understand by penance. Therefore penance is not a virtue.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue,\nbecause \"a lawgiver intends to make the citizens virtuous\" (Ethic.\nii, 1). But there is a precept about penance in the Divine law,\naccording to Matt. 4:17: \"Do penance,\" etc. Therefore penance is a\nvirtue.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Obj. 2; Q. 84, A. 10, ad 4), to\nrepent is to deplore something one has done. Now it has been stated\nabove (Q. 84, A. 9) that sorrow or sadness is twofold. First, it\ndenotes a passion of the sensitive appetite, and in this sense\npenance is not a virtue, but a passion. Secondly, it denotes an act\nof the will, and in this way it implies choice, and if this be right,\nit must, of necessity, be an act of virtue. For it is stated in\n_Ethic._ ii, 6 that virtue is a habit of choosing according to right\nreason. Now it belongs to right reason than one should grieve for a\nproper object of grief as one ought to grieve, and for an end for\nwhich one ought to grieve. And this is observed in the penance of\nwhich we are speaking now; since the penitent assumes a moderated\ngrief for his past sins, with the intention of removing them. Hence\nit is evident that the penance of which we are speaking now, is\neither a virtue or the act of a virtue.\n\nReply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 84, A. 1, ad 1; AA. 2, 3), in the\nsacrament of Penance, human acts take the place of matter, which is\nnot the case in Baptism and Confirmation. Wherefore, since virtue is\na principle of an act, penance is either a virtue or accompanies a\nvirtue, rather than Baptism or Confirmation.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Penance, considered as a passion, is not a virtue, as\nstated above, and it is thus that it is accompanied by a bodily\nalteration. On the other hand, it is a virtue, according as it\nincludes a right choice on the part of the will; which, however,\napplies to penance rather than to shame. Because shame regards the\nevil deed as present, whereas penance regards the evil deed as past.\nNow it is contrary to the perfection of virtue that one should have\nan evil deed actually present, of which one ought to be ashamed;\nwhereas it is not contrary to the perfection of virtue that we should\nhave previously committed evil deeds, of which it behooves us to\nrepent, since a man from being wicked becomes virtuous.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It would indeed be foolish to grieve for what has\nalready been done, with the intention of trying to make it not done.\nBut the penitent does not intend this: for his sorrow is displeasure\nor disapproval with regard to the past deed, with the intention of\nremoving its result, viz. the anger of God and the debt of\npunishment: and this is not foolish.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Penance Is a Special Virtue?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that penance is not a special virtue. For\nit seems that to rejoice at the good one has done, and to grieve for\nthe evil one has done are acts of the same nature. But joy for the\ngood one has done is not a special virtue, but is a praiseworthy\nemotion proceeding from charity, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei\nxiv, 7, 8, 9): wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:6) that charity\n\"rejoiceth not at iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth.\" Therefore,\nin like manner, neither is penance, which is sorrow for past sins, a\nspecial virtue, but an emotion resulting from charity.\n\nObj. 2: Further, every special virtue has its special matter, because\nhabits are distinguished by their acts, and acts by their objects.\nBut penance has no special matter, because its matter is past sins in\nany matter whatever. Therefore penance is not a special virtue.\n\nObj. 3: Further, nothing is removed except by its contrary. But\npenance removes all sins. Therefore it is contrary to all sins, and\nconsequently is not a special virtue.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Law has a special precept about penance, as\nstated above (Q. 84, AA. 5, 7).\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 54, A. 1, ad\n1, A. 2), habits are specifically distinguished according to the\nspecies of their acts, so that whenever an act has a special reason\nfor being praiseworthy, there must needs be a special habit. Now it\nis evident that there is a special reason for praising the act of\npenance, because it aims at the destruction of past sin, considered\nas an offense against God, which does not apply to any other virtue.\nWe must therefore conclude that penance is a special virtue.\n\nReply Obj. 1: An act springs from charity in two ways: first as being\nelicited by charity, and a like virtuous act requires no other virtue\nthan charity, e.g. to love the good, to rejoice therein, and to\ngrieve for what is opposed to it. Secondly, an act springs from\ncharity, being, so to speak, commanded by charity; and thus, since\ncharity commands all the virtues, inasmuch as it directs them to its\nown end, an act springing from charity may belong even to another\nspecial virtue. Accordingly, if in the act of the penitent we\nconsider the mere displeasure in the past sin, it belongs to charity\nimmediately, in the same way as joy for past good acts; but the\nintention to aim at the destruction of past sin requires a special\nvirtue subordinate to charity.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In point of fact, penance has indeed a general matter,\ninasmuch as it regards all sins; but it does so under a special\naspect, inasmuch as they can be remedied by an act of man in\nco-operating with God for his justification.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Every special virtue removes formally the habit of the\nopposite vice, just as whiteness removes blackness from the same\nsubject: but penance removes every sin effectively, inasmuch as it\nworks for the destruction of sins, according as they are pardonable\nthrough the grace of God if man co-operate therewith. Wherefore it\ndoes not follow that it is a general virtue.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Virtue of Penance Is a Species of Justice?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the virtue of penance is not a\nspecies of justice. For justice is not a theological but a moral\nvirtue, as was shown in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 62, A. 3). But\npenance seems to be a theological virtue, since God is its object,\nfor it makes satisfaction to God, to Whom, moreover, it reconciles\nthe sinner. Therefore it seems that penance is not a species of\njustice.\n\nObj. 2: Further, since justice is a moral virtue it observes the\nmean. Now penance does not observe the mean, but rather goes to the\nextreme, according to Jer. 6:26: \"Make thee mourning as for an only\nson, a bitter lamentation.\" Therefore penance is not a species of\njustice.\n\nObj. 3: Further, there are two species of justice, as stated in\n_Ethic._ v, 4, viz. \"distributive\" and \"commutative.\" But penance\ndoes not seem to be contained under either of them. Therefore it\nseems that penance is not a species of justice.\n\nObj. 4: Further, a gloss on Luke 6:21, \"Blessed are ye that weep\nnow,\" says: \"It is prudence that teaches us the unhappiness of\nearthly things and the happiness of heavenly things.\" But weeping is\nan act of penance. Therefore penance is a species of prudence rather\nthan of justice.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et\nfalsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: \"Penance is\nthe vengeance of the sorrowful, ever punishing in them what they are\nsorry for having done.\" But to take vengeance is an act of justice,\nwherefore Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that one kind of justice is\ncalled vindictive. Therefore it seems that penance is a species of\njustice.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1, ad 2) penance is a special\nvirtue not merely because it sorrows for evil done (since charity\nwould suffice for that), but also because the penitent grieves for\nthe sin he has committed, inasmuch as it is an offense against God,\nand purposes to amend. Now amendment for an offense committed against\nanyone is not made by merely ceasing to offend, but it is necessary\nto make some kind of compensation, which obtains in offenses\ncommitted against another, just as retribution does, only that\ncompensation is on the part of the offender, as when he makes\nsatisfaction, whereas retribution is on the part of the person\noffended against. Each of these belongs to the matter of justice,\nbecause each is a kind of commutation. Wherefore it is evident that\npenance, as a virtue, is a part of justice.\n\nIt must be observed, however, that according to the Philosopher\n(Ethic. v, 6) a thing is said to be just in two ways, simply and\nrelatively. A thing is just simply when it is between equals, since\njustice is a kind of equality, and he calls this the politic or\ncivil just, because all citizens are equal, in the point of being\nimmediately under the ruler, retaining their freedom. But a thing is\njust relatively when it is between parties of whom one is subject to\nthe other, as a servant under his master, a son under his father, a\nwife under her husband. It is this kind of just that we consider in\npenance. Wherefore the penitent has recourse to God with a purpose\nof amendment, as a servant to his master, according to Ps. 122:2:\n\"Behold, as the eyes of servants are on the hands of their\nmasters . . . so are our eyes unto the Lord our God, until He have\nmercy on us\"; and as a son to his father, according to Luke 15:21:\n\"Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee\"; and as a wife\nto her husband, according to Jer. 3:1: \"Thou hast prostituted thyself\nto many lovers; nevertheless return to Me, saith the Lord.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: As stated in _Ethic._ v, 1, justice is a virtue towards\nanother person, and the matter of justice is not so much the person\nto whom justice is due as the thing which is the subject of\ndistribution or commutation. Hence the matter of penance is not God,\nbut human acts, whereby God is offended or appeased; whereas God is\nas one to whom justice is due. Wherefore it is evident that penance\nis not a theological virtue, because God is not its matter or object.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The mean of justice is the equality that is established\nbetween those between whom justice is, as stated in _Ethic._ v. But\nin certain cases perfect equality cannot be established, on account\nof the excellence of one, as between father and son, God and man, as\nthe Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14), wherefore in such cases, he\nthat falls short of the other must do whatever he can. Yet this will\nnot be sufficient simply, but only according to the acceptance of the\nhigher one; and this is what is meant by ascribing excess to penance.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As there is a kind of commutation in favors, when, to\nwit, a man gives thanks for a favor received, so also is there\ncommutation in the matter of offenses, when, on account of an offense\ncommitted against another, a man is either punished against his will,\nwhich pertains to vindictive justice, or makes amends of his own\naccord, which belongs to penance, which regards the person of the\nsinner, just as vindictive justice regards the person of the judge.\nTherefore it is evident that both are comprised under commutative\njustice.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Although penance is directly a species of justice, yet,\nin a fashion, it comprises things pertaining to all the virtues; for\ninasmuch as there is a justice of man towards God, it must have a\nshare in matter pertaining to the theological virtues, the object of\nwhich is God. Consequently penance comprises faith in Christ's\nPassion, whereby we are cleansed of our sins, hope for pardon, and\nhatred of vice, which pertains to charity. Inasmuch as it is a moral\nvirtue, it has a share of prudence, which directs all the moral\nvirtues: but from the very nature of justice, it has not only\nsomething belonging to justice, but also something belonging to\ntemperance and fortitude, inasmuch as those things which cause\npleasure, and which pertain to temperance, and those which cause\nterror, which fortitude moderates, are objects of commutative\njustice. Accordingly it belongs to justice both to abstain from\npleasure, which belongs to temperance, and to bear with hardships,\nwhich belongs to fortitude.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Will Is Properly the Subject of Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the subject of penance is not\nproperly the will. For penance is a species of sorrow. But sorrow is\nin the concupiscible part, even as joy is. Therefore penance is in\nthe concupiscible faculty.\n\nObj. 2: Further, penance is a kind of vengeance, as Augustine states\nin _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of\nwhich is unknown]. But vengeance seems to regard the irascible\nfaculty, since anger is the desire for vengeance. Therefore it seems\nthat penance is in the irascible part.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the past is the proper object of the memory,\naccording to the Philosopher (De Memoria i). Now penance regards the\npast, as stated above (A. 1, ad 2, ad 3). Therefore penance is\nsubjected in the memory.\n\nObj. 4: Further, nothing acts where it is not. Now penance removes\nsin from all the powers of the soul. Therefore penance is in every\npower of the soul, and not only in the will.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Penance is a kind of sacrifice, according to Ps.\n50:19: \"A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit.\" But to offer a\nsacrifice is an act of the will, according to Ps. 53:8: \"I will\nfreely sacrifice to Thee.\" Therefore penance is in the will.\n\n_I answer that,_ We can speak of penance in two ways: first, in so\nfar as it is a passion, and thus, since it is a kind of sorrow, it is\nin the concupiscible part as its subject; secondly, in so far as it\nis a virtue, and thus, as stated above (A. 3), it is a species of\njustice. Now justice, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 56, A.\n6), is subjected in the rational appetite which is the will.\nTherefore it is evident that penance, in so far as it is a virtue, is\nsubjected in the will, and its proper act is the purpose of amending\nwhat was committed against God.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This argument considers penance as a passion.\n\nReply Obj. 2: To desire vengeance on another, through passion,\nbelongs to the irascible appetite, but to desire or take vengeance on\noneself or on another, through reason, belongs to the will.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The memory is a power that apprehends the past. But\npenance belongs not to the apprehensive but to the appetitive power,\nwhich presupposes an act of the apprehension. Wherefore penance is\nnot in the memory, but presupposes it.\n\nReply Obj. 4: The will, as stated above (I, Q. 82, A. 4; I-II, Q. 9,\nA. 1), moves all the other powers of the soul; so that it is not\nunreasonable for penance to be subjected in the will, and to produce\nan effect in each power of the soul.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Penance Originates from Fear?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that penance does not originate from fear.\nFor penance originates in displeasure at sin. But this belongs to\ncharity, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore penance originates from\nlove rather than fear.\n\nObj. 2: Further, men are induced to do penance, through the\nexpectation of the heavenly kingdom, according to Matt. 3:2 and Matt.\n4:17: \"Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\" Now the\nkingdom of heaven is the object of hope. Therefore penance results\nfrom hope rather than from fear.\n\nObj. 3: Further, fear is an internal act of man. But penance does not\nseem to arise in us through any work of man, but through the\noperation of God, according to Jer. 31:19: \"After Thou didst convert\nme I did penance.\" Therefore penance does not result from fear.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 26:17): \"As a woman with\nchild, when she draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain,\nand crieth out in her pangs, so ere we become,\" by penance, to wit;\nand according to another [*The Septuagint] version the text\ncontinues: \"Through fear of Thee, O Lord, we have conceived, and been\nas it were in labor, and have brought forth the spirit of salvation,\"\ni.e. of salutary penance, as is clear from what precedes. Therefore\npenance results from fear.