Summa Theologica Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 26

Reply Obj. 1: The inferior powers pertaining to the sensitive appet.i.te have a natural capacity to be obedient to reason; but not the bodily powers, nor those of the bodily humors, nor those of the vegetative soul, as is made plain _Ethic._ i, 13. And hence perfection of virtue, which is in accordance with right reason, does not exclude pa.s.sibility of body; yet it excludes the _fomes_ of sin, the nature of which consists in the resistance of the sensitive appet.i.te to reason.

Reply Obj. 2: The flesh naturally seeks what is pleasing to it by the concupiscence of the sensitive appet.i.te; but the flesh of man, who is a rational animal, seeks this after the manner and order of reason.

And thus with the concupiscence of the sensitive appet.i.te Christ's flesh naturally sought food, drink, and sleep, and all else that is sought in right reason, as is plain from Damascene (De Fide Orth.

iii, 14). Yet it does not therefore follow that in Christ there was the _fomes_ of sin, for this implies the l.u.s.t after pleasurable things against the order of reason.

Reply Obj. 3: The spirit gives evidence of fort.i.tude to some extent by resisting that concupiscence of the flesh which is opposed to it; yet a greater fort.i.tude of spirit is shown, if by its strength the flesh is thoroughly overcome, so as to be incapable of l.u.s.ting against the spirit. And hence this belonged to Christ, whose spirit reached the highest degree of fort.i.tude. And although He suffered no internal a.s.sault on the part of the _fomes_ of sin, He sustained an external a.s.sault on the part of the world and the devil, and won the crown of victory by overcoming them.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 3]

Whether in Christ There Was Ignorance?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was ignorance in Christ. For that is truly in Christ which belongs to Him in His human nature, although it does not belong to Him in His Divine Nature, as suffering and death. But ignorance belongs to Christ in His human nature; for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 21) that "He a.s.sumed an ignorant and enslaved nature." Therefore ignorance was truly in Christ.

Obj. 2: Further, one is said to be ignorant through defect of knowledge. Now some kind of knowledge was wanting to Christ, for the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:21) "Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made sin." Therefore there was ignorance in Christ.

Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Isa. 8:4): "For before the child know to call his Father and his mother, the strength of Damascus ...

shall be taken away." Therefore in Christ there was ignorance of certain things.

_On the contrary,_ Ignorance is not taken away by ignorance. But Christ came to take away our ignorance; for "He came to enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death" (Luke 1:79).

Therefore there was no ignorance in Christ.

_I answer that,_ As there was the fulness of grace and virtue in Christ, so too there was the fulness of all knowledge, as is plain from what has been said above (Q. 7, A. 9; Q. 9). Now as the fulness of grace and virtue in Christ excluded the _fomes_ of sin, so the fulness of knowledge excluded ignorance, which is opposed to knowledge. Hence, even as the _fomes_ of sin was not in Christ, neither was there ignorance in Him.

Reply Obj. 1: The nature a.s.sumed by Christ may be viewed in two ways.

First, in its specific nature, and thus Damascene calls it "ignorant and enslaved"; hence he adds: "For man's nature is a slave of Him"

(i.e. G.o.d) "Who made it; and it has no knowledge of future things."

Secondly, it may be considered with regard to what it has from its union with the Divine hypostasis, from which it has the fulness of knowledge and grace, according to John 1:14: "We saw Him [Vulg.: 'His glory'] as it were the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"; and in this way the human nature in Christ was not affected with ignorance.

Reply Obj. 2: Christ is said not to have known sin, because He did not know it by experience; but He knew it by simple cognition.

Reply Obj. 3: The prophet is speaking in this pa.s.sage of the human knowledge of Christ; thus he says: "Before the Child" (i.e. in His human nature) "know to call His father" (i.e. Joseph, who was His reputed father), "and His mother" (i.e. Mary), "the strength of Damascus ... shall be taken away." Nor are we to understand this as if He had been some time a man without knowing it; but "before He know" (i.e. before He is a man having human knowledge)--literally, "the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away by the King of the a.s.syrians"--or spiritually, "before His birth He will save His people solely by invocation," as a gloss expounds it. Augustine however (Serm. x.x.xii de Temp.) says that this was fulfilled in the adoration of the Magi. For he says: "Before He uttered human words in human flesh, He received the strength of Damascus, i.e. the riches which Damascus vaunted (for in riches the first place is given to gold). They themselves were the spoils of Samaria. Because Samaria is taken to signify idolatry; since this people, having turned away from the Lord, turned to the worship of idols. Hence these were the first spoils which the child took from the domination of idolatry." And in this way "before the child know"

may be taken to mean "before he show himself to know."

