Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 25

Whether Christ Ought to Have a.s.sumed All the Bodily Defects of Men?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ ought to have a.s.sumed all the bodily defects of men. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 6, 18): "What is una.s.sumable is incurable." But Christ came to cure all our defects. Therefore He ought to have a.s.sumed all our defects.

Obj. 2: Further it was said (A. 1), that in order to satisfy for us, Christ ought to have had perfective habits of soul and defects of body. Now as regards the soul, He a.s.sumed the fulness of all grace.

Therefore as regards the body, He ought to have a.s.sumed all defects.

Obj. 3: Further, amongst all bodily defects death holds the chief place. Now Christ a.s.sumed death. Much more, therefore, ought He to have a.s.sumed other defects.

_On the contrary,_ Contraries cannot take place simultaneously in the same. Now some infirmities are contrary to each other, being caused by contrary principles. Hence it could not be that Christ a.s.sumed all human infirmities.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 2), Christ a.s.sumed human defects in order to satisfy for the sin of human nature, and for this it was necessary for Him to have the fulness of knowledge and grace in His soul. Hence Christ ought to have a.s.sumed those defects which flow from the common sin of the whole nature, yet are not incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace. And thus it was not fitting for Him to a.s.sume all human defects or infirmities.

For there are some defects that are incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace, as ignorance, a p.r.o.neness towards evil, and a difficulty in well-doing. Some other defects do not flow from the whole of human nature in common on account of the sin of our first parent, but are caused in some men by certain particular causes, as leprosy, epilepsy, and the like; and these defects are sometimes brought about by the fault of the man, e.g. from inordinate eating; sometimes by a defect in the formative power. Now neither of these pertains to Christ, since His flesh was conceived of the Holy Ghost, Who has infinite wisdom and power, and cannot err or fail; and He Himself did nothing wrong in the order of His life. But there are some third defects, to be found amongst all men in common, by reason of the sin of our first parent, as death, hunger, thirst, and the like; and all these defects Christ a.s.sumed, which Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 11; iii, 20) calls "natural and indetractible pa.s.sions"

--natural, as following all human nature in common; indetractible, as implying no defect of knowledge or grace.

Reply Obj. 1: All particular defects of men are caused by the corruptibility and pa.s.sibility of the body, some particular causes being added; and hence, since Christ healed the pa.s.sibility and corruptibility of our body by a.s.suming it, He consequently healed all other defects.

Reply Obj. 2: The fulness of all grace and knowledge was due to Christ's soul of itself, from the fact of its being a.s.sumed by the Word of G.o.d; and hence Christ a.s.sumed all the fulness of knowledge and wisdom absolutely. But He a.s.sumed our defects economically, in order to satisfy for our sin, and not that they belonged to Him of Himself. Hence it was not necessary for Him to a.s.sume them all, but only such as sufficed to satisfy for the sin of the whole nature.

Reply Obj. 3: Death comes to all men from the sin of our first parent; but not other defects, although they are less than death.

Hence there is no parity.

_______________________

QUESTION 15

OF THE DEFECTS OF SOUL a.s.sUMED BY CHRIST (In Ten Articles)

We must now consider the defects pertaining to the soul; and under this head there are ten points of inquiry:

(1) Whether there was sin in Christ?

(2) Whether there was the _fomes_ of sin in Him?

(3) Whether there was ignorance?

(4) Whether His soul was pa.s.sible?

(5) Whether in Him there was sensible pain?

(6) Whether there was sorrow?

(7) Whether there was fear?

(8) Whether there was wonder?

(9) Whether there was anger?

(10) Whether He was at once wayfarer and comprehensor?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 1]

Whether There Was Sin in Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was sin in Christ. For it is written (Ps. 21:2): "O G.o.d, My G.o.d ... why hast Thou forsaken Me?

Far from My salvation are the words of My sins." Now these words are said in the person of Christ Himself, as appears from His having uttered them on the cross. Therefore it would seem that in Christ there were sins.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Rom. 5:12) that "in Adam all have sinned"--namely, because all were in Adam by origin. Now Christ also was in Adam by origin. Therefore He sinned in him.

Obj. 3: Further, the Apostle says (Heb. 2:18) that "in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted." Now above all do we require His help against sin. Therefore it seems that there was sin in Him.

Obj. 4: Further, it is written (2 Cor. 5:21) that "Him that knew no sin" (i.e. Christ), "for us" G.o.d "hath made sin." But that really is, which has been made by G.o.d. Therefore there was really sin in Christ.

Obj. 5: Further, as Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi), "in the man Christ the Son of G.o.d gave Himself to us as a pattern of living." Now man needs a pattern not merely of right living, but also of repentance for sin. Therefore it seems that in Christ there ought to have been sin, that He might repent of His sin, and thus afford us a pattern of repentance.

_On the contrary,_ He Himself says (John 8:46): "Which of you shall convince Me of sin?"