\n\n_I answer that,_ We may speak of penance in two ways: first, as to\nthe habit, and then it is infused by God immediately without our\noperating as principal agents, but not without our co-operating\ndispositively by certain acts. Secondly, we may speak of penance,\nwith regard to the acts whereby in penance we co-operate with God\noperating, the first principle [*Cf. I-II, Q. 113] of which acts is\nthe operation of God in turning the heart, according to Lam. 5:21:\n\"Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted\"; the second,\nan act of faith; the third, a movement of servile fear, whereby a man\nis withdrawn from sin through fear of punishment; the fourth, a\nmovement of hope, whereby a man makes a purpose of amendment, in the\nhope of obtaining pardon; the fifth, a movement of charity, whereby\nsin is displeasing to man for its own sake and no longer for the sake\nof the punishment; the sixth, a movement of filial fear whereby a\nman, of his own accord, offers to make amends to God through fear of\nHim.\n\nAccordingly it is evident that the act of penance results from\nservile fear as from the first movement of the appetite in this\ndirection and from filial fear as from its immediate and proper\nprinciple.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Sin begins to displease a man, especially a sinner, on\naccount of the punishments which servile fear regards, before it\ndispleases him on account of its being an offense against God, or on\naccount of its wickedness, which pertains to charity.\n\nReply Obj. 2: When the kingdom of heaven is said to be at hand, we\nare to understand that the king is on his way, not only to reward but\nalso to punish. Wherefore John the Baptist said (Matt. 3:7): \"Ye\nbrood of vipers, who hath showed you to flee from the wrath to come?\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: Even the movement of fear proceeds from God's act in\nturning the heart; wherefore it is written (Deut. 5:29): \"Who shall\ngive them to have such a mind, to fear Me?\" And so the fact that\npenance results from fear does not hinder its resulting from the act\nof God in turning the heart.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 85, Art. 6]\n\nWhether Penance Is the First of the Virtues?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that penance is the first of the virtues.\nBecause, on Matt. 3:2, \"Do penance,\" etc., a gloss says: \"The first\nvirtue is to destroy the old man, and hate sin by means of penance.\"\n\nObj. 2: Further, withdrawal from one extreme seems to precede\napproach to the other. Now all the other virtues seem to regard\napproach to a term, because they all direct man to do good; whereas\npenance seems to direct him to withdraw from evil. Therefore it seems\nthat penance precedes all the other virtues.\n\nObj. 3: Further, before penance, there is sin in the soul. Now no\nvirtue is compatible with sin in the soul. Therefore no virtue\nprecedes penance, which is itself the first of all and opens the door\nto the others by expelling sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Penance results from faith, hope, and charity, as\nalready stated (AA. 2, 5). Therefore penance is not the first of the\nvirtues.\n\n_I answer that,_ In speaking of the virtues, we do not consider the\norder of time with regard to the habits, because, since the virtues\nare connected with one another, as stated in the Second Part (I-II,\nQ. 65, A. 1), they all begin at the same time to be in the soul; but\none is said to precede the other in the order of nature, which order\ndepends on the order of their acts, in so far as the act of one\nvirtue presupposes the act of another. Accordingly, then, one must\nsay that, even in the order of time, certain praiseworthy acts can\nprecede the act and the habit of penance, e.g. acts of dead faith and\nhope, and an act of servile fear; while the act and habit of charity\nare, in point of time, simultaneous with the act and habit of\npenance, and with the habits of the other virtues. For, as was stated\nin the Second Part (I-II, Q. 113, AA. 7, 8), in the justification of\nthe ungodly, the movement of the free-will towards God, which is an\nact of faith quickened by charity, and the movement of the free-will\ntowards sin, which is the act of penance, are simultaneous. Yet of\nthese two acts, the former naturally precedes the latter, because the\nact of the virtue of penance is directed against sin, through love of\nGod; where the first-mentioned act is the reason and cause of the\nsecond.\n\nConsequently penance is not simply the first of the virtues, either\nin the order of time, or in the order of nature, because, in the\norder of nature, the theological virtues precede it simply.\nNevertheless, in a certain respect, it is the first of the other\nvirtues in the order of time, as regards its act, because this act is\nthe first in the justification of the ungodly; whereas in the order\nof nature, the other virtues seem to precede, as that which is\nnatural precedes that which is accidental; because the other virtues\nseem to be necessary for man's good, by reason of their very nature,\nwhereas penance is only necessary if something, viz. sin, be\npresupposed, as stated above (Q. 55, A. 2), when we spoke of the\nrelation of the sacrament of penance to the other sacraments\naforesaid.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This gloss is to be taken as meaning that the act of\npenance is the first in point of time, in comparison with the acts of\nthe other virtues.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In successive movements withdrawal from one extreme\nprecedes approach to the other, in point of time; and also in the\norder of nature, if we consider the subject, i.e. the order of the\nmaterial cause; but if we consider the order of the efficient and\nfinal causes, approach to the end is first, for it is this that the\nefficient cause intends first of all: and it is this order which we\nconsider chiefly in the acts of the soul, as stated in _Phys._ ii.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Penance opens the door to the other virtues, because it\nexpels sin by the virtues of faith, hope and charity, which precede\nit in the order of nature; yet it so opens the door to them that they\nenter at the same time as it: because, in the justification of the\nungodly, at the same time as the free-will is moved towards God and\nagainst sin, the sin is pardoned and grace infused, and with grace\nall the virtues, as stated in the I-II, Q. 65, AA. 3, 5.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 86\n\nOF THE EFFECT OF PENANCE, AS REGARDS THE PARDON OF MORTAL SIN\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the effect of Penance; and (1) as regards the\npardon of mortal sins; (2) as regards the pardon of venial sins;\n(3) as regards the return of sins which have been pardoned; (4) as\nregards the recovery of the virtues.\n\nUnder the first head there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether all mortal sins are taken away by Penance?\n\n(2) Whether they can be taken away without Penance?\n\n(3) Whether one can be taken away without the other?\n\n(4) Whether Penance takes away the guilt while the debt remains?\n\n(5) Whether any remnants of sin remain?\n\n(6) Whether the removal of sin is the effect of Penance as a virtue,\nor as a sacrament?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 1]\n\nWhether All Sins Are Taken Away by Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that not all sins are taken away by\nPenance. For the Apostle says (Heb. 12:17) that Esau \"found no place\nof repentance, although with tears he had sought it,\" which a gloss\nexplains as meaning that \"he found no place of pardon and blessing\nthrough Penance\": and it is related (2 Macc. 9:13) of Antiochus, that\n\"this wicked man prayed to the Lord, of Whom he was not to obtain\nmercy.\" Therefore it does not seem that all sins are taken away by\nPenance.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i) that \"so\ngreat is the stain of that sin (namely, when a man, after coming to\nthe knowledge of God through the grace of Christ, resists fraternal\ncharity, and by the brands of envy combats grace itself) that he is\nunable to humble himself in prayer, although he is forced by his\nwicked conscience to acknowledge and confess his sin.\" Therefore not\nevery sin can be taken away by Penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 12:32): \"He that shall speak\nagainst the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this\nworld nor in the world to come.\" Therefore not every sin can be\npardoned through Penance.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 18:22): \"I will not\nremember\" any more \"all his iniquities that he hath done.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ The fact that a sin cannot be taken away by Penance\nmay happen in two ways: first, because of the impossibility of\nrepenting of sin; secondly, because of Penance being unable to blot\nout a sin. In the first way the sins of the demons and of men who are\nlost, cannot be blotted out by Penance, because their will is\nconfirmed in evil, so that sin cannot displease them as to its guilt,\nbut only as to the punishment which they suffer, by reason of which\nthey have a kind of repentance, which yet is fruitless, according to\nWis. 5:3: \"Repenting, and groaning for anguish of spirit.\"\nConsequently such Penance brings no hope of pardon, but only despair.\nNevertheless no sin of a wayfarer can be such as that, because his\nwill is flexible to good and evil. Wherefore to say that in this life\nthere is any sin of which one cannot repent, is erroneous, first,\nbecause this would destroy free-will, secondly, because this would be\nderogatory to the power of grace, whereby the heart of any sinner\nwhatsoever can be moved to repent, according to Prov. 21:1: \"The\nheart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever He will\nHe shall turn it.\"\n\nIt is also erroneous to say that any sin cannot be pardoned through\ntrue Penance. First, because this is contrary to Divine mercy, of\nwhich it is written (Joel 2:13) that God is \"gracious and merciful,\npatient, and rich in mercy, and ready to repent of the evil\"; for, in\na manner, God would be overcome by man, if man wished a sin to be\nblotted out, which God were unwilling to blot out. Secondly, because\nthis would be derogatory to the power of Christ's Passion, through\nwhich Penance produces its effect, as do the other sacraments, since\nit is written (1 John 2:2): \"He is the propitiation for our sins, and\nnot for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.\"\n\nTherefore we must say simply that, in this life, every sin can be\nblotted out by true Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Esau did not truly repent. This is evident from his\nsaying (Gen. 27:41): \"The days will come of the mourning of my\nfather, and I will kill my brother Jacob.\" Likewise neither did\nAntiochus repent truly; since he grieved for his past sin, not\nbecause he had offended God thereby, but on account of the sickness\nwhich he suffered in his body.\n\nReply Obj. 2: These words of Augustine should be understood thus: \"So\ngreat is the stain of that sin, that man is unable to humble himself\nin prayer,\" i.e. it is not easy for him to do so; in which sense we\nsay that a man cannot be healed, when it is difficult to heal him.\nYet this is possible by the power of God's grace, which sometimes\nturns men even \"into the depths of the sea\" (Ps. 67:23).\n\nReply Obj. 3: The word or blasphemy spoken against the Holy Ghost is\nfinal impenitence, as Augustine states (De Verb. Dom. xi), which is\naltogether unpardonable, because after this life is ended, there is\nno pardon of sins. Or, if by the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, we\nunderstand sin committed through certain malice, this means either\nthat the blasphemy itself against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable,\ni.e. not easily pardonable, or that such a sin does not contain in\nitself any motive for pardon, or that for such a sin a man is\npunished both in this and in the next world, as we explained in the\nSecond Part (III, Q. 14, A. 3).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Sin Can Be Pardoned Without Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that sin can be pardoned without Penance.\nFor the power of God is no less with regard to adults than with\nregard to children. But He pardons the sins of children without\nPenance. Therefore He also pardons adults without penance.\n\nObj. 2: Further, God did not bind His power to the sacraments. But\nPenance is a sacrament. Therefore by God's power sin can be pardoned\nwithout Penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, God's mercy is greater than man's. Now man sometimes\nforgives another for offending him, without his repenting: wherefore\nour Lord commanded us (Matt. 5:44): \"Love your enemies, do good to\nthem that hate you.\" Much more, therefore, does God pardon men for\noffending him, without their repenting.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Lord said (Jer. 18:8): \"If that nation . . .\nshall repent of their evil\" which they have done, \"I also will repent\nof the evil that I have thought to do them,\" so that, on the other\nhand, if man \"do not penance,\" it seems that God will not pardon him\nhis sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ It is impossible for a mortal actual sin to be\npardoned without penance, if we speak of penance as a virtue. For, as\nsin is an offense against God, He pardons sin in the same way as he\npardons an offense committed against Him. Now an offense is directly\nopposed to grace, since one man is said to be offended with another,\nbecause he excludes him from his grace. Now, as stated in the Second\nPart (I-II, Q. 110, A. 1), the difference between the grace of God\nand the grace of man, is that the latter does not cause, but\npresupposes true or apparent goodness in him who is graced, whereas\nthe grace of God causes goodness in the man who is graced, because\nthe good-will of God, which is denoted by the word \"grace,\" is the\ncause of all created good. Hence it is possible for a man to pardon\nan offense, for which he is offended with someone, without any change\nin the latter's will; but it is impossible that God pardon a man for\nan offense, without his will being changed. Now the offense of mortal\nsin is due to man's will being turned away from God, through being\nturned to some mutable good. Consequently, for the pardon of this\noffense against God, it is necessary for man's will to be so changed\nas to turn to God and to renounce having turned to something else in\nthe aforesaid manner, together with a purpose of amendment; all of\nwhich belongs to the nature of penance as a virtue. Therefore it is\nimpossible for a sin to be pardoned anyone without penance as a\nvirtue.\n\nBut the sacrament of Penance, as stated above (Q. 88, A. 3), is\nperfected by the priestly office of binding and loosing, without\nwhich God can forgive sins, even as Christ pardoned the adulterous\nwoman, as related in John 8, and the woman that was a sinner, as\nrelated in Luke vii, whose sins, however, He did not forgive without\nthe virtue of penance: for as Gregory states (Hom. xxxiii in Evang.),\n\"He drew inwardly by grace,\" i.e. by penance, \"her whom He received\noutwardly by His mercy.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: In children there is none but original sin, which\nconsists, not in an actual disorder of the will, but in a habitual\ndisorder of nature, as explained in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 82, A.\n1), and so in them the forgiveness of sin is accompanied by a\nhabitual change resulting from the infusion of grace and virtues, but\nnot by an actual change. On the other hand, in the case of an adult,\nin whom there are actual sins, which consist in an actual disorder of\nthe will, there is no remission of sins, even in Baptism, without an\nactual change of the will, which is the effect of Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 2: This argument takes Penance as a sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 3: God's mercy is more powerful than man's, in that it\nmoves man's will to repent, which man's mercy cannot do.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 3]\n\nWhether by Penance One Sin Can Be Pardoned Without Another?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that by Penance one sin can be pardoned\nwithout another. For it is written (Amos 4:7): \"I caused it to rain\nupon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece\nwas rained upon: and the piece whereupon I rained not, withered.\"\nThese words are expounded by Gregory, who says (Hom. x super Ezech.):\n\"When a man who hates his neighbor, breaks himself of other vices,\nrain falls on one part of the city, leaving the other part withered,\nfor there are some men who, when they prune some vices, become much\nmore rooted in others.\" Therefore one sin can be forgiven by Penance,\nwithout another.