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 4]

Whether Christ's Soul Was Pa.s.sible?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of Christ was not pa.s.sible.

For nothing suffers except by reason of something stronger; since "the agent is greater than the patient," as is clear from Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), and from the Philosopher (De Anima iii, 5).

Now no creature was stronger than Christ's soul. Therefore Christ's soul could not suffer at the hands of any creature; and hence it was not pa.s.sible; for its capability of suffering would have been to no purpose if it could not have suffered at the hands of anything.

Obj. 2: Further, Tully (De Tusc. Quaes. iii) says that the soul's pa.s.sions are ailments [*Cf. I-II, Q. 24, A. 2]. But Christ's soul had no ailment; for the soul's ailment results from sin, as is plain from Ps. 40:5: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee." Therefore in Christ's soul there were no pa.s.sions.

Obj. 3: Further, the soul's pa.s.sions would seem to be the same as the _fomes_ of sin, hence the Apostle (Rom. 7:5) calls them the "pa.s.sions of sins." Now the _fomes_ of sin was not in Christ, as was said (A.

2). Therefore it seems that there were no pa.s.sions in His soul; and hence His soul was not pa.s.sible.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ps. 87:4) in the person of Christ: "My soul is filled with evils"--not sins, indeed, but human evils, i.e. "pains," as a gloss expounds it. Hence the soul of Christ was pa.s.sible.

_I answer that,_ A soul placed in a body may suffer in two ways: first with a bodily pa.s.sion; secondly, with an animal pa.s.sion. It suffers with a bodily pa.s.sion through bodily hurt; for since the soul is the form of the body, soul and body have but one being; and hence, when the body is disturbed by any bodily pa.s.sion, the soul, too, must be disturbed, i.e. in the being which it has in the body. Therefore, since Christ's body was pa.s.sible and mortal, as was said above (Q.

14, A. 2), His soul also was of necessity pa.s.sible in like manner.

But the soul suffers with an animal pa.s.sion, in its operations--either in such as are proper to the soul, or in such as are of the soul more than of the body. And although the soul is said to suffer in this way through sensation and intelligence, as was said in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 22, A. 3; I-II, Q. 41, A. 1); nevertheless the affections of the sensitive appet.i.te are most properly called pa.s.sions of the soul. Now these were in Christ, even as all else pertaining to man's nature. Hence Augustine says (De Civ.

Dei xiv, 9): "Our Lord having deigned to live in the form of a servant, took these upon Himself whenever He judged they ought to be a.s.sumed; for there was no false human affection in Him Who had a true body and a true human soul."

Nevertheless we must know that the pa.s.sions were in Christ otherwise than in us, in three ways. First, as regards the object, since in us these pa.s.sions very often tend towards what is unlawful, but not so in Christ. Secondly, as regards the principle, since these pa.s.sions in us frequently forestall the judgment of reason; but in Christ all movements of the sensitive appet.i.te sprang from the disposition of the reason. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 9), that "Christ a.s.sumed these movements, in His human soul, by an unfailing dispensation, when He willed; even as He became man when He willed."

Thirdly, as regards the effect, because in us these movements, at times, do not remain in the sensitive appet.i.te, but deflect the reason; but not so in Christ, since by His disposition the movements that are naturally becoming to human flesh so remained in the sensitive appet.i.te that the reason was nowise hindered in doing what was right. Hence Jerome says (on Matt. 26:37) that "Our Lord, in order to prove the reality of the a.s.sumed manhood, 'was sorrowful' in very deed; yet lest a pa.s.sion should hold sway over His soul, it is by a propa.s.sion that He is said to have 'begun to grow sorrowful and to be sad'"; so that it is a perfect "pa.s.sion" when it dominates the soul, i.e. the reason; and a "propa.s.sion" when it has its beginning in the sensitive appet.i.te, but goes no further.

Reply Obj. 1: The soul of Christ could have prevented these pa.s.sions from coming upon it, and especially by the Divine power; yet of His own will He subjected Himself to these corporeal and animal pa.s.sions.

Reply Obj. 2: Tully is speaking there according to the opinions of the Stoics, who did not give the name of pa.s.sions to all, but only to the disorderly movements of the sensitive appet.i.te. Now, it is manifest that pa.s.sions like these were not in Christ.

Reply Obj. 3: The "pa.s.sions of sins" are movements of the sensitive appet.i.te that tend to unlawful things; and these were not in Christ, as neither was the _fomes_ of sin.