_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 14, A. 1), Christ a.s.sumed our defects that He might satisfy for us, that He might prove the truth of His human nature, and that He might become an example of virtue to us. Now it is plain that by reason of these three things He ought not to have a.s.sumed the defect of sin. First, because sin nowise works our satisfaction; rather, it impedes the power of satisfying, since, as it is written (Ecclus. 34:23), "The Most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked." Secondly, the truth of His human nature is not proved by sin, since sin does not belong to human nature, whereof G.o.d is the cause; but rather has been sown in it against its nature by the devil, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 20). Thirdly, because by sinning He could afford no example of virtue, since sin is opposed to virtue. Hence Christ nowise a.s.sumed the defect of sin--either original or actual--according to what is written (1 Pet.

2:22): "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth."

Reply Obj. 1: As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 25), things are said of Christ, first, with reference to His natural and hypostatic property, as when it is said that G.o.d became man, and that He suffered for us; secondly, with reference to His personal and relative property, when things are said of Him in our person which nowise belong to Him of Himself. Hence, in the seven rules of Tichonius which Augustine quotes in _De Doctr. Christ._ iii, 31, the first regards "Our Lord and His Body," since "Christ and His Church are taken as one person." And thus Christ, speaking in the person of His members, says (Ps. 21:2): "The words of My sins"--not that there were any sins in the Head.

Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x, 20), Christ was in Adam and the other fathers not altogether as we were. For we were in Adam as regards both seminal virtue and bodily substance, since, as he goes on to say: "As in the seed there is a visible bulk and an invisible virtue, both have come from Adam. Now Christ took the visible substance of His flesh from the Virgin's flesh; but the virtue of His conception did not spring from the seed of man, but far otherwise--from on high." Hence He was not in Adam according to seminal virtue, but only according to bodily substance. And therefore Christ did not receive human nature from Adam actively, but only materially--and from the Holy Ghost actively; even as Adam received his body materially from the slime of the earth--actively from G.o.d.

And thus Christ did not sin in Adam, in whom He was only as regards His matter.

Reply Obj. 3: In His temptation and pa.s.sion Christ has succored us by satisfying for us. Now sin does not further satisfaction, but hinders it, as has been said. Hence, it behooved Him not to have sin, but to be wholly free from sin; otherwise the punishment He bore would have been due to Him for His own sin.

Reply Obj. 4: G.o.d "made Christ sin"--not, indeed, in such sort that He had sin, but that He made Him a sacrifice for sin: even as it is written (Osee 4:8): "They shall eat the sins of My people"--they, i.e. the priests, who by the law ate the sacrifices offered for sin.

And in that way it is written (Isa. 53:6) that "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (i.e. He gave Him up to be a victim for the sins of all men); or "He made Him sin" (i.e. made Him to have "the likeness of sinful flesh"), as is written (Rom. 8:3), and this on account of the pa.s.sible and mortal body He a.s.sumed.

Reply Obj. 5: A penitent can give a praiseworthy example, not by having sinned, but by freely bearing the punishment of sin. And hence Christ set the highest example to penitents, since He willingly bore the punishment, not of His own sin, but of the sins of others.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 2]

Whether There Was the _Fomes_ of Sin in Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was the _fomes_ of sin. For the _fomes_ of sin, and the pa.s.sibility and mortality of the body spring from the same principle, to wit, from the withdrawal of original justice, whereby the inferior powers of the soul were subject to the reason, and the body to the soul. Now pa.s.sibility and mortality of body were in Christ. Therefore there was also the _fomes_ of sin.

Obj. 2: Further, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 19), "it was by consent of the Divine will that the flesh of Christ was allowed to suffer and do what belonged to it." But it is proper to the flesh to l.u.s.t after its pleasures. Now since the _fomes_ of sin is nothing more than concupiscence, as the gloss says on Rom. 7:8, it seems that in Christ there was the _fomes_ of sin.

Obj. 3: Further, it is by reason of the _fomes_ of sin that "the flesh l.u.s.teth against the spirit," as is written (Gal. 5:17). But the spirit is shown to be so much the stronger and worthier to be crowned according as the more completely it overcomes its enemy--to wit, the concupiscence of the flesh, according to 2 Tim. 2:5, he "is not crowned except he strive lawfully." Now Christ had a most valiant and conquering spirit, and one most worthy of a crown, according to Apoc.

6:2: "There was a crown given Him, and He went forth conquering that He might conquer." Therefore it would especially seem that the _fomes_ of sin ought to have been in Christ.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:20): "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Now the Holy Ghost drives out sin and the inclination to sin, which is implied in the word _fomes._ Therefore in Christ there ought not to have been the _fomes_ of sin.

_I answer that,_ As was said above (Q. 7, AA. 2, 9), Christ had grace and all the virtues most perfectly. Now moral virtues, which are in the irrational part of the soul, make it subject to reason, and so much the more as the virtue is more perfect; thus, temperance controls the concupiscible appet.i.te, fort.i.tude and meekness the irascible appet.i.te, as was said in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 56, A.

4). But there belongs to the very nature of the _fomes_ of sin an inclination of the sensual appet.i.te to what is contrary to reason.

And hence it is plain that the more perfect the virtues are in any man, the weaker the _fomes_ of sin becomes in him. Hence, since in Christ the virtues were in their highest degree, the _fomes_ of sin was nowise in Him; inasmuch, also, as this defect cannot be ordained to satisfaction, but rather inclined to what is contrary to satisfaction.