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Ambrose in commenting on Ps. 118, \"Blessed are the\nundefiled in the way,\" after expounding verse 136 (\"My eyes have sent\nforth springs of water\"), says that \"the first consolation is that\nGod is mindful to have mercy; and the second, that He punishes, for\nalthough faith be wanting, punishment makes satisfaction and raises\nus up.\" Therefore a man can be raised up from one sin, while the sin\nof unbelief remains.\n\nObj. 3: Further, when several things are not necessarily together,\none can be removed without the other. Now it was stated in the Second\nPart (I-II, Q. 73, A. 1) that sins are not connected together, so\nthat one sin can be without another. Therefore also one sin can be\ntaken away by Penance without another being taken away.\n\nObj. 4: Further, sins are the debts, for which we pray for pardon\nwhen we say in the Lord's Prayer: \"Forgive us our trespasses,\" etc.\nNow man sometimes forgives one debt without forgiving another.\nTherefore God also, by Penance, forgives one sin without another.\n\nObj. 5: Further, man's sins are forgiven him through the love of God,\naccording to Jer. 31:3: \"I have loved thee with an everlasting love,\ntherefore have I drawn thee, taking pity on thee.\" Now there is\nnothing to hinder God from loving a man in one respect, while being\noffended with him in another, even as He loves the sinner as regards\nhis nature, while hating him for his sin. Therefore it seems possible\nfor God, by Penance, to pardon one sin without another.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et\nfalsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: \"There are\nmany who repent having sinned, but not completely; for they except\ncertain things which give them pleasure, forgetting that our Lord\ndelivered from the devil the man who was both dumb and deaf, whereby\nHe shows us that we are never healed unless it be from all sins.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ It is impossible for Penance to take one sin away\nwithout another. First because sin is taken away by grace removing\nthe offense against God. Wherefore it was stated in the Second Part\n(I-II, Q. 109, A. 7; Q. 113, A. 2) that without grace no sin can be\nforgiven. Now every mortal sin is opposed to grace and excludes it.\nTherefore it is impossible for one sin to be pardoned without\nanother. Secondly, because, as shown above (A. 2) mortal sin cannot\nbe forgiven without true Penance, to which it belongs to renounce\nsin, by reason of its being against God, which is common to all\nmortal sins: and where the same reason applies, the result will be\nthe same. Consequently a man cannot be truly penitent, if he repent\nof one sin and not of another. For if one particular sin were\ndispleasing to him, because it is against the love of God above all\nthings (which motive is necessary for true repentance), it follows\nthat he would repent of all. Whence it follows that it is impossible\nfor one sin to be pardoned through Penance, without another. Thirdly,\nbecause this would be contrary to the perfection of God's mercy,\nsince His works are perfect, as stated in Deut. 32:4; wherefore\nwhomsoever He pardons, He pardons altogether. Hence Augustine says\n[*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown],\nthat \"it is irreverent and heretical to expect half a pardon from Him\nWho is just and justice itself.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: These words of Gregory do not refer to the forgiveness\nof the guilt, but to the cessation from act, because sometimes a man\nwho has been wont to commit several kinds of sin, renounces one and\nnot the other; which is indeed due to God's assistance, but does not\nreach to the pardon of the sin.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In this saying of Ambrose \"faith\" cannot denote the\nfaith whereby we believe in Christ, because, as Augustine says on\nJohn 15:22, \"If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not\nhave sin\" (viz. unbelief): \"for this is the sin which contains all\nothers\": but it stands for consciousness, because sometimes a man\nreceives pardon for a sin of which he is not conscious, through the\npunishment which he bears patiently.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Although sins are not connected in so far as they turn\ntowards a mutable good, yet they are connected in so far as they turn\naway from the immutable Good, which applies to all mortal sins in\ncommon; and it is thus that they have the character of an offense\nwhich needs to be removed by Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Debt as regards external things, e.g. money, is not\nopposed to friendship through which the debt is pardoned; hence one\ndebt can be condoned without another. On the other hand, the debt of\nsin is opposed to friendship, and so one sin or offense is not\npardoned without another; for it would seem absurd for anyone to ask\neven a man to forgive him one offense and not another.\n\nReply Obj. 5: The love whereby God loves man's nature, does not\nordain man to the good of glory from which man is excluded by any\nmortal sin; but the love of grace, whereby mortal sin is forgiven,\nordains man to eternal life, according to Rom. 6:23: \"The grace of\nGod (is) life everlasting.\" Hence there is no comparison.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Debt of Punishment Remains After the Guilt Has Been\nForgiven Through Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that no debt of punishment remains after\nthe guilt has been forgiven through Penance. For when the cause is\nremoved, the effect is removed. But the guilt is the cause of the\ndebt of punishment: since a man deserves to be punished because he\nhas been guilty of a sin. Therefore when the sin has been forgiven,\nno debt of punishment can remain.\n\nObj. 2: Further, according to the Apostle (Rom. 5) the gift of Christ\nis more effective than the sin of Adam. Now, by sinning, man incurs\nat the same time guilt and the debt of punishment. Much more\ntherefore, by the gift of grace, is the guilt forgiven and at the\nsame time the debt of punishment remitted.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the forgiveness of sins is effected in Penance\nthrough the power of Christ's Passion, according to Rom. 3:25:\n\"Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His\nBlood . . . for the remission of former sins.\" Now Christ's Passion\nmade satisfaction sufficient for all sins, as stated above (QQ. 48,\n49, 79, A. 5). Therefore after the guilt has been pardoned, no debt\nof punishment remains.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is related (2 Kings 12:13) that when David\npenitent had said to Nathan: \"I have sinned against the Lord,\" Nathan\nsaid to him: \"The Lord also hath taken away thy sin, thou shalt not\ndie. Nevertheless . . . the child that is born to thee shall surely\ndie,\" which was to punish him for the sin he had committed, as stated\nin the same place. Therefore a debt of some punishment remains after\nthe guilt has been forgiven.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 87, A. 4), in\nmortal sin there are two things, namely, a turning from the immutable\nGood, and an inordinate turning to mutable good. Accordingly, in so\nfar as mortal sin turns away from the immutable Good, it induces a\ndebt of eternal punishment, so that whosoever sins against the\neternal Good should be punished eternally. Again, in so far as mortal\nsin turns inordinately to a mutable good, it gives rise to a debt of\nsome punishment, because the disorder of guilt is not brought back to\nthe order of justice, except by punishment: since it is just that he\nwho has been too indulgent to his will, should suffer something\nagainst his will, for thus will equality be restored. Hence it is\nwritten (Apoc. 18:7): \"As much as she hath glorified herself, and\nlived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her.\"\n\nSince, however, the turning to mutable good is finite, sin does not,\nin this respect, induce a debt of eternal punishment. Wherefore, if\nman turns inordinately to a mutable good, without turning from God,\nas happens in venial sins, he incurs a debt, not of eternal but of\ntemporal punishment. Consequently when guilt is pardoned through\ngrace, the soul ceases to be turned away from God, through being\nunited to God by grace: so that at the same time, the debt of\npunishment is taken away, albeit a debt of some temporal punishment\nmay yet remain.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Mortal sin both turns away from God and turns to a\ncreated good. But, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 71, A. 6),\nthe turning away from God is as its form while the turning to created\ngood is as its matter. Now if the formal element of anything be\nremoved, the species is taken away: thus, if you take away rational,\nyou take away the human species. Consequently mortal sin is said to\nbe pardoned from the very fact that, by means of grace, the aversion\nof the mind from God is taken away together with the debt of eternal\npunishment: and yet the material element remains, viz. the inordinate\nturning to a created good, for which a debt of temporal punishment is\ndue.\n\nReply Obj. 2: As stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 109, AA. 7, 8;\nQ. 111, A. 2), it belongs to grace to operate in man by justifying\nhim from sin, and to co-operate with man that his work may be rightly\ndone. Consequently the forgiveness of guilt and of the debt of\neternal punishment belongs to operating grace, while the remission of\nthe debt of temporal punishment belongs to co-operating grace, in so\nfar as man, by bearing punishment patiently with the help of Divine\ngrace, is released also from the debt of temporal punishment.\nConsequently just as the effect of operating grace precedes the\neffect of co-operating grace, so too, the remission of guilt and of\neternal punishment precedes the complete release from temporal\npunishment, since both are from grace, but the former, from grace\nalone, the latter, from grace and free-will.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Christ's Passion is of itself sufficient to remove all\ndebt of punishment, not only eternal, but also temporal; and man is\nreleased from the debt of punishment according to the measure of his\nshare in the power of Christ's Passion. Now in Baptism man shares the\nPower of Christ's Passion fully, since by water and the Spirit of\nChrist, he dies with Him to sin, and is born again in Him to a new\nlife, so that, in Baptism, man receives the remission of all debt of\npunishment. In Penance, on the other hand, man shares in the power of\nChrist's Passion according to the measure of his own acts, which are\nthe matter of Penance, as water is of Baptism, as stated above (Q.\n84, AA. 1, 3). Wherefore the entire debt of punishment is not\nremitted at once after the first act of Penance, by which act the\nguilt is remitted, but only when all the acts of Penance have been\ncompleted.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 5]\n\nWhether the Remnants of Sin Are Removed When a Mortal Sin Is Forgiven?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that all the remnants of sin are removed\nwhen a mortal sin is forgiven. For Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_\n[*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]:\n\"Our Lord never healed anyone without delivering him wholly; for He\nwholly healed the man on the Sabbath, since He delivered his body\nfrom all disease, and his soul from all taint.\" Now the remnants of\nsin belong to the disease of sin. Therefore it does not seem possible\nfor any remnants of sin to remain when the guilt has been pardoned.\n\nObj. 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), \"good is more\nefficacious than evil, since evil does not act save in virtue of some\ngood.\" Now, by sinning, man incurs the taint of sin all at once. Much\nmore, therefore, by repenting, is he delivered also from all remnants\nof sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, God's work is more efficacious than man's. Now by\nthe exercise of good human works the remnants of contrary sins are\nremoved. Much more, therefore, are they taken away by the remission\nof guilt, which is a work of God.\n\n_On the contrary,_ We read (Mk. 8) that the blind man whom our Lord\nenlightened, was restored first of all to imperfect sight, wherefore\nhe said (Mk. 8:24): \"I see men, as it were trees, walking\"; and\nafterwards he was restored perfectly, \"so that he saw all things\nclearly.\" Now the enlightenment of the blind man signifies the\ndelivery of the sinner. Therefore after the first remission of sin,\nwhereby the sinner is restored to spiritual sight, there still remain\nin him some remnants of his past sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ Mortal sin, in so far as it turns inordinately to a\nmutable good, produces in the soul a certain disposition, or even a\nhabit, if the acts be repeated frequently. Now it has been said above\n(A. 4) that the guilt of mortal sin is pardoned through grace\nremoving the aversion of the mind from God. Nevertheless when that\nwhich is on the part of the aversion has been taken away by grace,\nthat which is on the part of the inordinate turning to a mutable good\ncan remain, since this may happen to be without the other, as stated\nabove (A. 4). Consequently, there is no reason why, after the guilt\nhas been forgiven, the dispositions caused by preceding acts should\nnot remain, which are called the remnants of sin. Yet they remain\nweakened and diminished, so as not to domineer over man, and they are\nafter the manner of dispositions rather than of habits, like the\n_fomes_ which remains after Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 1: God heals the whole man perfectly; but sometimes\nsuddenly, as Peter's mother-in-law was restored at once to perfect\nhealth, so that \"rising she ministered to them\" (Luke 4:39), and\nsometimes by degrees, as we said above (Q. 44, A. 3, ad 2) about the\nblind man who was restored to sight (Matt. 8). And so too, He\nsometimes turns the heart of man with such power, that it receives at\nonce perfect spiritual health, not only the guilt being pardoned, but\nall remnants of sin being removed as was the case with Magdalen (Luke\n7); whereas at other times He sometimes first pardons the guilt by\noperating grace, and afterwards, by co-operating grace, removes the\nremnants of sin by degrees.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Sin too, sometimes induces at once a weak disposition,\nsuch as is the result of one act, and sometimes a stronger\ndisposition, the result of many acts.\n\nReply Obj. 3: One human act does not remove all the remnants of sin,\nbecause, as stated in the _Predicaments_ (Categor. viii) \"a vicious\nman by doing good works will make but little progress so as to be any\nbetter, but if he continue in good practice, he will end in being\ngood as to acquired virtue.\" But God's grace does this much more\neffectively, whether by one or by several acts.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Forgiveness of Guilt Is an Effect of Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the forgiveness of guilt is not an\neffect of penance as a virtue. For penance is said to be a virtue, in\nso far as it is a principle of a human action. But human action does\nnothing towards the remission of guilt, since this is an effect of\noperating grace. Therefore the forgiveness of guilt is not an effect\nof penance as a virtue.\n\nObj. 2: Further, certain other virtues are more excellent than\npenance. But the forgiveness of sin is not said to be the effect of\nany other virtue. Neither, therefore, is it the effect of penance as\na virtue.\n\nObj. 3: Further, there is no forgiveness of sin except through the\npower of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 9:22: \"Without shedding\nof blood there is no remission.\" Now Penance, as a sacrament,\nproduces its effect through the power of Christ's Passion, even as\nthe other sacraments do, as was shown above (Q. 62, AA. 4, 5).\nTherefore the forgiveness of sin is the effect of Penance, not as a\nvirtue, but as a sacrament.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Properly speaking, the cause of a thing is that\nwithout which it cannot be, since every defect depends on its cause.\nNow forgiveness of sin can come from God without the sacrament of\nPenance, but not without the virtue of penance, as stated above (Q.\n84, A. 5, ad 3; Q. 85, A. 2); so that, even before the sacraments of\nthe New Law were instituted, God pardoned the sins of the penitent.\nTherefore the forgiveness of sin is chiefly the effect of penance as\na virtue.\n\n_I answer that,_ Penance is a virtue in so far as it is a principle\nof certain human acts. Now the human acts, which are performed by the\nsinner, are the material element in the sacrament of Penance.