_______________________

FIFTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 5]

Whether There Was Sensible Pain in Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that there was no true sensible pain in Christ. For Hilary says (De Trin. x): "Since with Christ to die was life, what pain may He be supposed to have suffered in the mystery of His death, Who bestows life on such as die for Him?" And further on he says: "The Only-begotten a.s.sumed human nature, not ceasing to be G.o.d; and although blows struck Him and wounds were inflicted on Him, and scourges fell upon Him, and the cross lifted Him up, yet these wrought in deed the vehemence of the pa.s.sion, but brought no pain; as a dart piercing the water." Hence there was no true pain in Christ.

Obj. 2: Further, it would seem to be proper to flesh conceived in original sin, to be subject to the necessity of pain. But the flesh of Christ was not conceived in sin, but of the Holy Ghost in the Virgin's womb. Therefore it lay under no necessity of suffering pain.

Obj. 3: Further, the delight of the contemplation of Divine things dulls the sense of pain; hence the martyrs in their pa.s.sions bore up more bravely by thinking of the Divine love. But Christ's soul was in the perfect enjoyment of contemplating G.o.d, Whom He saw in essence, as was said above (Q. 9, A. 2). Therefore He could feel no pain.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Isa. 53:4): "Surely He hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows."

_I answer that,_ As is plain from what has been said in the Second Part (I-II, Q. 35, A. 7), for true bodily pain are required bodily hurt and the sense of hurt. Now Christ's body was able to be hurt, since it was pa.s.sible and mortal, as above stated (Q. 14, AA. 1, 2); neither was the sense of hurt wanting to it, since Christ's soul possessed perfectly all natural powers. Therefore no one should doubt but that in Christ there was true pain.

Reply Obj. 1: In all these and similar words, Hilary does not intend to exclude the reality of the pain, but the necessity of it. Hence after the foregoing he adds: "Nor, when He thirsted, or hungered, or wept, was the Lord seen to drink, or eat, or grieve. But in order to prove the reality of the body, the body's customs were a.s.sumed, so that the custom of our body was atoned for by the custom of our nature. Or when He took drink or food, He acceded, not to the body's necessity, but to its custom." And he uses the word "necessity" in reference to the first cause of these defects, which is sin, as above stated (Q. 14, AA. 1, 3), so that Christ's flesh is said not to have lain under the necessity of these defects, in the sense that there was no sin in it. Hence he adds: "For He" (i.e. Christ) "had a body--one proper to His origin, which did not exist through the unholiness of our conception, but subsisted in the form of our body by the strength of His power." But as regards the proximate cause of these defects, which is composition of contraries, the flesh of Christ lay under the necessity of these defects, as was said above (Q. 14, A. 2).

Reply Obj. 2: Flesh conceived in sin is subject to pain, not merely on account of the necessity of its natural principles, but from the necessity of the guilt of sin. Now this necessity was not in Christ; but only the necessity of natural principles.

Reply Obj. 3: As was said above (Q. 14, A. 1, ad 2), by the power of the G.o.dhead of Christ the beat.i.tude was economically kept in the soul, so as not to overflow into the body, lest His pa.s.sibility and mortality should be taken away; and for the same reason the delight of contemplation was so kept in the mind as not to overflow into the sensitive powers, lest sensible pain should thereby be prevented.

_______________________

SIXTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 15, Art. 6]

Whether There Was Sorrow in Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that in Christ there was no sorrow. For it is written of Christ (Isa. 42:4): "He shall not be sad nor troublesome."

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 12:21): "Whatever shall befall the just man, it shall not make him sad." And the reason of this the Stoics a.s.serted to be that no one is saddened save by the loss of his goods. Now the just man esteems only justice and virtue as his goods, and these he cannot lose; otherwise the just man would be subject to fortune if he was saddened by the loss of the goods fortune has given him. But Christ was most just, according to Jer. 23:6: "This is the name that they shall call Him: The Lord, our just one." Therefore there was no sorrow in Him.

Obj. 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 13, 14) that all sorrow is "evil, and to be shunned." But in Christ there was no evil to be shunned. Therefore there was no sorrow in Christ.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 6): "Sorrow regards the things we suffer unwillingly." But Christ suffered nothing against His will, for it is written (Isa. 53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will." Hence there was no sorrow in Christ.

_On the contrary,_ Our Lord said (Matt. 26:38): "My soul is sorrowful even unto death." And Ambrose says (De Trin. ii.) that "as a man He had sorrow; for He bore my sorrow. I call it sorrow, fearlessly, since I preach the cross."