\nMoreover every sacrament produces its effect, in virtue not only of\nits form, but also of its matter; because both these together make\nthe one sacrament, as stated above (Q. 60, A. 6, ad 2, A. 7). Hence\nin Baptism forgiveness of sin is effected, in virtue not only of the\nform (but also of the matter, viz. water, albeit chiefly in virtue of\nthe form) [*The words in brackets are omitted in the Leonine edition]\nfrom which the water receives its power--and, similarly, the\nforgiveness of sin is the effect of Penance, chiefly by the power of\nthe keys, which is vested in the ministers, who furnish the formal\npart of the sacrament, as stated above (Q. 84, A. 3), and secondarily\nby the instrumentality of those acts of the penitent which pertain to\nthe virtue of penance, but only in so far as such acts are, in some\nway, subordinate to the keys of the Church. Accordingly it is evident\nthat the forgiveness of sin is the effect of penance as a virtue, but\nstill more of Penance as a sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The effect of operating grace is the justification of\nthe ungodly (as stated in the Second Part, I-II, Q. 113), wherein\nthere is, as was there stated (AA. 1, 2, 3), not only infusion of\ngrace and forgiveness of sin, but also a movement of the free-will\ntowards God, which is an act of faith quickened by charity, and a\nmovement of the free-will against sin, which is the act of penance.\nYet these human acts are there as the effects of operating grace, and\nare produced at the same time as the forgiveness of sin. Consequently\nthe forgiveness of sin does not take place without an act of the\nvirtue of penance, although it is the effect of operating grace.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In the justification of the ungodly there is not only\nan act of penance, but also an act of faith, as stated above (ad 1:\nI-II, Q. 113, A. 4). Wherefore the forgiveness of sin is accounted\nthe effect not only of the virtue of penance, but also, and that\nchiefly, of faith and charity.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The act of the virtue of penance is subordinate to\nChrist's Passion both by faith, and by its relation to the keys of\nthe Church; and so, in both ways, it causes the forgiveness of sin,\nby the power of Christ's Passion.\n\nTo the argument advanced in the contrary sense we reply that the act\nof the virtue of penance is necessary for the forgiveness of sin,\nthrough being an inseparable effect of grace, whereby chiefly is sin\npardoned, and which produces its effect in all the sacraments.\nConsequently it only follows that grace is a higher cause of the\nforgiveness of sin than the sacrament of Penance. Moreover, it must\nbe observed that, under the Old Law and the law of nature, there was\na sacrament of Penance after a fashion, as stated above (Q. 84, A. 7,\nad 2).\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 87\n\nOF THE REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the forgiveness of venial sins, under which head\nthere are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether venial sin can be forgiven without Penance?\n\n(2) Whether it can be forgiven without the infusion of grace?\n\n(3) Whether venial sins are forgiven by the sprinkling of holy water,\na bishop's blessing, the beating of the breast, the Lord's Prayer,\nand the like?\n\n(4) Whether a venial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 87, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Venial Sin Can Be Forgiven Without Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that venial sin can be forgiven without\npenance. For, as stated above (Q. 84, A. 10, ad 4), it is essential\nto true penance that man should not only sorrow for his past sins,\nbut also that he should purpose to avoid them for the future. Now\nvenial sins are forgiven without any such purpose, for it is certain\nthat man cannot lead the present life without committing venial sins.\nTherefore venial sins can be forgiven without penance.\n\nObj. 2: Further, there is no penance without actual displeasure at\none's sins. But venial sins can be taken away without any actual\ndispleasure at them, as would be the case if a man were to be killed\nin his sleep, for Christ's sake, since he would go to heaven at once,\nwhich would not happen if his venial sins remained. Therefore venial\nsins can be forgiven without penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, venial sins are contrary to the fervor of charity,\nas stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Now one contrary\nis removed by another. Therefore forgiveness of venial sins is caused\nby the fervor of charity, which may be without actual displeasure at\nvenial sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*De vera et\nfalsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown], that \"there\nis a penance which is done for venial sins in the Church every day\"\nwhich would be useless if venial sins could be forgiven without\nPenance.\n\n_I answer that,_ Forgiveness of sin, as stated above (Q. 86, A. 2),\nis effected by man being united to God from Whom sin separates him in\nsome way. Now this separation is made complete by mortal sin, and\nincomplete by venial sin: because, by mortal sin, the mind through\nacting against charity is altogether turned away from God; whereas by\nvenial sin man's affections are clogged, so that they are slow in\ntending towards God. Consequently both kinds of sin are taken away by\npenance, because by both of them man's will is disordered through\nturning inordinately to a created good; for just as mortal sin cannot\nbe forgiven so long as the will is attached to sin, so neither can\nvenial sin, because while the cause remains, the effect remains.\n\nYet a more perfect penance is requisite for the forgiveness of mortal\nsin, namely that man should detest actually the mortal sin which he\ncommitted, so far as lies in his power, that is to say, he should\nendeavor to remember each single mortal sin, in order to detest each\none. But this is, not required for the forgiveness of venial sins;\nalthough it does not suffice to have habitual displeasure, which is\nincluded in the habit of charity or of penance as a virtue, since\nthen venial sin would be incompatible with charity, which is\nevidently untrue. Consequently it is necessary to have a certain\nvirtual displeasure, so that, for instance, a man's affections so\ntend to God and Divine things, that whatever might happen to him to\nhamper that tendency would be displeasing to him, and would grieve\nhim, were he to commit it, even though he were not to think of it\nactually: and this is not sufficient for the remission of mortal sin,\nexcept as regards those sins which he fails to remember after a\ncareful examination.\n\nReply Obj. 1: When man is in a state of grace, he can avoid all\nmortal sins, and each single one; and he can avoid each single venial\nsin, but not all, as was explained in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 74,\nA. 8, ad 2; Q. 109, A. 8). Consequently penance for mortal sins\nrequires man to purpose abstaining from mortal sins, all and each;\nwhereas penance for venial sins requires man to purpose abstaining\nfrom each, but not from all, because the weakness of this life does\nnot allow of this. Nevertheless he needs to have the purpose of\ntaking steps to commit fewer venial sins, else he would be in danger\nof falling back, if he gave up the desire of going forward, or of\nremoving the obstacles to spiritual progress, such as venial sins are.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Death for Christ's sake, as stated above (Q. 66, A.\n11), obtains the power of Baptism, wherefore it washes away all sin,\nboth venial and mortal, unless it find the will attached to sin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The fervor of charity implies virtual displeasure at\nvenial sins, as stated above (Q. 79, A. 4).\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 87, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Infusion of Grace Is Necessary for the Remission of Venial Sins?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that infusion of grace is necessary for\nthe remission of venial sins. Because an effect is not produced\nwithout its proper cause. Now the proper cause of the remission of\nsins is grace; for man's sins are not forgiven through his own\nmerits; wherefore it is written (Eph. 2:4, 5): \"God, Who is rich in\nmercy, for His exceeding charity, wherewith He loved us, even when we\nwere dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, by Whose\ngrace you are saved.\" Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without\ninfusion of grace.\n\nObj. 2: Further, venial sins are not forgiven without Penance. Now\ngrace is infused, in Penance as in the other sacraments of the New\nLaw. Therefore venial sins are not forgiven without infusion of grace.\n\nObj. 3: Further, venial sin produces a stain on the soul. Now a stain\nis not removed save by grace which is the spiritual beauty of the\nsoul. Therefore it seems that venial sins are not forgiven without\ninfusion of grace.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The advent of venial sin neither destroys nor\ndiminishes grace, as stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 24, A. 10).\nTherefore, in like manner, an infusion of grace is not necessary in\norder to remove venial sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ Each thing is removed by its contrary. But venial\nsin is not contrary to habitual grace or charity, but hampers its\nact, through man being too much attached to a created good, albeit\nnot in opposition to God, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 88,\nA. 1; II-II, Q. 24, A. 10). Therefore, in order that venial sin be\nremoved, it is not necessary that habitual grace be infused, but a\nmovement of grace or charity suffices for its forgiveness.\n\nNevertheless, since in those who have the use of free-will (in whom\nalone can there be venial sins), there can be no infusion of grace\nwithout an actual movement of the free-will towards God and against\nsin, consequently whenever grace is infused anew, venial sins are\nforgiven.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Even the forgiveness of venial sins is an effect of\ngrace, in virtue of the act which grace produces anew, but not\nthrough any habit infused anew into the soul.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Venial sin is never forgiven without some act, explicit\nor implicit, of the virtue of penance, as stated above (A. 1): it\ncan, however, be forgiven without the sacrament of Penance, which is\nformally perfected by the priestly absolution, as stated above (Q.\n87, A. 2). Hence it does not follow that infusion of grace is\nrequired for the forgiveness of venial sin, for although this\ninfusion takes place in every sacrament, it does not occur in every\nact of virtue.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Just as there are two kinds of bodily stain, one\nconsisting in the privation of something required for beauty, e.g.\nthe right color or the due proportion of members, and another by the\nintroduction of some hindrance to beauty, e.g. mud or dust; so too, a\nstain is put on the soul, in one way, by the privation of the beauty\nof grace through mortal sin, in another, by the inordinate\ninclination of the affections to some temporal thing, and this is the\nresult of venial sin. Consequently, an infusion of grace is necessary\nfor the removal of mortal sin, but in order to remove venial sin, it\nis necessary to have a movement proceeding from grace, removing the\ninordinate attachment to the temporal thing.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 87, Art. 3]\n\nWhether Venial Sins Are Removed by the Sprinkling of Holy Water and\nthe Like?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that venial sins are not removed by the\nsprinkling of holy water, a bishop's blessing, and the like. For\nvenial sins are not forgiven without Penance, as stated above (A. 1).\nBut Penance suffices by itself for the remission of venial sins.\nTherefore the above have nothing to do with the remission of venial\nsins.\n\nObj. 2: Further, each of the above bears the same relation to one\nvenial sin as to all. If therefore, by means of one of them, some\nvenial sin is remitted, it follows that in like manner all are\nremitted, so that by beating his breast once, or by being sprinkled\nonce with holy water, a man would be delivered from all his venial\nsins, which seems unreasonable.\n\nObj. 3: Further, venial sins occasion a debt of some punishment,\nalbeit temporal; for it is written (1 Cor. 3:12, 15) of him that\nbuilds up \"wood, hay, stubble\" that \"he shall be saved, yet so as by\nfire.\" Now the above things whereby venial sins are said to be taken\naway, contain either no punishment at all, or very little. Therefore\nthey do not suffice for the full remission of venial sins.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*Hom. 30 inter\n1; Ep. cclxv] that \"for our slight sins we strike our breasts, and\nsay: Forgive us our trespasses,\" and so it seems that striking one's\nbreast, and the Lord's Prayer cause the remission of venial sins: and\nthe same seems to apply to the other things.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), no infusion of fresh grace\nis required for the forgiveness of a venial sin, but it is enough to\nhave an act proceeding from grace, in detestation of that venial sin,\neither explicit or at least implicit, as when one is moved fervently\nto God. Hence, for three reasons, certain things cause the remission\nof venial sins: first, because they imply the infusion of grace,\nsince the infusion of grace removes venial sins, as stated above (A.\n2); and so, by the Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and by all the\nsacraments of the New Law without exception, wherein grace is\nconferred, venial sins are remitted. Secondly, because they imply a\nmovement of detestation for sin, and in this way the general\nconfession [*i.e. the recital of the Confiteor or of an act of\ncontrition], the beating of one's breast, and the Lord's Prayer\nconduce to the remission of venial sins, for we ask in the Lord's\nPrayer: \"Forgive us our trespasses.\" Thirdly, because they include a\nmovement of reverence for God and Divine things; and in this way a\nbishop's blessing, the sprinkling of holy water, any sacramental\nanointing, a prayer said in a dedicated church, and anything else of\nthe kind, conduce to the remission of venial sins.\n\nReply Obj. 1: All these things cause the remission of venial sins, in\nso far as they incline the soul to the movement of penance, viz., the\nimplicit or explicit detestation of one's sins.\n\nReply Obj. 2: All these things, so far as they are concerned, conduce\nto the remission of all venial sins: but the remission may be\nhindered as regards certain venial sins, to which the mind is still\nactually attached, even as insincerity sometimes impedes the effect\nof Baptism.\n\nReply Obj. 3: By the above things, venial sins are indeed taken away\nas regards the guilt, both because those things are a kind of\nsatisfaction, and through the virtue of charity whose movement is\naroused by such things.\n\nYet it does not always happen that, by means of each one, the whole\nguilt of punishment is taken away, because, in that case, whoever\nwas entirely free from mortal sin, would go straight to heaven if\nsprinkled with holy water: but the debt of punishment is remitted by\nmeans of the above, according to the movement of fervor towards God,\nwhich fervor is aroused by such things, sometimes more, sometimes\nless.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 87, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Venial Sin Can Be Taken Away Without Mortal Sin?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that venial sin can be taken away without\nmortal sin. For, on John 8:7: \"He that is without sin among you, let\nhim first cast a stone at her,\" a gloss says that \"all those men were\nin a state of mortal sin: for venial offenses were forgiven them\nthrough the legal ceremonies.\" Therefore venial sin can be taken away\nwithout mortal sin.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no infusion of grace is required for the remission\nof venial sin, but it is required for the forgiveness of mortal sin.\nTherefore venial sin can be taken away without mortal sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a venial sin differs from a mortal sin more than\nfrom another venial sin. But one venial sin can be pardoned without\nanother, as stated above (A. 3, ad 2; Q. 87, A. 3). Therefore a\nvenial sin can be taken away without a mortal sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 5:26): \"Amen I say to thee,\nthou shalt not go out from thence,\" viz., from the prison, into which\na man is cast for mortal sin, \"till thou repay the last farthing,\" by\nwhich venial sin is denoted. Therefore a venial sin is not forgiven\nwithout mortal sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 87, A. 3), there is no remission\nof any sin whatever except by the power of grace, because, as the\nApostle declares (Rom. 4:8), it is owing to God's grace that He does\nnot impute sin to a man, which a gloss on that passage expounds as\nreferring to venial sin. Now he that is in a state of mortal sin is\nwithout the grace of God. Therefore no venial sin is forgiven him.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Venial offenses, in the passage quoted, denote the\nirregularities or uncleannesses which men contracted in accordance\nwith the Law.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Although no new infusion of habitual grace is requisite\nfor the remission of venial sin, yet it is necessary to exercise some\nact of grace, which cannot be in one who is a subject of mortal sin.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Venial sin does not preclude every act of grace whereby\nall venial sins can be removed; whereas mortal sin excludes\naltogether the habit of grace, without which no sin, either mortal or\nvenial, is remitted. Hence the comparison fails.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 88\n\nOF THE RETURN OF SINS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY PENANCE\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the return of sins which have been taken away by\nPenance: under which head there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether sins which have been taken away by Penance return simply\nthrough a subsequent sin?\n\n(2) Whether more specially as regards certain sins they return, in a\nway, on account of ingratitude?\n\n(3) Whether the debt of punishment remains the same for sins thus\nreturned?\n\n(4) Whether this ingratitude, on account of which sins return, is a\nspecial sin?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 88, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Sins Once Forgiven Return Through a Subsequent Sin?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that sins once forgiven return through a\nsubsequent sin. For Augustine says (De Bapt. contra Donat. i, 12):\n\"Our Lord teaches most explicitly in the Gospel that sins which have\nbeen forgiven return, when fraternal charity ceases, in the example\nof the servant from whom his master exacted the payment of the debt\nalready forgiven, because he had refused to forgive the debt of his\nfellow-servant.\" Now fraternal charity is destroyed through each\nmortal sin. Therefore sins already taken away through Penance, return\nthrough each subsequent mortal sin.\n\nObj. 2: Further, on Luke 11:24, \"I will return into my house, whence\nI came out,\" Bede says: \"This verse should make us tremble, we should\nnot endeavor to explain it away lest through carelessness we give\nplace to the sin which we thought to have been taken away, and become\nits slave once more.\" Now this would not be so unless it returned.\nTherefore a sin returns after once being taken away by Penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the Lord said (Ezech. 18:24): \"If the just man turn\nhimself away from his justice, and do iniquity . . . all his justices\nwhich he hath done, shall not be remembered.\" Now among the other\n\"justices\" which he had done, is also his previous penance, since it\nwas said above (Q. 85, A. 3) that penance is a part of justice.\nTherefore when one who has done penance, sins, his previous penance,\nwhereby he received forgiveness of his sins, is not imputed to him.\nTherefore his sins return.\n\nObj. 4: Further, past sins are covered by grace, as the Apostle\ndeclares (Rom. 4:7) where he quotes Ps. 31:1: \"Blessed are they whose\niniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.\" But a\nsubsequent mortal sin takes away grace. Therefore the sins committed\npreviously, become uncovered: and so, seemingly, they return.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 11:29): \"The gifts and the\ncalling of God are without repentance.\" Now the penitent's sins are\ntaken away by a gift of God. Therefore the sins which have been taken\naway do not return through a subsequent sin, as though God repented\nHis gift of forgiveness.\n\nMoreover, Augustine says (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf. Prosper,\nResponsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii]): \"When he that turns away from\nChrist, comes to the end of this life a stranger to grace, whither\ndoes he go, except to perdition? Yet he does not fall back into that\nwhich had been forgiven, nor will he be condemned for original sin.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 86, A. 4), mortal sin contains\ntwo things, aversion from God and adherence to a created good. Now,\nin mortal sin, whatever attaches to the aversion, is, considered in\nitself, common to all mortal sins, since man turns away from God by\nevery mortal sin, so that, in consequence, the stain resulting from\nthe privation of grace, and the debt of everlasting punishment are\ncommon to all mortal sins. This is what is meant by what is written\n(James 2:10): \"Whosoever . . . shall offend in one point, is become\nguilty of all.\" On the other hand, as regards their adherence they\nare different from, and sometimes contrary to one another. Hence it\nis evident, that on the part of the adherence, a subsequent mortal\nsin does not cause the return of mortal sins previously dispelled,\nelse it would follow that by a sin of wastefulness a man would be\nbrought back to the habit or disposition of avarice previously\ndispelled, so that one contrary would be the cause of another, which\nis impossible. But if in mortal sins we consider that which attaches\nto the aversion absolutely, then a subsequent mortal sin [causes the\nreturn of that which was comprised in the mortal sins before they\nwere pardoned, in so far as the subsequent mortal sin] [*The words in\nbrackets are omitted in the Leonine edition.] deprives man of grace,\nand makes him deserving of everlasting punishment, just as he was\nbefore. Nevertheless, since the aversion of mortal sin is [in a way,\ncaused by the adherence, those things which attach to the aversion\nare*] diversified somewhat in relation to various adherences, as it\nwere to various causes, so that there will be a different aversion, a\ndifferent stain, a different debt of punishment, according to the\ndifferent acts of mortal sin from which they arise; hence the\nquestion is moved whether the stain and the debt of eternal\npunishment, as caused by acts of sins previously pardoned, return\nthrough a subsequent mortal sin.\n\nAccordingly some have maintained that they return simply even in this\nway. But this is impossible, because what God has done cannot be\nundone by the work of man. Now the pardon of the previous sins was a\nwork of Divine mercy, so that it cannot be undone by man's subsequent\nsin, according to Rom. 3:3: \"Shall their unbelief make the faith of\nGod without effect?\"\n\nWherefore others who maintained the possibility of sins returning,\nsaid that God pardons the sins of a penitent who will afterwards sin\nagain, not according to His foreknowledge, but only according to His\npresent justice: since He foresees that He will punish such a man\neternally for his sins, and yet, by His grace, He makes him righteous\nfor the present. But this cannot stand: because if a cause be placed\nabsolutely, its effect is placed absolutely; so that if the remission\nof sins were effected by grace and the sacraments of grace, not\nabsolutely but under some condition dependent on some future event,\nit would follow that grace and the sacraments of grace are not the\nsufficient causes of the remission of sins, which is erroneous, as\nbeing derogatory to God's grace.\n\nConsequently it is in no way possible for the stain of past sins and\nthe debt of punishment incurred thereby, to return, as caused by\nthose acts. Yet it may happen that a subsequent sinful act virtually\ncontains the debt of punishment due to the previous sin, in so far as\nwhen a man sins a second time, for this very reason he seems to sin\nmore grievously than before, as stated in Rom. 2:5: \"According to thy\nhardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath\nagainst the day of wrath,\" from the mere fact, namely, that God's\ngoodness, which waits for us to repent, is despised. And so much the\nmore is God's goodness despised, if the first sin is committed a\nsecond time after having been forgiven, as it is a greater favor for\nthe sin to be forgiven than for the sinner to be endured.\n\nAccordingly the sin which follows repentance brings back, in a sense,\nthe debt of punishment due to the sins previously forgiven, not as\ncaused by those sins already forgiven but as caused by this last sin\nbeing committed, on account of its being aggravated in view of those\nprevious sins. This means that those sins return, not simply, but in\na restricted sense, viz., in so far as they are virtually contained\nin the subsequent sin.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This saying of Augustine seems to refer to the return\nof sins as to the debt of eternal punishment considered in itself,\nnamely, that he who sins after doing penance incurs a debt of eternal\npunishment, just as before, but not altogether for the same _reason._\nWherefore Augustine, after saying (Lib. Resp. Prosperi i [*Cf.\nProsper, Responsiones ad Capitula Gallorum ii]) that \"he does not\nfall back into that which was forgiven, nor will he be condemned for\noriginal sin,\" adds: \"Nevertheless, for these last sins he will be\ncondemned to the same death, which he deserved to suffer for the\nformer,\" because he incurs the punishment of eternal death which he\ndeserved for his previous sins.\n\nReply Obj. 2: By these words Bede means that the guilt already\nforgiven enslaves man, not by the return of his former debt of\npunishment, but by the repetition of his act.\n\nReply Obj. 3: The effect of a subsequent sin is that the former\n\"justices\" are not remembered, in so far as they were deserving of\neternal life, but not in so far as they were a hindrance to sin.\nConsequently if a man sins mortally after making restitution, he does\nnot become guilty as though he had not paid back what he owed; and\nmuch less is penance previously done forgotten as to the pardon of\nthe guilt, since this is the work of God rather than of man.\n\nReply Obj. 4: Grace removes the stain and the debt of eternal\npunishment simply; but it covers the past sinful acts, lest, on their\naccount, God deprive man of grace, and judge him deserving of eternal\npunishment; and what grace has once done, endures for ever.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 88, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Sins That Have Been Forgiven, Return Through Ingratitude\nWhich Is Shown Especially in Four Kinds of Sin?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that sins do not return through\ningratitude, which is shown especially in four kinds of sin, viz.,\nhatred of one's neighbor, apostasy from faith, contempt of confession\nand regret for past repentance, and which have been expressed in the\nfollowing verse:\n\n\"Fratres odit, apostata fit, spernitque, fateri,\nPoenituisse piget, pristina culpa redit.\"\n\nFor the more grievous the sin committed against God after one has\nreceived the grace of pardon, the greater the ingratitude. But there\nare sins more grievous than these, such as blasphemy against God, and\nthe sin against the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that sins already\npardoned do not return through ingratitude as manifested in these\nsins, any more than as shown in other sins.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Rabanus says: \"God delivered the wicked servant to\nthe torturers, until he should pay the whole debt, because a man will\nbe deemed punishable not only for the sins he commits after Baptism,\nbut also for original sin which was taken away when he was baptized.\"\nNow venial sins are reckoned among our debts, since we pray in their\nregard: \"Forgive us our trespasses (_debita_).\" Therefore they too\nreturn through ingratitude; and, in like manner seemingly, sins\nalready pardoned return through venial sins, and not only through\nthose sins mentioned above.\n\nObj. 3: Further, ingratitude is all the greater, according as one\nsins after receiving a greater favor. Now innocence whereby one\navoids sin is a Divine favor, for Augustine says (Confess. ii):\n\"Whatever sins I have avoided committing, I owe it to Thy grace.\" Now\ninnocence is a greater gift, than even the forgiveness of all sins.\nTherefore the first sin committed after innocence is no less an\ningratitude to God, than a sin committed after repentance, so that\nseemingly ingratitude in respect of the aforesaid sins is not the\nchief cause of sins returning.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xviii [*Cf. Dial. iv]): \"It\nis evident from the words of the Gospel that if we do not forgive\nfrom our hearts the offenses committed against us, we become once\nmore accountable for what we rejoiced in as forgiven through\nPenance\": so that ingratitude implied in the hatred of one's brother\nis a special cause of the return of sins already forgiven: and the\nsame seems to apply to the others.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), sins pardoned through\nPenance are said to return, in so far as their debt of punishment, by\nreason of ingratitude, is virtually contained in the subsequent sin.\nNow one may be guilty of ingratitude in two ways: first by doing\nsomething against the favor received, and, in this way, man is\nungrateful to God in every mortal sin whereby he offends God Who\nforgave his sins, so that by every subsequent mortal sin, the sins\npreviously pardoned return, on account of the ingratitude. Secondly,\none is guilty of ingratitude, by doing something not only against the\nfavor itself, but also against the form of the favor received. If\nthis form be considered on the part of the benefactor, it is the\nremission of something due to him; wherefore he who does not forgive\nhis brother when he asks pardon, and persists in his hatred, acts\nagainst this form. If, however, this form be taken in regard to the\npenitent who receives this favor, we find on his part a twofold\nmovement of the free-will. The first is the movement of the free-will\ntowards God, and is an act of faith quickened by charity; and against\nthis a man acts by apostatizing from the faith. The second is a\nmovement of the free-will against sin, and is the act of penance.\nThis act consists first, as we have stated above (Q. 85, AA. 2, 5) in\nman's detestation of his past sins; and against this a man acts when\nhe regrets having done penance. Secondly, the act of penance consists\nin the penitent purposing to subject himself to the keys of the\nChurch by confession, according to Ps. 31:5: \"I said: I will confess\nagainst myself my injustice to the Lord: and Thou hast forgiven the\nwickedness of my sin\": and against this a man acts when he scorns to\nconfess as he had purposed to do.\n\nAccordingly it is said that the ingratitude of sinners is a special\ncause of the return of sins previously forgiven.\n\nReply Obj. 1: This is not said of these sins as though they were more\ngrievous than others, but because they are more directly opposed to\nthe favor of the forgiveness of sin.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Even venial sins and original sin return in the way\nexplained above, just as mortal sins do, in so far as the favor\nconferred by God in forgiving those sins is despised. A man does not,\nhowever, incur ingratitude by committing a venial sin, because by\nsinning venially man does not act against God, but apart from Him,\nwherefore venial sins nowise cause the return of sins already\nforgiven.\n\nReply Obj. 3: A favor can be weighed in two ways. First by the\nquantity of the favor itself, and in this way innocence is a greater\nfavor from God than penance, which is called the second plank after\nshipwreck (cf. Q. 84, A. 6). Secondly, a favor may be weighed with\nregard to the recipient, who is less worthy, wherefore a greater\nfavor is bestowed on him, so that he is the more ungrateful if he\nscorns it. In this way the favor of the pardon of sins is greater\nwhen bestowed on one who is altogether unworthy, so that the\ningratitude which follows is all the greater.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 88, Art. 3]\n\nWhether the Debt of Punishment That Arises Through Ingratitude in\nRespect of a Subsequent Sin Is As Great As That of the Sins\nPreviously Pardoned?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the debt of punishment arising\nthrough ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as\nthat of the sins previously pardoned. Because the greatness of the\nfavor of the pardon of sins is according to the greatness of the sin\npardoned, and so too, in consequence, is the greatness of the\ningratitude whereby this favor is scorned. But the greatness of the\nconsequent debt of punishment is in accord with the greatness of the\ningratitude. Therefore the debt of punishment arising through\ningratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is as great as the debt of\npunishment due for all the previous sins.\n\nObj. 2: Further, it is a greater sin to offend God than to offend\nman. But a slave who is freed by his master returns to the same state\nof slavery from which he was freed, or even to a worse state. Much\nmore therefore he that sins against God after being freed from sin,\nreturns to the debt of as great a punishment as he had incurred\nbefore.\n\nObj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 18:34) that \"his lord being\nangry, delivered him\" (whose sins returned to him on account of his\ningratitude) \"to the torturers, until he paid all the debt.\" But this\nwould not be so unless the debt of punishment incurred through\ningratitude were as great as that incurred through all previous sins.\nTherefore an equal debt of punishment returns through ingratitude.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 25:2): \"According to the\nmeasure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be,\" whence\nit is evident that a great debt of punishment does not arise from a\nslight sin. But sometimes a subsequent mortal sin is much less\ngrievous than any one of those previously pardoned. Therefore the\ndebt of punishment incurred through subsequent sins is not equal to\nthat of sins previously forgiven.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have maintained that the debt of punishment\nincurred through ingratitude in respect of a subsequent sin is equal\nto that of the sins previously pardoned, in addition to the debt\nproper to this subsequent sin. But there is no need for this,\nbecause, as stated above (A. 1), the debt of punishment incurred by\nprevious sins does not return on account of a subsequent sin, as\nresulting from the acts of the subsequent sin. Wherefore the amount\nof the debt that returns must be according to the gravity of the\nsubsequent sin.\n\nIt is possible, however, for the gravity of the subsequent sin to\nequal the gravity of all previous sins. But it need not always be so,\nwhether we speak of the gravity which a sin has from its species\n(since the subsequent sin may be one of simple fornication, while the\nprevious sins were adulteries, murders, or sacrileges); or of the\ngravity which it incurs through the ingratitude connected with it.\nFor it is not necessary that the measure of ingratitude should be\nexactly equal to the measure of the favor received, which latter is\nmeasured according to the greatness of the sins previously pardoned.\nBecause it may happen that in respect of the same favor, one man is\nvery ungrateful, either on account of the intensity of his scorn for\nthe favor received, or on account of the gravity of the offense\ncommitted against the benefactor, while another man is slightly\nungrateful, either because his scorn is less intense, or because his\noffense against the benefactor is less grave. But the measure of\ningratitude is proportionately equal to the measure of the favor\nreceived: for supposing an equal contempt of the favor, or an equal\noffense against the benefactor, the ingratitude will be so much the\ngreater, as the favor received is greater.\n\nHence it is evident that the debt of punishment incurred by a\nsubsequent sin need not always be equal to that of previous sins; but\nit must be in proportion thereto, so that the more numerous or the\ngreater the sins previously pardoned, the greater must be the debt of\npunishment incurred by any subsequent mortal sin whatever.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The favor of the pardon of sins takes its absolute\nquantity from the quantity of the sins previously pardoned: but the\nsin of ingratitude does not take its absolute quantity from the\nmeasure of the favor bestowed, but from the measure of the contempt\nor of the offense, as stated above: and so the objection does not\nprove.\n\nReply Obj. 2: A slave who has been given his freedom is not brought\nback to his previous state of slavery for any kind of ingratitude,\nbut only when this is grave.\n\nReply Obj. 3: He whose forgiven sins return to him on account of\nsubsequent ingratitude, incurs the debt for all, in so far as the\nmeasure of his previous sins is contained proportionally in his\nsubsequent ingratitude, but not absolutely, as stated above.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 88, Art. 4]\n\nWhether the Ingratitude Whereby a Subsequent Sin Causes the Return of\nPrevious Sins, Is a Special Sin?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the ingratitude, whereby a subsequent\nsin causes the return of sins previously forgiven, is a special sin.\nFor the giving of thanks belongs to counterpassion which is a\nnecessary condition of justice, as the Philosopher shows (Ethic. v,\n5). But justice is a special virtue. Therefore this ingratitude is a\nspecial sin.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Tully says (De Inv. Rhet. ii) that thanksgiving is a\nspecial virtue. But ingratitude is opposed to thanksgiving. Therefore\ningratitude is a special sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a special effect proceeds from a special cause. Now\ningratitude has a special effect, viz. the return, after a fashion,\nof sins already forgiven. Therefore ingratitude is a special sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ That which is a sequel to every sin is not a\nspecial sin. Now by any mortal sin whatever, a man becomes ungrateful\nto God, as evidenced from what has been said (A. 1). Therefore\ningratitude is not a special sin.\n\n_I answer that,_ The ingratitude of the sinner is sometimes a special\nsin; and sometimes it is not, but a circumstance arising from all\nmortal sins in common committed against God. For a sin takes its\nspecies according to the sinner's intention, wherefore the\nPhilosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that \"he who commits adultery in order\nto steal is a thief rather than an adulterer.\"\n\nIf, therefore, a sinner commits a sin in contempt of God and of the\nfavor received from Him, that sin is drawn to the species of\ningratitude, and in this way a sinner's ingratitude is a special sin.\nIf, however, a man, while intending to commit a sin, e.g. murder or\nadultery, is not withheld from it on account of its implying contempt\nof God, his ingratitude will not be a special sin, but will be drawn\nto the species of the other sin, as a circumstance thereof. And, as\nAugustine observes (De Nat. et Grat. xxix), not every sin implies\ncontempt of God in His commandments. Therefore it is evident that the\nsinner's ingratitude is sometimes a special sin, sometimes not.\n\nThis suffices for the Replies to the Objections: for the first\n(three) objections prove that ingratitude is in itself a special sin;\nwhile the last objection proves that ingratitude, as included in\nevery sin, is not a special sin.\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 89\n\nOF THE RECOVERY OF VIRTUE BY MEANS OF PENANCE\n(In Six Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the recovery of virtues by means of Penance,\nunder which head there are six points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether virtues are restored through Penance?\n\n(2) Whether they are restored in equal measure?\n\n(3) Whether equal dignity is restored to the penitent?\n\n(4) Whether works of virtue are deadened by subsequent sin?\n\n(5) Whether works deadened by sin revive through Penance?\n\n(6) Whether dead works, i.e. works that are done without charity, are\nquickened by Penance?\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 1]\n\nWhether the Virtues Are Restored Through Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the virtues are not restored through\npenance. Because lost virtue cannot be restored by penance, unless\npenance be the cause of virtue. But, since penance is itself a\nvirtue, it cannot be the cause of all the virtues, and all the more,\nsince some virtues naturally precede penance, viz., faith, hope, and\ncharity, as stated above (Q. 85, A. 6). Therefore the virtues are not\nrestored through penance.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Penance consists in certain acts of the penitent.\nBut the gratuitous virtues are not caused through any act of ours:\nfor Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18: In Ps. 118) that \"God forms\nthe virtues in us without us.\" Therefore it seems that the virtues\nare not restored through Penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, he that has virtue performs works of virtue with\nease and pleasure: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8) that\n\"a man is not just if he does not rejoice in just deeds.\" Now many\npenitents find difficulty in performing deeds of virtue. Therefore\nthe virtues are not restored through Penance.\n\n_On the contrary,_ We read (Luke 15:22) that the father commanded his\npenitent son to be clothed in \"the first robe,\" which, according to\nAmbrose (Expos. in Luc. vii), is the \"mantle of wisdom,\" from which\nall the virtues flow together, according to Wis. 8:7: \"She teacheth\ntemperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such\nthings as men can have nothing more profitable in life.\" Therefore\nall the virtues are restored through Penance.\n\n_I answer that,_ Sins are pardoned through Penance, as stated above\n(Q. 86, A. 1). But there can be no remission of sins except through\nthe infusion of grace. Wherefore it follows that grace is infused\ninto man through Penance. Now all the gratuitous virtues flow from\ngrace, even as all the powers result from the essence of the soul; as\nstated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 110, A. 4, ad 1). Therefore all\nthe virtues are restored through Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Penance restores the virtues in the same way as it\ncauses grace, as stated above (Q. 86, A. 1). Now it is a cause of\ngrace, in so far as it is a sacrament, because, in so far as it is a\nvirtue, it is rather an effect of grace. Consequently it does not\nfollow that penance, as a virtue, needs to be the cause of all the\nother virtues, but that the habit of penance together with the habits\nof the other virtues is caused through the sacrament of Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In the sacrament of Penance human acts stand as matter,\nwhile the formal power of this sacrament is derived from the power of\nthe keys. Consequently the power of the keys causes grace and virtue\neffectively indeed, but instrumentally; and the first act of the\npenitent, viz., contrition, stands as ultimate disposition to the\nreception of grace, while the subsequent acts of Penance proceed from\nthe grace and virtues which are already there.\n\nReply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q. 86, A. 5), sometimes after the\nfirst act of Penance, which is contrition, certain remnants of sin\nremain, viz. dispositions caused by previous acts, the result being\nthat the penitent finds difficulty in doing deeds of virtue.\nNevertheless, so far as the inclination itself of charity and of the\nother virtues is concerned, the penitent performs works of virtue\nwith pleasure and ease, even as a virtuous man may accidentally find\nit hard to do an act of virtue, on account of sleepiness or some\nindisposition of the body.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 2]\n\nWhether, After Penance, Man Rises Again to Equal Virtue?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that, after Penance, man rises again to\nequal virtue. For the Apostle says (Rom. 8:28): \"To them that love\nGod all things work together unto good,\" whereupon a gloss of\nAugustine says that \"this is so true that, if any such man goes\nastray and wanders from the path, God makes even this conduce to his\ngood.\" But this would not be true if he rose again to lesser virtue.\nTherefore it seems that a penitent never rises again to lesser virtue.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Ambrose says [*Cf. Hypognosticon iii, an anonymous\nwork falsely ascribed to St. Augustine] that \"Penance is a very good\nthing, for it restores every defect to a state of perfection.\" But\nthis would not be true unless virtues were recovered in equal\nmeasure. Therefore equal virtue is always recovered through Penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, on Gen. 1:5: \"There was evening and morning, one\nday,\" a gloss says: \"The evening light is that from which we fall;\nthe morning light is that to which we rise again.\" Now the morning\nlight is greater than the evening light. Therefore a man rises to\ngreater grace or charity than that which he had before; which is\nconfirmed by the Apostle's words (Rom. 5:20): \"Where sin abounded,\ngrace did more abound.\"\n\n_On the contrary,_ Charity whether proficient or perfect is greater\nthan incipient charity. But sometimes a man falls from proficient\ncharity, and rises again to incipient charity. Therefore man always\nrises again to less virtue.\n\n_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 86, A. 6, ad 3; Q. 89, A. 1, ad\n2), the movement of the free-will, in the justification of the\nungodly, is the ultimate disposition to grace; so that in the same\ninstant there is infusion of grace together with the aforesaid\nmovement of the free-will, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q.\n113, AA. 5, 7), which movement includes an act of penance, as stated\nabove (Q. 86, A. 2). But it is evident that forms which admit of\nbeing more or less, become intense or remiss, according to the\ndifferent dispositions of the subject, as stated in the Second Part\n(I-II, Q. 52, AA. 1, 2; Q. 66, A. 1). Hence it is that, in Penance,\naccording to the degree of intensity or remissness in the movement of\nthe free-will, the penitent receives greater or lesser grace. Now the\nintensity of the penitent's movement may be proportionate sometimes\nto a greater grace than that from which man fell by sinning,\nsometimes to an equal grace, sometimes to a lesser. Wherefore the\npenitent sometimes arises to a greater grace than that which he had\nbefore, sometimes to an equal, sometimes to a lesser grace: and the\nsame applies to the virtues, which flow from grace.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The very fact of falling away from the love of God by\nsin, does not work unto the good of all those who love God, which is\nevident in the case of those who fall and never rise again, or who\nrise and fall yet again; but only to the good of \"such as according\nto His purpose are called to be saints,\" viz. the predestined, who,\nhowever often they may fall, yet rise again finally. Consequently\ngood comes of their falling, not that they always rise again to\ngreater grace, but that they rise to more abiding grace, not indeed\non the part of grace itself, because the greater the grace, the more\nabiding it is, but on the part of man, who, the more careful and\nhumble he is, abides the more steadfastly in grace. Hence the same\ngloss adds that \"their fall conduces to their good, because they rise\nmore humble and more enlightened.\"\n\nReply Obj. 2: Penance, considered in itself, has the power to bring\nall defects back to perfection, and even to advance man to a higher\nstate; but this is sometimes hindered on the part of man, whose\nmovement towards God and in detestation of sin is too remiss, just as\nin Baptism adults receive a greater or a lesser grace, according to\nthe various ways in which they prepare themselves.\n\nReply Obj. 3: This comparison of the two graces to the evening and\nmorning light is made on account of a likeness of order, since the\ndarkness of night follows after the evening light, and the light of\nday after the light of morning, but not on account of a likeness of\ngreater or lesser quantity. Again, this saying of the Apostle refers\nto the grace of Christ, which abounds more than any number of man's\nsins. Nor is it true of all, that the more their sins abound, the\nmore abundant grace they receive, if we measure habitual grace by the\nquantity. Grace is, however, more abundant, as regards the very\nnotion of grace, because to him who sins more a more _gratuitous_\nfavor is vouchsafed by his pardon; although sometimes those whose\nsins abound, abound also in sorrow, so that they receive a more\nabundant habit of grace and virtue, as was the case with Magdalen.\n\nTo the argument advanced in the contrary sense it must be replied\nthat in one and the same man proficient grace is greater than\nincipient grace, but this is not necessarily the case in different\nmen, for one begins with a greater grace than another has in the\nstate of proficiency: thus Gregory says (Dial. ii, 1): \"Let all, both\nnow and hereafter, acknowledge how perfectly the boy Benedict turned\nto the life of grace from the very beginning.\"\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 3]\n\nWhether, by Penance, Man Is Restored to His Former Dignity?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that man is not restored by Penance to his\nformer dignity: because a gloss on Amos 5:2, \"The virgin of Israel is\ncast down,\" observes: \"It is not said that she cannot rise up, but\nthat the virgin of Israel shall not rise; because the sheep that has\nonce strayed, although the shepherd bring it back on his shoulder,\nhas not the same glory as if it had never strayed.\" Therefore man\ndoes not, through Penance, recover his former dignity.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Jerome says: \"Whoever fail to preserve the dignity\nof the sacred order, must be content with saving their souls; for it\nis a difficult thing to return to their former degree.\" Again, Pope\nInnocent I says (Ep. vi ad Agapit.) that \"the canons framed at the\ncouncil of Nicaea exclude penitents from even the lowest orders of\nclerics.\" Therefore man does not, through Penance, recover his former\ndignity.\n\nObj. 3: Further, before sinning a man can advance to a higher sacred\norder. But this is not permitted to a penitent after his sin, for it\nis written (Ezech. 44:10, 13): \"The Levites that went away . . . from\nMe . . . shall never [Vulg.: 'not'] come near to Me, to do the office\nof priest\": and as laid down in the Decretals (Dist. 1, ch. 52), and\ntaken from the council of Lerida: \"If those who serve at the Holy\nAltar fall suddenly into some deplorable weakness of the flesh, and\nby God's mercy do proper penance, let them return to their duties,\nyet so as not to receive further promotion.\" Therefore Penance does\nnot restore man to his former dignity.\n\n_On the contrary,_ As we read in the same Distinction, Gregory\nwriting to Secundinus (Regist. vii) says: \"We consider that when a\nman has made proper satisfaction, he may return to his honorable\nposition\": and moreover we read in the acts of the council of Agde:\n\"Contumacious clerics, so far as their position allows, should be\ncorrected by their bishops, so that when Penance has reformed them,\nthey may recover their degree and dignity.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ By sin, man loses a twofold dignity, one in respect\nof God, the other in respect of the Church. In respect of God he\nagain loses a twofold dignity. One is his principal dignity, whereby\nhe was counted among the children of God, and this he recovers by\nPenance, which is signified (Luke 15) in the prodigal son, for when\nhe repented, his father commanded that the first garment should be\nrestored to him, together with a ring and shoes. The other is his\nsecondary dignity, viz. innocence, of which, as we read in the same\nchapter, the elder son boasted saying (Luke 15:29): \"Behold, for so\nmany years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy\ncommandments\": and this dignity the penitent cannot recover.\nNevertheless he recovers something greater sometimes; because as\nGregory says (Hom. de centum Ovibus, 34 in Evang.), \"those who\nacknowledge themselves to have strayed away from God, make up for\ntheir past losses, by subsequent gains: so that there is more joy in\nheaven on their account, even as in battle, the commanding officer\nthinks more of the soldier who, after running away, returns and\nbravely attacks the foe, than of one who has never turned his back,\nbut has done nothing brave.\"\n\nBy sin man loses his ecclesiastical dignity, because thereby he\nbecomes unworthy of those things which appertain to the exercise of\nthe ecclesiastical dignity. This he is debarred from recovering:\nfirst, because he fails to repent; wherefore Isidore wrote to the\nbishop Masso, and as we read in the Distinction quoted above (Obj.\n3): \"The canons order those to be restored to their former degree,\nwho by repentance have made satisfaction for their sins, or have made\nworthy confession of them. On the other hand, those who do not mend\ntheir corrupt and wicked ways are neither allowed to exercise their\norder, nor received to the grace of communion.\"\n\nSecondly, because he does penance negligently, wherefore it is\nwritten in the same Distinction (Obj. 3): \"We can be sure that those\nwho show no signs of humble compunction, or of earnest prayer, who\navoid fasting or study, would exercise their former duties with great\nnegligence if they were restored to them.\"\n\nThirdly, if he has committed a sin to which an irregularity is\nattached; wherefore it is said in the same Distinction (Obj. 3),\nquoting the council of Pope Martin [*Martin, bishop of Braga]: \"If a\nman marry a widow or the relict of another, he must not be admitted\nto the ranks of the clergy: and if he has succeeded in creeping in,\nhe must be turned out. In like manner, if anyone after Baptism be\nguilty of homicide, whether by deed, or by command, or by counsel, or\nin self-defense.\" But this is in consequence not of sin, but of\nirregularity.\n\nFourthly, on account of scandal, wherefore it is said in the same\nDistinction (Obj. 3): \"Those who have been publicly convicted or\ncaught in the act of perjury, robbery, fornication, and of such like\ncrimes, according to the prescription of the sacred canons must be\ndeprived of the exercise of their respective orders, because it is a\nscandal to God's people that such persons should be placed over them.\nBut those who commit such sins occultly and confess them secretly to\na priest, may be retained in the exercise of their respective orders,\nwith the assurance of God's merciful forgiveness, provided they be\ncareful to expiate their sins by fasts and alms, vigils and holy\ndeeds.\" The same is expressed (Extra, De Qual. Ordinand.): \"If the\naforesaid crimes are not proved by a judicial process, or in some\nother way made notorious, those who are guilty of them must not be\nhindered, after they have done penance, from exercising the orders\nthey have received, or from receiving further orders, except in cases\nof homicide.\"\n\nReply Obj. 1: The same is to be said of the recovery of virginity as\nof the recovery of innocence which belongs to man's secondary dignity\nin the sight of God.\n\nReply Obj. 2: In these words Jerome does not say that it is\nimpossible, but that it is difficult, for man to recover his former\ndignity after having sinned, because this is allowed to none but\nthose who repent perfectly, as stated above. To those canonical\nstatutes, which seem to forbid this, Augustine replies in his letter\nto Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): \"If the law of the Church forbids anyone,\nafter doing penance for a crime, to become a cleric, or to return to\nhis clerical duties, or to retain them the intention was not to\ndeprive him of the hope of pardon, but to preserve the rigor of\ndiscipline; else we should have to deny the keys given to the Church,\nof which it was said: 'Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be\nloosed in heaven.'\" And further on he adds: \"For holy David did\npenance for his deadly crimes, and yet he retained his dignity; and\nBlessed Peter by shedding most bitter tears did indeed repent him of\nhaving denied his Lord, and yet he remained an apostle. Nevertheless\nwe must not deem the care of later teachers excessive, who without\nendangering a man's salvation, exacted more from his humility,\nhaving, in my opinion, found by experience, that some assumed a\npretended repentance through hankering after honors and power.\"\n\nReply Obj. 3: This statute is to be understood as applying to those\nwho do public penance, for these cannot be promoted to a higher\norder. For Peter, after his denial, was made shepherd of Christ's\nsheep, as appears from John 21:21, where Chrysostom comments as\nfollows: \"After his denial and repentance Peter gives proof of\ngreater confidence in Christ: for whereas, at the supper, he durst\nnot ask Him, but deputed John to ask in his stead, afterwards he was\nplaced at the head of his brethren, and not only did not depute\nanother to ask for him, what concerned him, but henceforth asks the\nMaster instead of John.\"\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Virtuous Deeds Done in Charity Can Be Deadened?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that virtuous deeds done in charity cannot\nbe deadened. For that which is not cannot be changed. But to be\ndeadened is to be changed from life to death. Since therefore\nvirtuous deeds, after being done, are no more, it seems that they\ncannot afterwards be deadened.\n\nObj. 2: Further, by virtuous deeds done in charity, man merits\neternal life. But to take away the reward from one who has merited it\nis an injustice, which cannot be ascribed to God. Therefore it is not\npossible for virtuous deeds done in charity to be deadened by a\nsubsequent sin.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the strong is not corrupted by the weak. Now works\nof charity are stronger than any sins, because, as it is written\n(Prov. 10:12), \"charity covereth all sins.\" Therefore it seems that\ndeeds done in charity cannot be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 18:24): \"If the just man\nturn himself away from his justice . . . all his justices which he\nhath done shall not be remembered.\"\n\n_I answer that,_ A living thing, by dying, ceases to have vital\noperations: for which reason, by a kind of metaphor, a thing is said\nto be deadened when it is hindered from producing its proper effect\nor operation.\n\nNow the effect of virtuous works, which are done in charity, is to\nbring man to eternal life; and this is hindered by a subsequent\nmortal sin, inasmuch as it takes away grace. Wherefore deeds done in\ncharity are said to be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Just as sinful deeds pass as to the act but remain as\nto guilt, so deeds done in charity, after passing, as to the act,\nremain as to merit, in so far as they are acceptable to God. It is in\nthis respect that they are deadened, inasmuch as man is hindered from\nreceiving his reward.\n\nReply Obj. 2: There is no injustice in withdrawing the reward from\nhim who has deserved it, if he has made himself unworthy by his\nsubsequent fault, since at times a man justly forfeits through his\nown fault, even that which he has already received.\n\nReply Obj. 3: It is not on account of the strength of sinful deeds\nthat deeds, previously done in charity, are deadened, but on account\nof the freedom of the will which can be turned away from good to evil.\n_______________________\n\nFIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 86, Art. 5]\n\nWhether Deeds Deadened by Sin, Are Revived by Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that deeds deadened by sin are not revived\nby Penance. Because just as past sins are remitted by subsequent\nPenance, so are deeds previously done in charity, deadened by\nsubsequent sin. But sins remitted by Penance do not return, as stated\nabove (Q. 88, AA. 1, 2). Therefore it seems that neither are dead\ndeeds revived by charity.\n\nObj. 2: Further, deeds are said to be deadened by comparison with\nanimals who die, as stated above (A. 4). But a dead animal cannot be\nrevived. Therefore neither can dead works be revived by Penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, deeds done in charity are deserving of glory\naccording to the quantity of grace or charity. But sometimes man\narises through Penance to lesser grace or charity. Therefore he does\nnot receive glory according to the merit of his previous works; so\nthat it seems that deeds deadened by sin are not revived.\n\n_On the contrary,_ on Joel 2:25, \"I will restore to you the years,\nwhich the locust . . . hath eaten,\" a gloss says: \"I will not suffer\nto perish the fruit which you lost when your soul was disturbed.\" But\nthis fruit is the merit of good works which was lost through sin.\nTherefore meritorious deeds done before are revived by Penance.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have said that meritorious works deadened by\nsubsequent sin are not revived by the ensuing Penance, because they\ndeemed such works to have passed away, so that they could not be\nrevived. But that is no reason why they should not be revived:\nbecause they are conducive to eternal life (wherein their life\nconsists) not only as actually existing, but also after they cease to\nexist actually, and as abiding in the Divine acceptance. Now, they\nabide thus, so far as they are concerned, even after they have been\ndeadened by sin, because those works, according as they were done,\nwill ever be acceptable to God and give joy to the saints, according\nto Apoc. 3:11: \"Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy\ncrown.\" That they fail in their efficacy to bring the man, who did\nthem, to eternal life, is due to the impediment of the supervening\nsin whereby he is become unworthy of eternal life. But this\nimpediment is removed by Penance, inasmuch as sins are taken away\nthereby. Hence it follows that deeds previously deadened, recover,\nthrough Penance, their efficacy in bringing him, who did them, to\neternal life, and, in other words, they are revived. It is therefore\nevident that deadened works are revived by Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 1: The very works themselves of sin are removed by\nPenance, so that, by God's mercy, no further stain or debt of\npunishment is incurred on their account: on the other hand, works\ndone in charity are not removed by God, since they abide in His\nacceptance, but they are hindered on the part of the man who does\nthem; wherefore if this hindrance, on the part of the man who does\nthose works, be removed, God on His side fulfills what those works\ndeserved.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Deeds done in charity are not in themselves deadened,\nas explained above, but only with regard to a supervening impediment\non the part of the man who does them. On the other hand, an animal\ndies in itself, through being deprived of the principle of life: so\nthat the comparison fails.\n\nReply Obj. 3: He who, through Penance, arises to lesser charity, will\nreceive the essential reward according to the degree of charity in\nwhich he is found. Yet he will have greater joy for the works he had\ndone in his former charity, than for those which he did in his\nsubsequent charity: and this joy belongs to the accidental reward.\n_______________________\n\nSIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 6]\n\nWhether the Effect of Subsequent Penance Is to Quicken Even Dead\nWorks?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that the effect of subsequent Penance is\nto quicken even dead works, those, namely, that were not done in\ncharity. For it seems more difficult to bring to life that which has\nbeen deadened, since this is never done naturally, than to quicken\nthat which never had life, since certain living things are engendered\nnaturally from things without life. Now deadened works are revived by\nPenance, as stated above (A. 5). Much more, therefore, are dead works\nrevived.\n\nObj. 2: Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But\nthe cause of the lack of life in works generically good done without\ncharity, was the lack of charity and grace, which lack is removed by\nPenance. Therefore dead works are quickened by charity.\n\nObj. 3: Further, Jerome in commenting on Agg. i, 6: \"You have sowed\nmuch,\" says: \"If at any time you find a sinner, among his many evil\ndeeds, doing that which is right, God is not so unjust as to forget\nthe few good deeds on account of his many evil deeds.\" Now this seems\nto be the case chiefly when past evil deeds are removed by Penance.\nTherefore it seems that through Penance, God rewards the former deeds\ndone in the state of sin, which implies that they are quickened.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:3): \"If I should\ndistribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my\nbody to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.\"\nBut this would not be true, if, at least by subsequent Penance, they\nwere quickened. Therefore Penance does not quicken works which before\nwere dead.\n\n_I answer that,_ A work is said to be dead in two ways: first,\neffectively, because, to wit, it is a cause of death, in which sense\nsinful works are said to be dead, according to Heb. 9:14: \"The blood\nof Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works.\" These\ndead works are not quickened but removed by Penance, according to\nHeb. 6:1: \"Not laying again the foundation of Penance from dead\nworks.\" Secondly, works are said to be dead privatively, because, to\nwit, they lack spiritual life, which is founded on charity, whereby\nthe soul is united to God, the result being that it is quickened as\nthe body by the soul: in which sense too, faith, if it lack charity,\nis said to be dead, according to James 2:20: \"Faith without works is\ndead.\" In this way also, all works that are generically good, are\nsaid to be dead, if they be done without charity, inasmuch as they\nfail to proceed from the principle of life; even as we might call the\nsound of a harp, a dead voice. Accordingly, the difference of life\nand death in works is in relation to the principle from which they\nproceed. But works cannot proceed a second time from a principle,\nbecause they are transitory, and the same identical deed cannot be\nresumed. Therefore it is impossible for dead works to be quickened by\nPenance.\n\nReply Obj. 1: In the physical order things whether dead or deadened\nlack the principle of life. But works are said to be deadened, not in\nrelation to the principle whence they proceeded, but in relation to\nan extrinsic impediment; while they are said to be dead in relation\nto a principle. Consequently there is no comparison.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Works generically good done without charity are said to\nbe dead on account of the lack of grace and charity, as principles.\nNow the subsequent Penance does not supply that want, so as to make\nthem proceed from such a principle. Hence the argument does not prove.\n\nReply Obj. 3: God remembers the good deeds a man does when in a state\nof sin, not by rewarding them in eternal life, which is due only to\nliving works, i.e. those done from charity, but by a temporal reward:\nthus Gregory declares (Hom. de Divite et Lazaro, 41 in Evang.) that\n\"unless that rich man had done some good deed, and had received his\nreward in this world, Abraham would certainly not have said to him:\n'Thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime.'\" Or again, this may\nmean that he will be judged less severely: wherefore Augustine says\n(De Patientia xxvi): \"We cannot say that it would be better for the\nschismatic that by denying Christ he should suffer none of those\nthings which he suffered by confessing Him; but we must believe that\nhe will be judged with less severity, than if by denying Christ, he\nhad suffered none of those things. Thus the words of the Apostle, 'If\nI should deliver my body to be burned and have not charity, it\nprofiteth me nothing,' refer to the obtaining of the kingdom of\nheaven, and do not exclude the possibility of being sentenced with\nless severity at the last judgment.\"\n_______________________\n\nQUESTION 90\n\nOF THE PARTS OF PENANCE, IN GENERAL\n(In Four Articles)\n\nWe must now consider the parts of Penance: (1) in general;\n(2) each one in particular.\n\nUnder the first head there are four points of inquiry:\n\n(1) Whether Penance has any parts?\n\n(2) Of the number of its parts;\n\n(3) What kind of parts are they?\n\n(4) Of its division into subjective parts.\n_______________________\n\nFIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 90, Art. 1]\n\nWhether Penance Should Be Assigned Any Parts?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that parts should not be assigned to\nPenance. For it is the Divine power that works our salvation most\nsecretly in the sacraments. Now the Divine power is one and simple.\nTherefore Penance, being a sacrament, should have no parts assigned\nto it.\n\nObj. 2: Further, Penance is both a virtue and a sacrament. Now no\nparts are assigned to it as a virtue, since virtue is a habit, which\nis a simple quality of the mind. In like manner, it seems that parts\nshould not be assigned to Penance as a sacrament, because no parts\nare assigned to Baptism and the other sacraments. Therefore no parts\nat all should be assigned to Penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the matter of Penance is sin, as stated above (Q.\n84, A. 2). But no parts are assigned to sin. Neither, therefore,\nshould parts be assigned to Penance.\n\n_On the contrary,_ The parts of a thing are those out of which the\nwhole is composed. Now the perfection of Penance is composed of\nseveral things, viz. contrition, confession, and satisfaction.\nTherefore Penance has parts.\n\n_I answer that,_ The parts of a thing are those into which the whole\nis divided materially, for the parts of a thing are to the whole,\nwhat matter is to the form; wherefore the parts are reckoned as a\nkind of material cause, and the whole as a kind of formal cause\n(Phys. ii). Accordingly wherever, on the part of matter, we find a\nkind of plurality, there we shall find a reason for assigning parts.\n\nNow it has been stated above (Q. 84, AA. 2, 3), that, in the\nsacrament of Penance, human actions stand as matter: and so, since\nseveral actions are requisite for the perfection of Penance, viz.,\ncontrition, confession, and satisfaction, as we shall show further on\n(A. 2), it follows that the sacrament of Penance has parts.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Every sacrament is something simple by reason of the\nDivine power, which operates therein: but the Divine power is so\ngreat that it can operate both through one and through many, and by\nreason of these many, parts may be assigned to a particular sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Parts are not assigned to penance as a virtue: because\nthe human acts of which there are several in penance, are related to\nthe habit of virtue, not as its parts, but as its effects. It\nfollows, therefore, that parts are assigned to Penance as a\nsacrament, to which the human acts are related as matter: whereas in\nthe other sacraments the matter does not consist of human acts, but\nof some one external thing, either simple, as water or oil, or\ncompound, as chrism, and so parts are not assigned to the other\nsacraments.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Sins are the remote matter of Penance, inasmuch, to\nwit, as they are the matter or object of the human acts, which are\nthe proper matter of Penance as a sacrament.\n_______________________\n\nSECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 90, Art. 2]\n\nWhether Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction Are Fittingly\nAssigned As Parts of Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that contrition, confession, and\nsatisfaction are not fittingly assigned as parts of Penance. For\ncontrition is in the heart, and so belongs to interior penance; while\nconfession consists of words, and satisfaction in deeds; so that the\ntwo latter belong to interior penance. Now interior penance is not a\nsacrament, but only exterior penance which is perceptible by the\nsenses. Therefore these three parts are not fittingly assigned to the\nsacrament of Penance.\n\nObj. 2: Further, grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Law,\nas stated above (Q. 62, AA. 1, 3). But no grace is conferred in\nsatisfaction. Therefore satisfaction is not part of a sacrament.\n\nObj. 3: Further, the fruit of a thing is not the same as its part.\nBut satisfaction is a fruit of penance, according to Luke 3:8: \"Bring\nforth . . . fruits worthy of penance.\" Therefore it is not a part of\nPenance.\n\nObj. 4: Further, Penance is ordained against sin. But sin can be\ncompleted merely in the thought by consent, as stated in the Second\nPart (I-II, Q. 72, A. 7): therefore Penance can also. Therefore\nconfession in word and satisfaction in deed should not be reckoned as\nparts of Penance.\n\n_On the contrary,_ It seems that yet more parts should be assigned to\nPenance. For not only is the body assigned as a part of man, as being\nthe matter, but also the soul, which is his form. But the aforesaid\nthree, being the acts of the penitent, stand as matter, while the\npriestly absolution stands as form. Therefore the priestly absolution\nshould be assigned as a fourth part of Penance.\n\n_I answer that,_ A part is twofold, essential and quantitative. The\nessential parts are naturally the form and the matter, and logically\nthe genus and the difference. In this way, each sacrament is divided\ninto matter and form as its essential parts. Hence it has been said\nabove (Q. 60, AA. 5, 6) that sacraments consist of things and words.\nBut since quantity is on the part of matter, quantitative parts are\nparts of matter: and, in this way, as stated above (A. 1), parts are\nassigned specially to the sacrament of Penance, as regards the acts\nof the penitent, which are the matter of this sacrament.\n\nNow it has been said above (Q. 85, A. 3, ad 3) that an offense is\natoned otherwise in Penance than in vindictive justice. Because, in\nvindictive justice the atonement is made according to the judge's\ndecision, and not according to the discretion of the offender or of\nthe person offended; whereas, in Penance, the offense is atoned\naccording to the will of the sinner, and the judgment of God against\nWhom the sin was committed, because in the latter case we seek not\nonly the restoration of the equality of justice, as in vindictive\njustice, but also and still more the reconciliation of friendship,\nwhich is accomplished by the offender making atonement according to\nthe will of the person offended. Accordingly the first requisite on\nthe part of the penitent is the will to atone, and this is done by\ncontrition; the second is that he submit to the judgment of the\npriest standing in God's place, and this is done in confession; and\nthe third is that he atone according to the decision of God's\nminister, and this is done in satisfaction: and so contrition,\nconfession, and satisfaction are assigned as parts of Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Contrition, as to its essence, is in the heart, and\nbelongs to interior penance; yet, virtually, it belongs to exterior\npenance, inasmuch as it implies the purpose of confessing and making\nsatisfaction.\n\nReply Obj. 2: Satisfaction confers grace, in so far as it is in man's\npurpose, and it increases grace, according as it is accomplished,\njust as Baptism does in adults, as stated above (Q. 68, A. 2; Q. 69,\nA. 8).\n\nReply Obj. 3: Satisfaction is a part of Penance as a sacrament, and a\nfruit of penance as a virtue.\n\nReply Obj. 4: More things are required for good, \"which proceeds from\na cause that is entire,\" than for evil, \"which results from each\nsingle defect,\" as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv). And thus,\nalthough sin is completed in the consent of the heart, yet the\nperfection of Penance requires contrition of the heart, together with\nconfession in word and satisfaction in deed.\n\nThe Reply to the Fifth Objection is clear from what has been said.\n_______________________\n\nTHIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 90, Art. 3]\n\nWhether These Three Are Integral Parts of Penance?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that these three are not integral parts of\nPenance. For, as stated above (Q. 84, A. 3), Penance is ordained\nagainst sin. But sins of thought, word, and deed are the subjective\nand not integral parts of sin, because sin is predicated of each one\nof them. Therefore in Penance also, contrition in thought, confession\nin word, and satisfaction in deed are not integral parts.\n\nObj. 2: Further, no integral part includes within itself another that\nis condivided with it. But contrition includes both confession and\nsatisfaction in the purpose of amendment. Therefore they are not\nintegral parts.\n\nObj. 3: Further, a whole is composed of its integral parts, taken at\nthe same time and equally, just as a line is made up of its parts.\nBut such is not the case here. Therefore these are not integral parts\nof Penance.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Integral parts are those by which the perfection\nof the whole is integrated. But the perfection of Penance is\nintegrated by these three. Therefore they are integral parts of\nPenance.\n\n_I answer that,_ Some have said that these three are subjective parts\nof Penance. But this is impossible, because the entire power of the\nwhole is present in each subjective part at the same time and\nequally, just as the entire power of an animal, as such, is assured\nto each animal species, all of which species divide the animal genus\nat the same time and equally: which does not apply to the point in\nquestion. Wherefore others have said that these are potential parts:\nyet neither can this be true, since the whole is present, as to the\nentire essence, in each potential part, just as the entire essence of\nthe soul is present in each of its powers: which does not apply to\nthe case in point. Therefore it follows that these three are integral\nparts of Penance, the nature of which is that the whole is not\npresent in each of the parts, either as to its entire power, or as to\nits entire essence, but that it is present to all of them together at\nthe same time.\n\nReply Obj. 1: Sin forasmuch as it is an evil, can be completed in one\nsingle point, as stated above (A. 2, ad 4); and so the sin which is\ncompleted in thought alone, is a special kind of sin. Another species\nis the sin that is completed in thought and word: and yet a third\nspecies is the sin that is completed in thought, word, and deed; and\nthe quasi-integral parts of this last sin, are that which is in\nthought, that which is in word, and that which is in deed. Wherefore\nthese three are the integral parts of Penance, which is completed in\nthem.\n\nReply Obj. 2: One integral part can include the whole, though not as\nto its essence: because the foundation, in a way, contains virtually\nthe whole building. In this way contrition includes virtually the\nwhole of Penance.\n\nReply Obj. 3: All integral parts have a certain relation of order to\none another: but some are only related as to position, whether in\nsequence as the parts of an army, or by contact, as the parts of a\nheap, or by being fitted together, as the parts of a house, or by\ncontinuation, as the parts of a line; while some are related, in\naddition, as to power, as the parts of an animal, the first of which\nis the heart, the others in a certain order being dependent on one\nanother: and thirdly some are related in the order of time: as the\nparts of time and movement. Accordingly the parts of Penance are\nrelated to one another in the order of power and time, since they are\nactions, but not in the order of position, since they do not occupy a\nplace.\n_______________________\n\nFOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 90, Art. 4]\n\nWhether Penance Is Fittingly Divided into Penance Before Baptism,\nPenance for Mortal Sins, and Penance for Venial Sins?\n\nObjection 1: It would seem that penance is unfittingly divided into\npenance before Baptism, penance for mortal, and penance for venial\nsins. For Penance is the second plank after shipwreck, as stated\nabove (Q. 84, A. 6), while Baptism is the first. Therefore that which\nprecedes Baptism should not be called a species of penance.\n\nObj. 2: Further, that which can destroy the greater, can destroy the\nlesser. Now mortal sin is greater than venial; and penance which\nregards mortal sins regards also venial sins. Therefore they should\nnot be considered as different species of penance.\n\nObj. 3: Further, just as after Baptism man commits venial and mortal\nsins, so does he before Baptism. If therefore penance for venial sins\nis distinct from penance for mortal sins after Baptism, in like\nmanner they should be distinguished before Baptism. Therefore penance\nis not fittingly divided into these species.\n\n_On the contrary,_ Augustine says in _De Poenitentia_ [*Cf. Hom. 30\ninter 1] that these three are species of Penance.\n\n_I answer that,_ This is a division of penance as a virtue. Now it\nmust be observed that every virtue acts in accordance with the time\nbeing, as also in keeping with other due circumstances, wherefore the\nvirtue of penance has its act at this time, according to the\nrequirements of the New Law.\n\nNow it belongs to penance to detest one's past sins, and to purpose,\nat the same time, to change one's life for the better, which is the\nend, so to speak, of penance. And since moral matters take their\nspecies from the end, as stated in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 1, A. 3;\nQ. 18, AA. 4, 6), it is reasonable to distinguish various species of\npenance, according to the various changes intended by the penitent.\n\nAccordingly there is a threefold change intended by the penitent. The\nfirst is by regeneration unto a new life, and this belongs to that\npenance which precedes Baptism. The second is by reforming one's past\nlife after it has been already destroyed, and this belongs to penance\nfor mortal sins committed after Baptism. The third is by changing to\na more perfect operation of life, and this belongs to penance for\nvenial sins, which are remitted through a fervent act of charity, as\nstated above (Q. 87, AA. 2, 3).\n\nReply Obj. 1: The penance which precedes Baptism is not a sacrament,\nbut an act of virtue disposing one to that sacrament.\n\nReply Obj. 2: The penance which washes away mortal sins, washes away\nvenial sins also, but the converse does not hold. Wherefore these two\nspecies of penance are related to one another as perfect and\nimperfect.\n\nReply Obj. 3: Before Baptism there are no venial sins without mortal\nsins. And since a venial sin cannot be remitted without mortal sin,\nas stated above (Q. 87, A. 4), before Baptism, penance for mortal\nsins is not distinct from penance for venial sins.","title":"Summa Theologica, Part III (Tertia Pars): From the Complete American Edition","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":479312}